Therefore, each of us as individuals has it in our power, whatever the context, to voluntarily avoid potential excesses of mobs and majorities by not conducting ourselves in that manner... -saber-
I personally don't see the "potential excesses of mobs and majorities" happening at FR. And if Jim doesn't see it, and since each is the arbiter of his own personal conduct, like you just said, then it is a moot point. 1,088 -wimpy-
Your 'point' was that Sabers issue about principles is a moot point. Why bother to reply to sophistry?
But on to other business:
a site that loudly proclaims itself for liberty, but then asserts that a website can't be moderated under republican principles of personal conduct. How will we know unless we give it a try?
Since everyone is the arbiter of his own personal conduct, according to Sabertooth, it's up to the moderators and Jim to decide whether or not their conduct is in line with republican principles. Hey, I'm just following the logic that was laid out by someone else; I'm not saying that I agree with it.
More sophistry. Republican principles are outlined in our constitution. They are arguable in detail, but certainly, can not reasonable people agree on their basics?
But I will say it is human nature that no matter what the rules are, somebody is bound to be pissed off and feel as though they haven't been treated fairly. Switch places with Jim for a moment. Let's say as of tomorrow you were in charge and could run this place however you saw fit. Your rules, whatever they might be (I'm afraid to speculate)
Now now, wimp, -- you just took a personal 'shot'.. While attempting to put yourself forward as a rational defender of FR's rules..
are fair, just and according to whatever principles you prefer, as far as you see it. Well, the result would be that a lot of people would be pissed off. They would complain, and insist on you changing your mind and doing it some other way. They would cajole, beg, plead, lay the old guilt trip on you, try some philosophical jujitsu, and when that didn't work they would accuse you of all sorts of ugly things, as well as start posting opuses announcing to the world (as if the world cared) that it is with a sad heart that they must declare publicly that you're a liar and a fraud. You, of course, might examine their proposals, but some of them would ask what you consider impossible and against your principles. And of course, you, being the self-proclaimed curmudgeon that you are, wouldn't give a flying you-know-what, because you'd be convinced that your way was the right way, and you would doggedly continue on your merry way (as you do in reality).
Yep, -- and strangely enough, the 'I don't give a crap' issue was just mentioned in another recent exchange here at FR.. Fancy that..
So, if you're in Jim's place, why break in a new set of people to be pissed off by changing the rules, when you don't feel as though they need changing in the first place?
Why indeed? Carry on with saying one thing & doing another.. No skin off my nose.
Not quite. I really don't know what your rules would be, and I'd rather not speculate, because it would most likely take the dialog off on a tangent. Besides, the whole point I was making was that it makes no difference what the rules are, somebody is going to get pissed off.
Carry on with saying one thing & doing another.. No skin off my nose.
Now that is a personal shot. Not that it matters. We were talking about how Jim is running the website, weren't we? I have nothing to do with how this place is run. I just happen to not be one of the pissed off people.