Is there any chance that people be obligated to leave a comment explaining their action? At least really encourage it? I've received a tonne, and TBH it's not ever very clear how anyone could do more than mildly object to the fact I'm not reading anything right this moment.

TBQH people seem to just be pushing their own study as the only way to study, which is absurd and I hope when I get banned you all take a good long look in that mirror. Thanks.

  • 2
    May be interesting: I've just been downvoted. How should I react? on MetaSE.
    – user2953
    Jan 19 '15 at 13:59
  • 1
    It is because they can't think clearly across inter-disciplinary lines; and, because there's lots of stuff in life they aren't willing to confront. Feb 3 '15 at 17:38
  • Oh the irony that this question is getting downvoted. I completely agree with you though, it seems that the community is often a bit harsh to new users (or at least it seems that way) Feb 19 '15 at 13:26

Related: An Easy Guide to Earning Downovtes

To answer your question partially, I will tell you why I have been giving you many downvotes lately. This is merely my point of view. It's not going to be a nice post, because I'm very tired of your contributions.

  1. Some of your answers are incorrect. Example: Does the Christian concept of eternal God and souls violate the Buddhist concept of Annica and Anatta?

  2. I disagree with the opinion or statements expressed in your post. Example: How can telling the truth amount to a lie? and Friends, we are not philosophers (on meta).

  3. You have proven to be unwilling to improve your posts to make it meet the SE standards. Example: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/21317/2953 - instead of improving the question, you always start debating.

    Also: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/21422/2953.

  4. Your use of incorrect grammar, internet slang, and chat style ('i', 'ur', 'v', 'r', 'bro', 'dude', 'cos', '!!!', not using capitals, etc.). Various examples in the comments, also the comments on this post. See Should others downvote my posts for “grammatical” reasons?

  5. Repeatedly commenting on all of your own posts asking for explanations for close votes and/or downvotes. I have linked to I've just been downvoted. How should I react? before. These comments are just annoying and should be left out.

You should seriously rethink your behaviour here, because like this, it's no fun for anyone.

Some ideas how to do that:

  1. Be constructive. If others indicate inaccuracies in your post, or other things to improve, your first reaction should be: 'is he right?' - not: 'such nonsense!'.

    A quote from the post on reacting on downvotes:

    Be exceedingly polite when asking, and have a genuine spirit of wanting to know how to improve your post, instead of wanting to "call out" the person who down voted you.

    Do not become argumentative with anyone who chooses to explain. They are offering you their opinion in order to help you improve your post. Becoming argumentative will only encourage more down votes.

  2. Get rid of the internet slang. It really doesn't fit here.

  3. Let answers be answers. If you have something to say about a question which is not an answer: use a comment. That's what they are for.

If you're going to improve on these points, I will be happy to see you sticking around. If not, I think I have to write an auto-flag stackapp.

Fact: I have flagged about 30 of your comments and posts for moderator attention on the main site alone. Of those, 16 have been reviewed already and have (all! 100% score!) been deemed helpful. Your posts have been removed or improved by moderators. The other flags have not been reviewed yet; they're of today. That's an incredibly high score.

  • this is not true, e.g. the anatta question is not incorrect. did you see the references ?? ! did you go back and change your vote after i added references? i think not
    – user6917
    Jan 25 '15 at 10:26
  • 2
    @MATHEMATICIAN to answer your comment, I will quote from my post. "Be constructive. If others indicate inaccuracies in your post, or other things to improve, your first reaction should be: 'is he right?' - not: 'such nonsense!'." Your reacting on one single point, there's a lot more here. I'm not going to discuss it anyway. This is my view.
    – user2953
    Jan 25 '15 at 10:27
  • so you actually left 14 flags today? that's insane. i would reply to your "answer" point by point, but this isn't the format
    – user6917
    Jan 25 '15 at 10:28
  • The insane part is mostly the 100% score. If you wish to have a constructive discussion on this answer, open a chat room, I will be happy to talk about it (even though I have little time today).
    – user2953
    Jan 25 '15 at 10:32
  • 1. not true 2. ok, noted 3. you will have to be more specific about what's wrong with my edits. one half of those cited are cos i said "thanks". 4. irrelevant five. irrelevant and not even in the question!
    – user6917
    Jan 25 '15 at 10:36
  • and 1. i am not rude to those that explain 2.irrelevant 3. ok noted.
    – user6917
    Jan 25 '15 at 10:37
  • 3
    @MATHEMATICIAN you shouldn't be rude to anyone. Full stop. Internet slang may be irrelevant of the content, I find it inappropriate on a quality-driven website as this one. This is not a forum. As I said, these are merely my reasons. Lastly, about the edits. See philosophy.stackexchange.com/help/behavior, under "Do not use signature, taglines, or greetings.". This discussion is rapidly becoming too long for the comments. I will not engage in further discussion but in a chatroom.
    – user2953
    Jan 25 '15 at 10:40
  • i do not know how to start a chat
    – user6917
    Jan 25 '15 at 10:40
  • @MATHEMATICIAN chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/20550/…
    – user2953
    Jan 25 '15 at 10:42

