~Sophia~

The proof is visible to anyone. This is not an equivalent. Of course you should employ correct criteria of judgment. I am not around everyone I know in every second of the day, including people I entrust to care for my son (for example). I do not see all of their actions. I can and I do make judgments about their character and their rationality.

(bold added) I suggest that they take a position that they are here to observe and learn and leave their ego outside. Truth sometimes may feel unpleasant. Ask yourself where does your commitment lie - in actually being correct in your understanding and your logical skills and moving in that direction - or are you more concerned with appearing "right" . Are you just arguing for the argument sake or is your contribution moving the discussion in a positive direction? When I first joined this forum despite having already read most of the Objectivist fiction and non-fiction my understanding still contained many loopholes and wrong assumptions. To this day I experience humbling encounters. For example, many here, and David is one of them, are better logicians.

Politeness is an act of showing regard. A courteous manner. A gracious consideration toward others.

This is absurd and shows the extend to which you lack objectivity on this issue. I do not understand why are you still here if you truly believe this. Yes I do to both. I have been on the receiving end. I already explained that it is an error to think that because I don't see some of the aspects of moderation that I can't make a judgment about it based on what is visible to me which includes public acts of moderation.

I am not interested in discussing your personal situation, context of which I can not judge simply based on your recollection of the events. I general, I would say that the fact that reasonably a person need not always be polite does not mean that the moderators should not stop a thread from turning into a slur fest. Allowing that is not in the best interest of the forum. If you do not judge moderators here as rational - you should not be here.

This was not clear. Thank you for clarification. They should act rationally and sometimes that may mean not being polite. (Please note that I said sometimes - not most of the time or as a default reaction) As long as they act rationally (and they have) this site will continue to be a success. The success is partially due to the fact that the moderators here do not cater to public opinion and care about popularity. They have a commitment to reason.

I do not disagree with your conclusion. That is generally a good principle and one which I, and from my experience, many here including the moderators do employ. I appreciate you taking the time to write this post.

You responded to my statement: (bold added) That is the context of my argument to which you replied to. I have never argued that moderators have a right to treat people unjustly. Instead, I argued that there are circumstanced in which moderators have a right to not be polite and respectful as an application of justice.

That is not the context of my statement. This is a straw man.

Again, the moderators for many years now here have displayed high level of rationality publicly - if they took an action against you - there was probably just cause even if you personally did not like it. The fact that some won't agree with their judgment is a given. If everyone could come to their better senses on their own there would not be a need for moderators. Furthermore, if I believed that I was severely unjustly treated I would not be here. If that is how you feel what are you doing here then? Incidentally, this is the most successful forum of this kind and a big part of it is moderation. They have done an excellent job overall. -------------------------------------------------- I would like to put an end to this open buffet on the moderating team. Seriously this should stop.

Try to insult or use force against a police officer and you will see how polite he will be.

It is not my opinion. It follows from the application of justice. Moderators like anyone else here have a right to fully act on their own judgment of the person they are interacting with. They need not respond with politeness to insults, for example.

You are dropping a very significant part of the context of David's response. Hermes did not act toward David in a way that would warrant his politeness and respect. This would be true if David was not a moderator and it does not change because he is one. The notion that moderators ought to always respond with politeness and respect regardless of circumstances because they are moderators is a mistaken one.

Based on a long, many years long history of pubic responses, both in the role of a moderator and as a poster, David has shown to be an exceptionally rational and knowledgeable man. I have no reason to suspect that for some reason when in private he turns to irrationality. To hold such suspicion in light of what is known would have been an epistemological error - completely arbitrary claim. Now that I reflect on it, I am actually glad that Harmes made his post public so we can all see just what kind of absurdities moderators have to deal with. As to people's responses to Mindy, which may appear out of the blue, clearly there is more to this than just this isolated thread alone. She is a very active participant on this board, averaging sometimes 10 posts a day so people have a lot of opportunities to interact with her and be exposed to her demeanor and her views on numerous topics.

And David's record is that of an exceptional moderator for many years. I will be very frank with you. Given how you chose to go about this - I question your motives. You did not just use this as an opportunity, if you thought necessary, to improve moderation. If you felt something could/should improve, if that was your motivation, there are constructive ways of going about it which translate into effective ways of influencing change. Most of participants here, and especially moderators who volunteer so much of their time to this cause, want this forum to be a success - and you are dealing here with people open to reason. But that is not what you chose to do. Instead, you suggested David ought not to be a moderator. Even Hermes did not go that far. I find your actions very off-putting.

