drafterman

Oh cmon my guy. If some random dude over the internet called you a cunt would you REALLY want the post deleted versus someone saying that to you head on

It could be me being thick skinned on the internet because idrc about it, but I think people would brush off someone calling them a cunt

You are calling here then for the elimination of MEEPs. Correct or not?

Let me repeat:

So I should rule by fiat and eliminate any deliberative-style process, like MEEP or even a majority-vote discussion? Good to know.

Seems like you missed the point again. I'll repeat: "It's not causing any more harm just sitting there than it did when Castin read it, unlike a post which doxxes or includes a link to a pornographic website, for example." There is certainly an initial harm in the post being created; there does not seem to be an ongoing harm in leaving the post up.

So I should rule by fiat and eliminate any deliberative-style process, like MEEP or even a majority-vote discussion? Good to know.

I am sorry but what the fuck. In the 1st page you literally said nothing. I could not find anything anywhere expect now that says "EVIDENCE"

Calling someone a "cunt" versus calling someone a "fuckface dumbass fat retard" has a difference 

LINK ME TO THE POST WHERE YOU SAID THAT BC U DID NOT SAY THAT NOR APPLY IT EITHER(caps for more attention

I don't believe I ever said that. I don't delete posts because I am not in the business of censoring people,

because it has been indicated to me that that was not what the community desired,

and because the poster was punished--there doesn't seem to be much to gain from deleting the post.

It's not causing anymore harm just sitting there than it did when Castin read it, unlike a post which doxxes or includes a link to a pornographic website, for example.

??? Can you elaborate this part???

A personal attack is saying something more in depth like, "Your a fucking fat whale shithead." That is more of a direct attack than calling someone a cunt because it is A) One word, B) vaguely describing someone. If I called someone an asshole or just said "Bitch.", it is not a direct threat

Then what are you suggesting? what other mod action are you wanting to take for this

This forum is simply over reacting to "cunt." There is no reason to get so annoyed at moderation here for seeing no wrong in the post.

If the post said. "Your a fucking cunt face shit mcgee," then you can say it's bannable, but one word alone will never be enough to ban someone beside words like the n-word or a homophobic term

It's interesting that one of the most heated complaints from members is that mods are heavy-handed and oppressive tyrants, but another of the most heated complaints is that mods are too democratic and not strict enough. 

Doing what you ask here would constitute a change in current moderation policy, which would necessitate a moderation policy. This condition of changing policy was something you strongly advocated for several times, including in that first link.

Then you could have easily cast a qualified vote, as some others did. Plus, it's impossible to believe that that was your actual interpretation of the question. If you really believed the scope was wider, you would have read that question as "should moderation lock or delete posts it dislikes," in which case you would have thrown a bitchfest over that dichotomy, which you didn't. Instead you were ambivalent.

There will, given the interest in this topic, be a MEEP process on this question of thread deletion and post deletion. 

Drafter, if you recall very early back in my modship, many users protested at my removing posts which violated the COC,

insisting that doing so was overkill. This desire was seemingly confirmed when the community voted to lock call out threads rather than simply deleting them.

Moderation no longer deletes posts in less they include links to adult content, doxxing information, or credible threats of violence or doxxing.

Do you think it's a good policy to destroy evidence that justifies moderator action?

When the mods delete posts it tends to inflame accusations of oppression and conspiracy. 

Moderator decisions are final and not subject to appeal.

3. Trials
Trials of users are prohibited. Trials foster a culture of mob rule, and are thus counterproductive to the interests of fairness, order, and effective site administration.

As I understand it, the idea is to examine words in the context of ordinary discourse rather than imposing a definition from the outset.  Of course the discourse has to be intelligible and coherent - word salad is not 'discourse'.

Wittgenstein argued that we do not learn the meaning of words as definitions; we pick up on the rules for using a word in discourse. Therefore philosphy is - or it should be? - concerned with a word's usage, not its dictionary definition.

But suppose we want to discover the nature of truth, or of morality.  One cannot 'clearly define' what is unknown.

Or perhaps we dispute the nature of morality - whose definition do we use then?

And if we use two definitions of morality, are we talking about the same thing each time?

'Morality' is a word in the English language, so dictionary compilers are obliged to put something in their books but working out what morality truly is the job of philosophers, not dictionary writers.

An alternative approach is provided by Wittgenstein who summed it up as "Meaning is use".  By attending to the ordinary language contexts that give words their meaning, we can avoid misusing them and trying to make them mean things that they aren’t made to mean.   That's the theory, anyway!

I am thinking about simply adding ads at some point, it seems like the only way after all, since nobody wants to donate anyway.

I don't know about that. We act on our instincts but instincts don't count as subconscious beliefs. Our instincts may lay the ground work for us to begin a chain of thought from, but a belief is something that you accept to be true. It's a mental process, not a subconscious process. 

It seems true that maximizing your own wellbeing is a rational thing to do. Why wouldn't it be? 

The paradox is that an atheist can be more rational for holding a fictitious belief in God as long as it achieves their desires better than atheism does. 

Undoubtedly,but its only possible to understand the world because matter is stable and the laws of physics are regular.

  As it is, we can rely on that if B follows from A today, it will also do so tomorrow. If the world was totally chaotic it would be impossible to understand.

Well each statement seems incorrect. It doesn't seem like there's no fact of the matter on whether it's better to have a heart with clogged arteries or not. Some of this has to do with the architecture of the heart itself. You can infer what role each part has. So I'm finding it interesting how, if God doesn't exist, our internal organs have an imagined purpose and the implications of that

If God doesn't exist, holding true beliefs over fictitious ones boils down to a completely subjective preference since neither "true beliefs" nor "fictitious beliefs" are intrinsically more important than the other.

If God doesn't exist, and you're a rational person, you should hold whatever beliefs achieve your goals. If your goal is to maximise your own wellbeing (which is a rational thing to do) then you should hold fictitious beliefs when they give you more well-being than true ones.