My philosophy research thread got deleted after all that hard work

Yesterday, I started a thread over on the philosophy board

What happens to a philosopher and their entire worldview when they lose a parent at a very young age?

As you can probably tell, I put quite a bit of time and research into this topic; finding these specific details wasn't exactly a walk in the park.

However, the moderator wiped the entire thread and slapped me with a 35-point penalty for "trolling."

I’d really appreciate it if the community and the administration could take a look and explain why this qualifies as trolling,
and, hopefully, allow the thread to be reincarnated here in a more positive light:

==============

I'm fairly certain most people don't realize that 😲 :

Descartes lost his mother when he was just 3.
Spinoza lost his at 6.
Leibniz was 6 when his father passed away.
Pascal's mother died when he was only 3.
Hume lost his father at age 3.
Rousseau lost his mother right after birth, and his father left him when he was 10.
Both Kant and Hegel lost their mothers at 13.
Bertrand Russell's mother died when he was 2, and his father when he was 4.
And Sartre lost his father at age 2.

Isn't it possible that early parental loss serves as the psychological foundation upon which these philosophers built
their ideas of alienation, and for many, their atheism and nihilism?

A wise man once wrote (and I'm essentially throwing this at hiddenpuma75, who seems to be trying to turn my windmill into a flood
with all these curses and warnings against philosophy):

"Philosophy is born from alienation. This isn't necessarily an alienation from another human being; it can also be an alienation from oneself or from the cosmos."

Take, for instance, the case of Nietzsche. The contrast between that man's life and his work is just staggering.

Nietzsche preaches a message of absolute hardness, reckless cruelty, and the uprooting of everything perceived as weak or sickly.
Yet, since his student days, he was a frail man who required the very help from the types of people he despised.
The man who writes with such masterful style about the *Übermensch* was constantly preoccupied with his diet and lifestyle.
He obsessed over strict diets, tracked climate charts, and even doctored medical prescriptions.

He writes philosophy of world-historical proportions with a soul of exquisite elegance, yet he himself was just an obscure, retired philology professor, mulling things over in cheap hotels and lonely boarding houses.

While loudly denouncing all traditional values and proclaiming the Superman as light and life, he lived in his own shadow, remaining anonymous and
conversing mostly with hotel guests and, more often than not, his own books.
His romantic life was quite tragic.

He was a gentle, vulnerable, fearful, and dreamy man whom others found quite pleasant to be around.
And yet, his writings explode with hatred for humanity and contempt for everything lowly or weak.
Even for God.
His expressions are often riddled with bitterness and a desire to offend. An anti-religious fanaticism seems to cloud his judgment.

And finally, we have the heartbreaking end we all know. He entered a labyrinth from which he simply couldn't find his way out. 😢

Are things like sympathy, kindness, mercy, consideration, humanity,
and love truly things that should be branded as weaknesses?

Is there even a single philosophical work that possesses a pure heart?

None!

Even Saint Thomas Aquinas—the great teacher of the Church—declared at the end of his life that everything he had written was merely straw, because he had been granted the grace to experience the very thing he wrote about.🙂
That is why people and the world aren't moved or inspired by mere philosophers, clever words, or brilliant rhetoric.

Instead, they are moved by simple messages of heart and love, truths that were lived, radiated, and passed down through the darkness of the ages.

Lao Tzu, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, St. Paul, Muhammad... Rumi...

So, perhaps we should move past mere philosophy and return to that fundamental truth that has radiated light through thousands of years.

THAT which is spoken through both life and word:

Lao Tzu, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, St. Paul, Muhammad... Rumi...

May everyone reach their goals!👍

Just a heads-up: this is actually my second attempt at starting a full thread. The moderator wiped my last one completely.

Regarding that first case, I've actually posted about it here—back when I was specifically asked to refrain from complaining about the PZK. 😲

Look, we went back and did some digging, and honestly, we realized we messed up—we accidentally deleted text that actually belongs in the published book. But please, don't go filing a formal grievance with the PZK; I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but an appeal like that isn't going to change anything anyway.

I’ve been spending quite a bit of time lately thinking about the intersection of logic and existence, specifically how we interpret reality through different lenses. It’s one of those deep dives that starts with a simple question and ends up pulling you into the heavy hitters of philosophy. Take someone like Descartes. His whole approach to certainty—that "I think, therefore I am" foundation—is such a cornerstone for how we view individual consciousness. But then you have thinkers like Leibniz or even Pascal, who add these layers of complexity regarding how we perceive order and divinity. It’s fascinating to see how they wrestled with the same fundamental mysteries we still grapple with today. I was actually reading some commentary on Hume recently, and it really makes you reconsider the reliability of our sensory experiences. If we can't truly trust what we perceive, where does that leave our understanding of the world? It’s enough to give anyone a bit of an existential headache! Even the way Rousseau viewed the social contract feels incredibly relevant when you look at how modern institutions function. I find myself drifting toward the more skeptical side of things sometimes—thinking about Bertrand Russell or even Nietzsche. There’s a certain raw honesty in their work that challenges the comfortable assumptions we all tend to hold. It’s not always easy to face, but there's a profound kind of freedom in that skepticism. I’d love to hear what everyone else thinks. Do you lean more towards the structured, rationalist views of Thomas Aquinas, or do you find yourself siding with the more existentialist vibes of Sartre? Or maybe you just enjoy a good bit of philosophical humor to lighten the mood when the big questions get too heavy? Let's discuss.