Yes I have. I went and read the relevant posts to check the validity of Hermes accusations. I found them to be completely unfounded - absolutely false. This is not a foregone conclusion that there is something to excuse. David was not acting here as a moderator on some abstract topic. If Hermes had concerns about David's moderation - this could have been privately brought up the to attention of other moderators. Instead, Hermes publicly made serious accusations. He either publicly lied or displayed serious epistemological mess. I am not sure which one. David responded accordingly to his judgment about the accuser and while his response may have been harsh - it certainly was not abusive. Considering the circumstances, I personally judge it as deserved. I find it interesting that you focus on David's response to Hermes but not a peep from you about Hermes actions.

Appearing on a TV program to promote a message while making your ideological differences with the host very clear (as Yaron Brook has repeatedly done) is not affiliation.

Mindy, Wow... you have managed in a very short time stir an incredible amount of drama here and with people with whom many of us have been interacting for years and greatly respect.

I went and read your post and David's reply to it and I have no idea what you are talking about here (I am referring to your statement in bold). Your stated conclusion does not follow from David's reply but also it does not fit with David's long history on this forum. It is reasonable to ask for someone's point when that is not clear and I appreciate David's effort (and other moderator's here) to keep reasonable standards of communication on this forum. If you have not formed an opinion yet - voice your questions. If you want to debate something - form an argument. If you want others to address some of your empirical claims - say so. You have done none. Don't assume that people can read your mind. It is not just your time but also others who happen to read your post. They start reading because it is posted on this forum with certain kind of reputation both in terms of content and communication standards. You posted here rather than elsewhere because you wanted certain exposure and certain audience - but the reason you can get that exposure here - the reason why people frequent this forum and may start reading your post - is precisely because of the standards being upheld here - the VERY standards which you are now criticizing.

I would not do the same thing 1000 times if I saw it not working the first time. Also if a child had a habit of ignoring parent's guidelines - I would focus there because something already went wrong. Every time I hear a parent describe their disobedient child as "unusually willful" I think - "give them to me for few days". A lot of early childhood care providers have no hitting policy and yet they have no issues disciplining whole groups of 3 year olds. You are creating false alternatives. Hitting is not the only way of getting the child to obey. It is an easy (and in my opinion wrong) way out. Because my son was never hit - it is incomprehensible to him - a completely foreign concept even during moments of strong frustration - to push or hit anyone. First, you would be surprised just how much even very young children can comprehend when using the right approach. For example, the younger the child the less abstract the explanation the better: Warnings like "you will regret it" or "you will burn yourself" or "you will get killed" are from my experience useless because they are too abstract for a very small kid (below 3 years old I would say). If you don't want him to touch a hot stove - make him touch it when it is not drastically hot (but hot enough). He will get "this can hurt me"- trust me. If he does it knowing full well that it will hurt badly - there are probably other issues causing it (like maybe him trying to get attention he does not otherwise get enough of). Obviously this approach won't be appropriate in every situation. Sometimes they just have to obey - just because a parent said so. When my son was very young, although I provided the reasons in a way he could comprehend them - I expected and enforced obedience regardless of his understanding. I have done so without using physical violence. Again there is nothing special about my kid. Have you seen any of the Super Nanny shows on TV? Those women repeatedly eliminate habitual problematic behavior in children (often very young) in a day or so (sometimes in a matter of minutes!).

And I completely disagree with you. Hitting is never really necessary. Other forms of behavior adjustment are available even when dealing with a child in the pre-rational stage (not to mention the fact that I would pay a lot of attention to the reason why a two year old would do such a thing ... and work on eliminating the psychological reasons behind it (probably jealously issues associated with a new baby in the house - but if not whatever that may be) along with preventing/discouraging the action itself) Ideally, good (moral) behavior shold not be driven by the fear of punishement. That is is the wrong kind of motivation - for both kids and adults. My son will be nine in October btw so I am talking from experience. I have never hit him and I never will. I also have never had any issues with discipline and it is not because he is a special kid.

I was disputing this statement of yours: Previous actions were not part of this statement (I don't even find them relevant to the answer) That is your opinion and not a universal truth. It can be observed that even many repeated criminals don't share your point of view. But this is really a side issue and I don't want to spend time on it. This was not part of the original question (nor your statement above). That is true. One example would be smoking. However, I don't agree with you that, for example, dishonesty or fraud are no longer self harmful when you have little time left. It is just not the kind of self harm you recognize as important or meaningful. You mixed metaphysical value-judgments which form one's sense of life with self esteem. Best thing would be for you to go to the source and re-read keeping in mind what I said. One can affect the other but not the same thing.

The same principle would apply. Loan is just one possible concrete of many.

Not caring about one's self esteem and happiness toward the end of life were not the stated conditions of the question. There is nothing to debate if that this the case. I will just make a comment that not caring about one's self evaluation is not typically what people experience when they face death. It is not. You are mixing two concepts.

A person does not need to have an experience with her - just experience judging people. There was enough information here related by you of her past and current actions to make that judgment.