I am really beginning to lose my patience with this fake "community".

I got two downvotes here, one here, and another here, since I was banned. I don't see anything wrong with any of them.

I also managed to get five [FIVE] downvotes here, despite both knowing what I'm talking about and answering the question. That, rightfully, pisses me off, I provided references etc, for the sceptical and ignorant.

So you are kinda starting to look like massive fakes.

  • 1
    Not having downvoted any of these posts, I could imagine someone... finding the second link not so helpful (OP seems to have tried to read Kant, and didn't succeed); or thinking that you should edit your third link to elaborate on 'object oriented philosophers'. I am not quite educated enough on the other two topics to be able to say much about that.
    – user2953
    Feb 13 '15 at 22:44
  • Also not having downvoted this post here, I could imagine someone downvoting for this not really being an answer to the question, and being rather insulting. I wouldn't like to lose your contributions here, but at any time you should act conform the Be Nice policy. Also, remember that downvotes are not the end of the world. Your question that has been downvoted also received an upvote, for example. The score is non-negative and you gained reputation, if that's of an issue to you.
    – user2953
    Feb 13 '15 at 22:45
  • we can argue the toss again, if you like, but the individual does not mention reading kant. i am more annoyed about the buddhist downvotes, not just the number but cos I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. no pure land is forever... and yeah downvotes won't kill me but it's not nice as i will just be banned again
    – user6917
    Feb 14 '15 at 0:25
  • 2
    I really don't understand at all what convinces you you know what you're talking about with respect to 浄土 Buddhism ... I have a PhD in philosophy, have the highest cert for Japanese for foreigners, spent 1.5 years apart from my PhD in a religion and indian philosophy department in Japan, and believe what you're saying is factually incorrect... (for the record, no one needs any of these qualifications to give right answers -- nor are my answers automatically right for them).
    – virmaior
    Feb 14 '15 at 12:15
  • I asked someone who lectures at Princeton...
    – user6917
    Feb 14 '15 at 15:02
  • in Buddhism that is. more broadly i think i know what i'm talking about when i've read a lot about it
    – user6917
    Feb 14 '15 at 15:12
  • @virmaior "even though the life span of the buddha of immeasurable life is extremely long, it will in the end be exhausted.. since his life span is actually limited it is called a life span" ~sutra on the avalokitesvara
    – user6917
    Feb 14 '15 at 15:18
  • @virmaior ? anyway if you really do believe that the pure land churches think amitabha has a literally eternal life then you are wrong. no pure land is forever !!! !!!
    – user6917
    Feb 16 '15 at 5:40
  • I don't know what you even mean by "a literally eternal life". I never said that they have a Christian idea of heaven. The core distinguishing doctrine of 浄土 is that there's a 極楽 where 仏様 will take everyone who says the amida sutra. 極楽 is a "heaven" or close enough. But a more obvious point of error is regarding schools. Even in 浄土 there's at least two major sects. (the 浄土真宗 says the 仏 will guide everyone there ...)
    – virmaior
    Feb 16 '15 at 5:44
  • oh ok i remembered you listing that in your complaints. i quoted dogen and have seen zen masters saying there's no schools. but point taken, you definitely "know what you're talking about"
    – user6917
    Feb 16 '15 at 5:55
  • 2
    No, seriously, you can look it up on wikipedia or on the SEP. The zen masters can say "there's no schools" until they are blue in the face. But there are quite clearly different sects, schools, and doctrines in buddhism. There are different sects of zen for that matter. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C5%8Dt%C5%8D . Seriously, I was in a class on Dougen while I was at UH for a conference...
    – virmaior
    Feb 16 '15 at 14:00
  • i hate to state the obvious, but you're kinda stating the obvious
    – user6917
    Mar 1 '15 at 3:00

You must log in to answer this question.