Blob has always been a borderline case, not because of his views but because of the way he argues in a manner that kills discussion, and which has had a cumulative impact on the viability of a range of forum topics and threads.
BAP, try searching out references to 'analinear' - a hybrid of analogue and linear processing.
loveofreason your post suggests things to me. Let me see what I can make of it. I tried to look up types of reasoning, but it was hard to pick up on those. I have some thoughts of my own. Perhaps they can be applied to this thread if I change the proposition
from "Da Blob is to be banned" to "Da Blob is to be warned."
Deductive reasoning is like a stream running downhill in a channel. It flows from general to specific. What ends up downhill is inevitable, can't be avoided and in a way is irresistible.
Inductive reason is different. Inductive reasoning is the opposite of deductive. It flows from specific to general. It reminds me of political statements of today. "This candidate did such and such. Therefore he is not fit for office."
It is very hard to find general truths like, "These are the reasons for sure for banning or warning someone." These reasons are likely subjective. By subjective I mean, "I would like to ban" is different from, "Here is a universal morality for banning." I would submit that just about all practical reasoning when we talk about "reason" is inductive. That is, we gather specific information from our experience and arrive at a general conclusion like, "This and that has happened, so the person should be banned or warned." Or maybe, "X number of people speak up and want the person banned. Therefore X is a majority" (where the silent people fail to speak up.)
It's like a number of rivelets flowing downstream. The channel is not yet worn. Some water reaches the bottom. The rest falls by the wayside. It is NOT inevitable that a rivelet will reach the bottom. Another analogy for inductive reasoning is like a river flowing down to the ocean but ending in a broad delta. The outlet spreads out broadly and the channeling endpoint is no longer clear.
Let's apply this to Da Blob and see what might be propositions:
"Da Blob's activities kill discussion." It would be very hard to generalize this.
Like the rivelets, Da Blob is responsible for initiating many discussions. Some of them run down the hill and
kill discussion. But others
stimulate, run down the hill and spread out like the delta in unexpected and important directions.
I can see some may conclude one way and others another.
=======================
Addendum. I am not fond of showing emotion. My head says a decision was made. That's the way it is and I have no control over this. My heart says the INTP Forum has lost its innocence for me. What I loved about it is now missing. For me some kind of mistake somewhere. A fellow INTP whom I valued a great deal is gone. Now I feel pain and am sad. I may get over it, but will the Forum itself be the same?
If only I had known this could and would happen, I would have engaged him critically on his threads. I didn't because I didn't hear a loud enough bell.
I can get in contact with Da Blob. Are there any messages you would like me to relay to him? ... or you could yourself.
*sigh*
