Why was my thread locked? ((Ideology (or lack there of) ))

[SS10]

Woke up this morning to see that my thread has been locked by Leo,

I was enjoying the discussion but it was locked and Leo didn't give an explanation on why?

You dont just get to lock discussions you dont agree with Leo...

Really disappointed. 

[blackchair]

because im scared, ok?

[flowboy]

57 minutes ago, SS10 said:

You dont just get to lock discussions you dont agree with Leo...

Actually, he can do what he wants on his own website and doesn't need to answer to you. We are all guests here.

 

I agree that an explanation would have been helpful

 

Although now that I read it, it probably had something to do with the childish ego games being played, don't you think?

Edited January 22, 2021 by flowboy

[Gesundheit]

I don't see why that thread should be locked. At least there needs to be an explanation.

Edited January 22, 2021 by Gesundheit

[Leo Gura]

It was answered and then devolved into stupidity.

The point is not to endlessly debate things but to get an answer and move on.

[Megan Alecia]

@flowboy Nothing against leo but this is appealing to power. Classic logical fallacy

Edited January 22, 2021 by Megan Alecia

[SS10]

28 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It was answered and then devolved into stupidity.

The point is not to endlessly debate things but to get an answer and move on.

Well I didn't think it was answered.

It us not your place to tell me when my question has/has not been answered.

Quite dissapointed.

[flowboy]

@Megan Alecia  I think you're confusing it with the appeal to authority fallacy:

Quote

The appeal to authority fallacy (a.k.a. argument from authority) is easily one of the most common logical fallacies. This is the fallacy that occurs when you base your claim on the people who agree with you rather than on the actual facts of the argument. This may seem fairly straightforward, but it can actually be quite confusing, and I often see people incorrectly accuse others of committing this fallacy. The problem is that there are clearly times when it is fine to defer to an expert. For example, we constantly defer to doctors, and there is nothing wrong or fallacious about trusting their diagnoses and taking the recommended treatments. My intention is, therefore, to try to clear up some of the confusion about this fallacy and explain when it is and is not appropriate to defer to experts.

There are basically four ways that this fallacy occurs and I am going to deal with each one separately:

Citing an opinion as authoritative

Citing people who aren’t actually experts

Using authority as a logical proof

https://www.chipspersonallog.com/there-is-a-fine-line-between-an-appeal-to-authority-and-deferring-to-experts/

That's something you would use in a debate to prove a point. If I appealed to Leo's authority, I would say that apples don't exist because Leo said they don't, for example.

However, I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just stating the fact that when someone builds a website, it's theirs and that means they can run it how they please.

So if you say "you can't just lock threads", well that's false, for above reason.

I hope that cleared it up.

[Danioover9000]

   Welcome to the band wagon of the thread locked ones. You'll get used to it.

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, SS10 said:

Quite dissapointed.

Though titty.

[Mannyb]

Guys, it’s always the devil the one justifying shit instead of loving life ? 

[Gesundheit]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It was answered.

[diamondpenguin]

"After the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser." -Socrates

Edited January 23, 2021 by diamondpenguin
Spelled loser wrong

[Yog]

I took a glance at it yesterday, the whole thread was derailing and going off mark.

The way Leo, or most forum members around here use the term "non-ideological" is do describe a mindset of being mentally and emotionally detached from ideas, or to be able to effortlessly let ideas in and let them go. Its to be open-minded and not have invested interest in ideas.

The opposite of that, or being ideological, would be holding tight both mentally and emotionally to certain idea, defending it against any other ideas that feel incompatible and might lead to the demise of the ones you have. Its being closed-minded and having invested interest in ideas.

Being non-ideological Its to able to override the default survival type of meaning-making of the mind, actively, or passively. That's all there is.

Try not to overthink it and start to think of it firstly practically and how it looks in the world.
Don't try to do it and "resolve" the question in a purely philosophical and abstract way.

[Gesundheit]

2 hours ago, Yog said:

I took a glance at it yesterday, the whole thread was derailing and going off mark.

The way Leo, or most forum members around here use the term "non-ideological" is do describe a mindset of being mentally and emotionally detached from ideas, or to be able to effortlessly let ideas in and let them go. Its to be open-minded and not have invested interest in ideas.

