Re-thinking about that. Let’s try to start a similar thing.
Immediately speaking this topic doesn’t replace the Off Topic threads and is intended to be just a peaceful place to talk about our differences, our similarities, our strength points and weak points. For any questions and talks that you want to expect a peaceful response without any flame and insults, just use this thread.
First of all: not transforming any discussion in a verbalized typical Caldari competitive sport.
Secondly: Have the nerves to tolerate and respect every kind of opinion, even the most brutals. It doesn’t matter the example you will propose. Just respect it and show your anti-thesis politely
Thirdly: Before talking, learn about the topic in question.
You shall find very few truly willing to agree to an exchange of knowledge without some form of degeneration being inserted into the conversation. Most people would rather live a life of self-deceit and comfort than to challenge their minds with such things.
However should such a circle of people exist, I would most certainly be inclined to explore it.
I would add fourth:
Argue against thesis only, and never against author bringing it.
And I say that’s the most important one, since ones who descend into attacking author instead of ideas usually show they lack actual argument. For me ones who commit that once in argument with me, are stepping over the line, after which I don’t consider them… using your word, “Intellectual”, and just try to attack them back at any opportunity to overfeed them with their own medicine.
The main problem, however, stands: how are you going to enforce this rules and prevent the discussion from being, for example, arrendized and from certain speakers be called sockpuppets, meatpuppets, etc, how would you prevent it from groundless accusations against other speakers? Since CONCORD, actually, doesn’t react on that, apparently. If you know the way, then please teach me, a lot of my own discussions were sabotaged by persons who break like all the rules possible!
I see and hear the idea of having a council of intellectuals to discuss things intellectually. However, the idea of what may be intellectual or who qualifies as an intellectual is distinctly vague; in lieu of this, I propose a counter offer.
There should be an equal and opposite Council of Buffoons. As the most notable idiot on the IGS and in space, I decree my position as the head of this new council. Every court needs a jester, after all, and what better than a flock of jesters to pick apart pseudo intellectualism and sophistry masquerading as intellectualisms and/or intellectuals, or whatever?
Seriously, though, I do mean it. But as for the idea of this council in general, it helps to kick it off with a topic.