maybe YOU are some sort of subtle parody!! (ha ha, beat that snappy wittazisem)
No, no, you are all some kind of funky metaphor inhabiting the land of Hoi Polloi! Ike said so! And don’t you question his grammar, dammit!
It is an interesting position as such that the OP has chosen, albeit somewhat unorthodox by the standards that have so far been prevailing in the general understanding of what the politics of the BBQ Pit should be, as such I see some problems in the argument forwarded and therefore I beg to differ.
The OP has forwarded this position with subsequent backing with cites, but has yet to conclusively prove that there are too many debates in the BBQ Pit. First of all there is the problem of subjectivity as re ‘too many’, could the OP clarify his positioning in this respect? Is there a hard and fast point where ‘too many’ ceases to be an arbitrary number? If so, how does the OP propose that we create a framework of continuous measurement of ‘debatedness’ in the Pit, and how should the administration reinforce the appropriate level?
Even if the OP can show that there would be a solution to the dilemma posed by the arbitrary nature of his position I would like to see some cite that indicates a trend towards increasing debate and decreasing mindless rants and flame fests for no other reason than to show off how many four letter words we can regurgitate.
The idea of a soul in inanimate objects is of course well established in philosophical tradition; many nature-based religions have proposed it and in secular tradition we can look to Plato for a well argued position that there be a level of existence beyond the real that creates a relationship of emotion and thought that reaches beyond the immediately tangible, but is a message board an inanimate object? I think this is worth some further examination.
If we can agree on a secular definition of ‘soul’ allowing for an equation with thought there is a certain Cartesian foundation in arguing a ‘board soul’. What is interesting with the proposition that there would be a soul in a message board is of course the organic nature of the board as a collection of thoughts posted by the individual members, which add up to a sum greater than its components. I think we are safe in assuming that each post is expression of thought and not only a random number of words on a screen without any intent to convey coherency or idea, although we cannot prove it conclusively, and there are examples that speak against it (example is third post). Since these thoughts are by force limited and disconnected from their origin in all ways except the sum total of a given member’ posting history (which in itself is disconnected from the posters mind) we can conclude that a post in itself is soulless, although it carries a small window into the soul of the poster, who by Cartesian standards does indeed have a soul.
However, the boards do not focus on the single posts, but a string of posts that make a thread, which in numbers make a forum – therefore the single post lacking a soul is not conclusive proof of soullessness.
Let us try to break this down into an argument for a ‘board soul’.
First let us define an inanimate object as one not organic, i.e. a ‘thing’ that does not evolve through the rigor and strictness of entropy alone. Let us posit that thought is soul. Let us say that one thought does not a soul make and that the evidence of a soul increases with the complexity of thought. Define complexity as not only inherent to one thought, but also to the string of cogitation that results from linear and non-linear streams of consciousness. Assume that posts on a message board will usually follow in a connected coherent stream, although not always (example).
We then have:[list=a][li] non-entropic evolution => organic objects[/li][li] a post = thought[/li][li] single thought NOT= soul [/li][li] collection of thoughts CLOSE TO= soul[/li][li] coherent string of cogitation = complexity[/li][li] complexity of thought increases probability of soul[/li]
Hence: since a message board is set in non-entropic evolution through collecting multiple thoughts in the form of posts in a more or less coherent string of cogitation: a message board is an organic object with the complexity of thought that is required for evidence of a soul. In other words a message board can have a soul.[/list]The crux with the OPs statement lies in premise e. and f. since a soul becomes more evident with coherency and complexity of thought. Hence, through the nature of itself a debate being more likely to have a coherent flow and complexity than a rant, the Pit cannot by these arguments be loosing soul, but must be gaining soul. This is however only relevant if - and I say if - there is an increasing tendency towards debate rather than rants, which the OP has yet to show.
I am a little baffled by this argument. I have tried to get my mind around it for a while, but I seem to fail to see the relevance to the position originally proposed by the OP. First of all I don’t think that a clampdown on debating in the Pit should result in any dictum on exact subject matter. If it is only an example I fail to understand it. Is the OP proposing that rather than discuss for instance Schrödinger’s Cat we should rather discuss the OP’s cat? Or is ‘cat’ in this case to be understood as the slang term of old meaning ‘dude’? The part that I am absolutely at a loss with is the proposal that threads should advocate speaking to one’s own back, even if it be bleeding. The mildly threatening statement about ‘robots’ should we fail to discuss cats with our bleeding backs is, beyond the fact that it raises concerns as to the sanity of the OP, somewhat lacking in coherency. Who, or what are these ‘robots’? I think a clarification from the OP would be most helpful in order to regain some sanity in the debate.
Evidently it is…
Sparc
Obligatory disclaimer as by the rules: This is satire; so don’t bother to look for parody links. If it is to be seen as parodist in any way, the parodied member would be me so press search below in the post frame.