The opposite of that, or being ideological, would be holding tight both mentally and emotionally to certain idea, defending it against any other ideas that feel incompatible and might lead to the demise of the ones you have. Its being closed-minded and having invested interest in ideas.

Being non-ideological Its to able to override the default survival type of meaning-making of the mind, actively, or passively. That's all there is.

Try not to overthink it and start to think of it firstly practically and how it looks in the world.
Don't try to do it and "resolve" the question in a purely philosophical and abstract way.

I don't want to repeat myself here, but you're doing the same mistake. If you don't like the word ideological, that's fine, but the behavior is essentially ideological, regardless of the label. Personally, I feel that many of you have certain shadows around open-mindedness. And in order to avoid facing those shadows, you just don't accept the obvious fact that open-mindedness is also an ideological & epistemological position that you have chosen over another position. It doesn't hurt to recognize that and move on, but apparently some people don't like to admit certain truths.

When you say try not to overthink it, you're actually just making it more ideological than it is. That your position should not be questioned? WTF?! And you're still talking about open-mindedness? The same thing when Leo says that the question was answered. It's tragic that Leo wants us to question everything, and then puts an end to our questions & explorations when he likes. I mean, if you're not gonna question your position that's fine, but at least stick to it and let others practice being position-less/non-ideological.

[Yog]

@Gesundheit

It looks to me that we are not talking about the same thing.

What I am saying is that you can entertain many modes of being without being attached to any of them. This is what I am pointing towards.

You can be non-attached to non-attachment, or non ideological about non ideology. Or you can be attached. You can do both. This is possible and can be done. The thing is, for this to be accomplished one needs to go beyond the mind and start dealing with other ways of being and knowing, or move towards points in the psyche where from one can observe the mind, not be entrenched within it. This way you can see the auto-programing that is happening in your mind and you can do some edits.

Non-ideology does not mean you can not have an opinion, it does not mean you do not get to pick and chose, or that you will be completely neutral and partial, it doesn't even mean that you can't have a firm and unmovable standpoint, You can actually have an unmovable position and still be non-ideological. It just means you are not attaching yourself to your opinions or the ideas that come to you.

Its not about taking positions, or the stance, you'll always be taking positions, its about the way you do it, why you do it, how you do it, its the approach.

Its not about cutting a tree, we may be both cutting down a tree, but one might be doing it with industrial drill for the purpose of producing building materials and another might just do it with an axe because he hates trees. We are not talking about cutting the tree, we are talking about the tools and motivations. Cant think of a better analogy, might not be the best one, but its what came trough.... Hope it helps.

[Gesundheit]

4 hours ago, Yog said:

@Gesundheit
This way you can see the auto-programing that is happening in your mind and you can do some edits.

Ahhhhh! See! This is what I'm talking about. You still have an agenda at core that you are stuck in. Your agenda is pragmatic or whatever you want to call it.

Agenda = ideology

It doesn't help to ascribe ideologies and judge them from a motivation standpoint, because essentially, any ideology has certain motivations behind it.

The trees analogy is not on point, because it is comparing two different variables. If you want to make it a correct analogy, you can say that one side is cutting trees in order to make tables, another side is cutting them to make papers, another is cutting them to make furniture, and another just for fun. This is an analogy demonstrating a motivations-based comparison. And now you can go meta and discuss the usefulness of each motivation, which btw in and of itself is cutting trees in order to understand the usefulness of cutting trees, i.e. pragmatic understanding. See, in any case, ideology is inevitable. It just shifts forms. We can go meta once again and observe the usefulness of pragmatic understanding and contrast it to some other modes of being. Meta observing, which is the thing you're saying is the point of being non-ideological, is itself a mode of being nonetheless, and you're unwillingly are attached to it, which is preventing you from going higher on the meta level and understand the limitations of this particular mode of being. You actually probably think that it's the best mode of being and that it's stupid not to adopt it. Well, what I'm saying here is that it's not the best mode, it's just a mode. And stupid here would simply be a biased judgement.

Edited January 23, 2021 by Gesundheit