===
My philosophy professor just nuked my thread because apparently, I was "copying" from one of those heavyweight philosophical classics.

First, here’s a quick rundown of the facts and a timeline of events, strictly without any commentary.
I'll follow up in a separate post with the topic that was just deleted upon review.

I actually took a moment to follow my inspiration and decided to start a new thread on philosophy.
Philosophical humor and anecdotes involving two variables.

To kick things off, I’ve basically lifted the intro from a joke found in that massive philosophical bestseller, *Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar*. It’s a fantastic read, and honestly, I'm pretty proud to have a copy on my shelf. Plato and a platypus walk into a bar. It’s a classic setup, isn't it? You can almost see the bartender looking up from a dirty rag, wondering if they should charge extra for the existential crisis about to unfold at the counter. There’s something inherently funny about taking these heavyweights of Western thought—people who spent their lives untangling the fabric of reality—and dropping them into a dimly lit dive bar in downtown Chicago. It takes the lofty, abstract concepts we usually associate with academic lectures and drags them down into the realm of the everyday. I’ve always found this kind of philosophical humor to be a great way to bridge the gap between dense theory and actual human experience. It’s one thing to debate the nature of forms in a quiet library, but it’s quite another to do it while trying to navigate a crowded pub atmosphere. It makes the big questions feel a little more approachable, even if the punchline leaves you questioning everything you thought you knew about the universe.

Since even the "strictest" branches of natural science have plenty of room for a little philosophical humor, I figured philosophy should be allowed to join in on the fun too.

I actually went a step further and suggested a structural improvement in my intro: we shouldn't just be tossing out jokes or random anecdotes for the sake of it. Instead, every single joke needs to serve a purpose—it should act as a gateway into a specific philosophical concept, a problem, or a deeper idea.

To my absolute surprise—and honestly, a fair bit of disappointment—this thread was nuked. It was flagged as trolling, which resulted in me getting slapped with a 35-point penalty for "trolling" and another 30 points just because I used all caps in the title. Talk about a rough start.

Since it’s impossible to tell whether bluemason3 has been on this forum longer than I have been completely clueless, I decided to take matters into my own hands. Since I actually know him "in theory" (even if we aren't exactly buddies in real life), I sent him a private message to vent a little. I basically asked him why he was being so unfair to me and requested that he bring the thread back to life.

7) I felt like he was wavering for a second there. He admitted he couldn't really be his own judge, so he decided to go out on a limb and seek a second opinion from the admin, rustydrifter10.

Look, I went ahead and messaged him directly. Honestly, why even bother with middlemen at this point? I’ve laid out two solid pieces of evidence that prove he's mistaken, and trust me, I'm not just trolling here—there's actual substance to what I'm saying.

Natural science actually has a sense of humor.
You’re wiping out entire sections—the core concepts, the introductions, even the actual text from a philosophy book—and then labeling it "trolling" without offering a single shred of an argument before slapping me with a penalty. Let's get this sorted out: fix the mistake and restore the topic, and we can all get back to fulfilling our own dharma.

9) And since I don't want to drag this out any longer, I'll just ask: what exactly was it that rustydrifter10 said?

10) And he’s going to throw another curveball my way—I mean, didn't you tell me you weren't interested in rustydrifter10?

Man, I told you—I really don’t want you wasting time dealing with middlemen. I was hoping you would be the one to get this topic back on track personally. But hey, if there's absolutely no other way to make it happen, then go ahead and coordinate through rustydrifter10.

And finally, bluemason3 gets back to me with something along these lines:

The appeal has been forwarded. I had a quick chat with rustydrifter10, and we’ve decided to let the deletion stand.

I’ve actually been asked to hold off on starting a new thread over on the PZK forums. Since administration already weighed in on the matter, they feel there's really no point in opening a new discussion.

Wait a second—I’m out here asking someone to make things right, and they just won't budge.

15) I ended up skipping the PZK because, honestly, I thought it was just one of those instances where a moderator made an obvious mistake—misinterpreting a subtle joke or overanalyzing a topic that wasn't actually that deep.

The moderator is refusing to budge, and they won't even give me a proper explanation for their ruling—even after I submitted all this new evidence to support my case. To top it off, they actually had the nerve to "suggest" that I shouldn't take this matter up with the PZK! Honestly, the audacity is unreal.

Well, I have to hand it to you—that was a masterclass in wrapping up pure indifference in such beautifully polished rationalizations!

17) You know that feeling when you’re just itching to give someone a piece of your mind—maybe even a little physical reprimand—but then you immediately find yourself pleading with them to just stay quiet and not go running to anyone to complain? It’s such a ridiculous contradiction, isn't it?

