Should there be a ban on preaching?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Excellent post. By the way, my expertise is in constrained optimization. We should have more threads about it. We should work on formulating the model about forum tradeoffs more specifically. Maybe Russ could implement it, and we could all have our objective function values indicated and updated under our avatar.

I got to thinking about Telerion's post and maybe thre needs to be another forum category. What he described which he seems to enjoy is not really a debate forum. I would propose a forum section called "Let's Get Ready to Rumble." This forum would be for arguing and not debating. I see arguing as debating with "attitude."

Who's for some attitude. I'm in an adjustin mood.

Originally posted by Starrman
Considering that this thread was set up to try and look at how debates can degenerate when one or two people interject out of context, I would just like to thank ivanhoe and Dr Scribbles for their illustrative and worthy insight into the matter. My gratitude is overflowing. So please, continue to act like children and add one more shadow to the already dimming light of the debate forum.

Well done, you can both be proud.

Gets my rec.

Originally posted by Starrman
Preaching...

The way I see it, there are at least two ways of having a discussion.
In the first, what I will call 'debating,' a person proposes a position
that s/he feels to be the best point of view for an issue or concept.
S/he then invites the community to comment -- to agree and provide
additional support, or to disagree with contra-arguments. 'Debates'
are about designing the best ideas and, in so doing, help to design the
best person; that is, the person who holds the soundest points of view is
likely to be soundest person. As such, the process by which a poorly
articulate point of view is deconstructed is a good one; the person who
introduced it is made better by learning why his/her point of view was
flawed and, furthermore, has the opportunity to modify or change their
opinion.

The other form of discussion that person can have is what I will call
'preaching.' While it often has a religious topic, it need not have anything
at all to do with religion. It's about having a religiously convicted attitude.
Rather than a debate, where the presenter is offering an idea for the
explicit purpose of criticism, a preacher assumes that his/her point of view
is necessarily right, unquestionable, axiomatic. Unlike debators,
preachers to not have an interest in modifying their views, and they are
certainly not interested in hearing counter-arguments. Their sole purpose
is to 'convert' people to their point of view.

So, in short, a debate is a round table discussion; sometimes one person
will have the floor more than another, but there is a presumption of
general equality. A preachment is a hierarchical discussion; there are
those who know and those who don't -- a presumption of inequality where
the former are superior and the latter are inferior.

Now, as for the notion of getting rid of 'preachments' and having only
'debates:' Not going to happen. The fact is, people hold all sorts of
convictions to a religious degree. George Bush is xyz, God wants abc,
Black people should 123, and so on. These sorts of pronouncements are
the norm, the majority.

Why? Because they are simple. Proper debating necessarily requires
emotional distance, it necessitates thinking of the presented information
as an abstraction. It requires powers of discernment: the ability to
analyze, synthesize, and evaluate. And, most importantly, it requires
that a person be prepared to admit that what they once thought is might
be inferior to another point of view; that is, a person needs to be able
to admit that they were wrong.

Most people are interested in being on the winning team -- being right --
but aren't interested in doing the work. Let's face it, we're lazy. Just
about every invention in our house is the product of trying to make our
lives easier: heat, electricity, running water, refrigerators -- they all
allow us not to chop wood, pump water, milk our own cows, and so forth.
While these conveniences aren't intrinsically bad things, they lead to a
sort of complacency. We don't want to read a whole newspaper article,
only the headline or soundbyte; we don't want to rewire our own house,
we pay someone else to do it; we don't want to learn an instrument,
we'll turn on one of a billion cable channels.

Pretty soon, everything we 'do' is a passive act. And, so, preachments
become the mode of 'discussion' of choice. We don't want to exercise
our brains any more than we absolutely have to -- that is, after work is
over, we want to 'relax,' or 'veg out' in front of the television. Why do
you think that so many people are 'out of shape?' Or so many people
think 'Moscow' is in Europe? It's not because they are biologically
overweight or stupid, but that there is no motivation to exercise the
body or mind; we don't have immediately gratifying benefits from it,
so why do it?

We all have examples of this: for me it's chess (ironically). Consider, if
you could read a thin volume on 'chess' and then improve your game 200
points without work, don't you think you would do it? Of course you would.
It would be the 'hair tonic' of the 19th century, the Philosopher's Stone.
However, you know it doesn't work that way.

I'm a reasonably bright guy, I'm good at strategy games, but I'm a mediocre
chess player. Why? In no small part because I am lazy. I don't review
opening strategy, I routinely make developmental mistakes, I don't work
out exchanges with analyze board enough, and two dozen other things.
If I took the time that I ought, I'd probably increase my rating by 200
points. But I'd have to sweat. I'd have to apply techniques and knowledge,
at first poorly and awkwardly, and lose a few games in the process. But,
in a time, I would improve beyond where I am now. Work leads to
improvement.

Preaching, however, has immediate gratification: accept the concept and
instantly you are on the winning team! Don't challenge it and you're one
of the 'right folk.' Debating requires effort, it requires being wrong once
in a while, it requires being humbled and raising yourself up. Preaching is
cheap; one is not required to think, just accept.

