why -- Freedom Hall

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:06:42 10/04/04 Mon
Author: Levi
Author Host/IP: 65.215.56.2
Subject: why
In reply to: volt-lite 's message, "bogus assessment" on 13:16:55 10/04/04 Mon

Fair enough -- I also thought your piece showed potential.I love a good in-depth philosophical discussion, and I wish we had more of them on LitKicks. But here are a couple of things that make the difference between a good philosophical piece and a bad one:

1) If you drop a philosopher's name, don't follow it with an arrogant command to do a web-search on the name. Instead, tell us what is relevant about this philosopher's work. If you look at the articles I've written for LitKicks, you'll see that I always try to give the reader all the information they need to understand the points I am trying to make. When you mention a name and tell us to web-search the name to understand what you're saying -- well, it's kinda like that chemistry set I got when I was a kid that sucked because it turned out I couldn't do any experiments without going to the store and buying other stuff that wasn't in the kit. Think about how to write for your reader's benefit, how to give the reader what the reader needs.

2) This is a simple one: don't call people morons. You've been around LitKicks long enough to know that's not LitKicks' style.

3) Don't make bizarre and insulting generalizations like calling LitKickers virtious pagans (whatever that was supposed to mean).

We accepted your first post (as Luckay49) this weekend, and I left you a note letting you know that we'd like to give you a chance at Oct Earth if you can show us that you are interested in being a serious participant in our discussions. I was hoping your second posting would be a step in the right direction, but it wasn't.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you want to become a part of the LitKicks community, you can do so. If you want to keep insulting people and showing off your education level, you can do so, but not on LitKicks.

-- Levi

>"Did Litkicks reject this piece?"
>
>Yeah they did, but who really cares? It is not as if
>any of the writing on that cyber-donut shop goes
>anywhere.
>
>I was inspired to write this after reading some of the
>writings of the "emergent" thinkers such as
>Chalmers, Searle, and Eccles, who believe there are
>strong arguments against reductive, materialist
>accounts of mind/consciousness. IF this is true, and
>mind is not wholly material (though I remain
>skeptical) then perhaps such immaterialist arguments
>can be used to support theological views. There are
>other religious people voicing support for the
>argument from design as well. SO these are major
>objections (though I think refutable) to atheism and
>materialism, which of course no one at Litkicks
>bothers to mention.
>
>Also, the LK prompt mentioned Dante, but no one
>approached him either, so I thought it was fitting to
>bring up some of his "judgments". In the Inferno,
>Mohammed is in hell (not at complete bottom however).
>There are other interesting figures rotting in the
>INferno as well--such as Ulysees (deep) and Paola and
>Francesca (upper levels).
>
>If the LK id-jits want decent writing they must be
>prepared for unsettling and troubling pieces,
>especially when asking for theological or
>philosophical insights. . Anyways I am through with
>those shallow, skanky gangstas
>
>>

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Your Arrogance -- volt-lite, 15:36:12 10/04/04 Mon (4.27.250.92)
- you'll be back within a week -- Levi, 16:16:44 10/04/04 Mon (24.90.208.58)
  - that's another issue -- volt-lite, 16:26:11 10/04/04 Mon (4.27.250.92)
    - Gates' elephant -- Bill, 19:44:55 10/04/04 Mon (207.44.154.35)
"Litkicks' style" -- Horatio, 18:03:31 10/04/04 Mon (207.44.154.35)
- Asher: Spinoza he ain't -- volt-lite, 18:33:24 10/04/04 Mon (4.27.250.92)
Yo Leviticus Asher, ya phucked upp the dates -- volt-lite, 19:59:27 10/04/04 Mon (4.27.250.92)
- hmm, ok -- Levi, 20:27:59 10/04/04 Mon (24.90.208.58)
  - well -- volt-lite, 22:53:04 10/04/04 Mon (4.27.250.92)
    - I saw that movie... -- em the naz, 00:19:01 10/05/04 Tue (24.18.140.3)
      - random alphabet -- biff.., 00:44:44 10/05/04 Tue (24.18.140.3)
    - niceness code -- Levi, 04:55:05 10/05/04 Tue (24.90.208.58)
      - stress? -- an onlooker, 05:02:41 10/05/04 Tue (207.44.154.35)
        if the shoe fits -- wear it!, 05:05:08 10/05/04 Tue (4.10.28.55)
        smart people -- Levi, 06:45:38 10/05/04 Tue (65.215.56.2)
      - you prove your idiocy and lack of lit knowledge again -- volt-lite, 09:06:15 10/05/04 Tue (4.27.250.92)
        this is just too funny -- Levi, 10:42:22 10/05/04 Tue (65.215.56.2)
        obviously you haven't taken it -- volt-lite, 11:20:34 10/05/04 Tue (4.27.250.92)

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums^(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.