Hey there! Just checking in!

Does anyone else get the feeling that moderators—given they’re basically untouchable if they mess up—tend to bully people in ways they’d never dream of doing in their actual lives? Whether it’s at work, school, or even just hanging out with family, there’s a certain boldness they exhibit here that just doesn't exist in the real world.

It feels like they’re just hiding behind anonymity, deleting someone else's hard work or research simply because they have some weird personal grudge against the author.🤷

But here’s the real kicker: most of these moderators identify as liberals, leftists, or free thinkers who claim to despise dictators, arbitrary rules, and injustice... you know the drill.

Yet, once they step away from the coffee shops and the protests where they shout about BROTHERHOOD, LIBERTY, AND EQUALITY, and finally log in as an anonymous moderator, they turn into the exact kind of tyrants they criticize in politics or public life.

There might be a modern twist on an old proverb for this:

If you really want to see someone's true colors, give them the power of being an anonymous moderator on an internet forum, and you'll see everything.

Three pages of philosophy just to conclude that nothing matters and we should all just "pray" instead.

It’s a topic for religion, but since you have partial coverage there, there's really no point in debating the move.

bluemason3 said:Three pages of philosophy just to conclude that nothing matters and we should all just "pray" instead.

It’s a topic for religion, but since you have partial coverage there, there's really no point in debating the move.

What absolute FABRICATION.

There isn't a single mention of prayer anywhere in the text.

For the first time in an American context, this text provides unexpected data regarding how the early loss of a parent influences one's PHILOSOPHY.

The correlation is genuinely surprising.😲

Deleting a theme that touches upon PHILOSOPHY like this is nothing short of harassment and pure misunderstanding.

This wouldn't happen IF MODERATORS ACTUALLY HELD ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS 😉

It seems there is zero respect from the moderators for someone else's work.
Someone could easily interpret three meters of text—which he dismissively calls the "introductory part"—as SERIOUS WORK, RESEARCH, AND A DETAILED EXPLANATION.

Real work belongs in peer-reviewed journals. Honestly, given the current state of American philosophy—specifically the lack of qualified people, the shaky standards, and the zero competition—even subpar papers somehow manage to hit top-tier status. I’d suggest not wasting your energy on places that don't actually respect intellectual labor. Instead, direct that effort toward more serious, career-oriented fields. 🙂

bluemason3 said:Real work belongs in peer-reviewed journals. Honestly, given the current state of American philosophy—specifically the lack of qualified people, the shaky standards, and the zero competition—even subpar papers somehow manage to hit top-tier status. I’d suggest not wasting your energy on places that don't actually respect intellectual labor. Instead, direct that effort toward more serious, career-oriented fields. 🙂

You've started rambling here.
In all that rambling, you overlooked the fact that you actually conceded my text constitutes some form of work.
Furthermore, you haven't proven that my topic is just "trolling."

My extensive research and specific data—which have never been published in American—suggest that philosophers who lost their mothers at an early age tend to develop impersonal, nihilistic, or negative philosophies.
That’s a fascinating premise for a philosophical debate, certainly, but it’s hardly grounds for a ban.

What you're doing right now is pure authoritarianism without any actual argument behind it.👎

Did someone ban you? 😲

I’d like to ask the forum's expert panel to take a look at this situation. I'm requesting that this thread be restored to its proper place, as I feel I'm being unfairly targeted by the moderator here.

Maybe someone would actually take you seriously if you didn't end an introductory post about alienated philosophers by claiming we should just abolish philosophy altogether—since they're all mentally unstable, with the sole exception of Thomas Aquinas...😁

Sent from my X6pro via Tapatalk

1) I’d like to point out that the administrator hasn't even bothered to respond to my appeal. All we got was a comment from a moderator, but if you actually read what I wrote, you'll see there wasn't even a mention of prayer in there at all.

2. Why is the administrator staying silent?

3) If you ask me, it's because they don't want to admit the moderator made a blatant mistake, so they're choosing to stay quiet... which is a pretty "wise" move on their part, I suppose.

4) I should also mention that this is now the third time a thread I've put a lot of effort into has been shut down by a moderator. It feels less like rule enforcement and more like personal bias against the author—essentially a classic case of the big bad wolf picking on the little lamb.

hiddenpuma75 said:1) I’d like to point out that the administrator hasn't even bothered to respond to my appeal. All we got was a comment from a moderator, but if you actually read what I wrote, you'll see there wasn't even a mention of prayer in there at all.

2. Why is the administrator staying silent?

3) If you ask me, it's because they don't want to admit the moderator made a blatant mistake, so they're choosing to stay quiet... which is a pretty "wise" move on their part, I suppose.

4) I should also mention that this is now the third time a thread I've put a lot of effort into has been shut down by a moderator. It feels less like rule enforcement and more like personal bias against the author—essentially a classic case of the big bad wolf picking on the little lamb.

Honestly, it's probably because they actually agree with what the moderator decided, so there isn't much left to say, right?