As it pertains to sermons in churches, I am here to tell you that the best
Homilies I have ever heard were the ones that were giant 'question marks,'
the ones that asked the listener to contemplate the readings presented from
a new point of view. Rather than cramming doctrine down your throat --
suggesting a passage as one and only one correct reading, one and only one
application -- these Homilies challenged the listener, forcing them to review
those things that they once held dear as perhaps less refined theologically as
they once assumed.

Invariably, these preachers were not favored by the public. Invariably. Why?
Because they were forcing the faithful to think. They were so used to
the idea of being force fed that, given the opportunity to challenge the way
in which they believe, they felt uncomfortable.

So, it is my opinion that 'preachments' are here to stay. They are a
by-product of that laziness which has infected every other aspect of our
being. Generally, if people don't see a tangible professional benefit, or if
it doesn't amuse them, they are prone to the force-fed approach of either
preaching or being preached to.

I invite discussion on this topic and am opened to the possibility that my
view is not perfect. I recognize that this point of view casts a rather dim
presentation of humankind and I urge people not to react emotionally, but
to challenge its essential points in a logical, emotionally detached fashion.
I'm not optimistic, mind you, but, given the thread title, perhaps I'm
cautiously hopeful. We'll see, I'm sure.

Nemesio

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Where does filibustering fit into your taxonomy?

This remark should not be taken as a personal attack, but as a confirmation that I did read the entirety of Nemesio's post.

Than you're a braver (or more bored) man than I.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Where does filibustering fit into your taxonomy?

This remark should not be taken as a personal attack, but as a confirmation that I did read the entirety of Nemesio's post.

Hmm... Discussions, by nature, are about the exchange of
information. In debates, it's a two-way exchange (or multi-
way, to be more precise). In preachments, it's a one-way
exchange.

Filibustering is about blocking or preventing the exchange
of information, so I suppose I don't consider such actions as
'discussion,' per se, but I hadn't given it all that much
thought.

I thank you for reading my post.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
The way I see it, there are at least two ways of having a discussion.
In the first, what I will call 'debating,' a person proposes a position
that s/he feels to be the best point of view for an issue or concept.
S/he then invites the community to comment -- to agree and provide
additional support, or to disagree with contra-arguments. 'Debates ...[text shortened]... ut, given the thread title, perhaps I'm
cautiously hopeful. We'll see, I'm sure.

Nemesio

nemesio, I wonder if there isn't some middle ground between the "two ways of having a discussion" you offer. As I read it, you examine two extremes: very formal, almost academic, style of debate and fatuous polemic. How about something between these two? Something more like civil, yet vigorous, conversation? Now I know the title of the forum is "Debates," but wouldn't the form of debate you describe be a bit too mechanical? No doubt, it would offer intellectual enrichment to those who are seeking it, but doesn't it also mask individuality and strip the community of its sense of self?

Even though, I do not respect the intelligence displayed by a few members here, I recognize that they contribute to the environment of the RHP forums. Maybe they give me a good laugh or perhaps a sudden urge to bang my head against the wall; and yes, sometimes they write something witless and offensive. In a few rare cases, it would be beneficial if some one with some authority would/could issue a private reprimand. Nevertheless, most often these colorful comments just add to the flavor of the forums. That's part of what I like here. I think I have a much better sense of the personality of a lot of members here than I do on other boards that I have frequented.

Perhaps we could settle on a distribution of conversation. Something that ranges from distilled dialetic to detestable diatribe and places extremely small weight on the extremes. The sort of discussions you might have at neighborhood parties or at a bar. You know where you all get a couple of drinks in you, and you don't mind saying a bit of what's on your mind. Everyone feels more comfortable expressing some opinions and being a bit more themselves. Of course, an obnoxious guest might get belligerent, but that can be dealt with.

Perhaps we do each need to make an effort individually to improve the standard of debate here, but let us not take ourselves too seriously or become legalistic about the protocol. We could kill the atmosphere. Also let us not become to fanciful about how things were. Some have made reference to the high standards of bbar and ivanhoe. I haven't been here as long as quite a few of you, but I've seen enough to know that bbar, as much as he contributed, had plenty of "preaching" in him, especially when it came to "evangelicals," and well ivanhoe . . .

So let's keep it civil, but fun. Well that's my thoughts. I'll get to bed.

Originally posted by telerion
nemesio, I wonder if there isn't some middle ground between the "two ways of having a discussion" you offer. As I read it, you examine two extremes: very formal, almost academic, style of debate and fatuous polemic. How about something between these two? Something more like civil, yet vigorous, conversation? Now I know the title of the forum is "Deb ...[text shortened]... nhoe . . .

So let's keep it civil, but fun. Well that's my thoughts. I'll get to bed.

Well, I did say 'at least,' no? In any event, a 'debate' need not
be 'academic' or 'formal,' and it need not be without humor. It
only needs to be an exchange of ideas with the intent of
further developing the ideal idea, so to speak. This not to say
that both people will necessarily walk away with a single idea
between them, even if the debate was 'perfect,' because, ultimately,
one is going to evaluate the argument against the things which they
believe is beyond dispute.

The key to a good debate is the open exchange of information; the way
in which that takes place is varied.

Nemesio

Originally posted by orfeo
Nemesio, thank you for that, much appreciated.

You missed Telerion's post earlier about giving recommedations...

hint hint

Nemesio

Originally posted by Starrman
So, I would like to hear people's opinions on whether;

a) they think as I do about this
b) whether a ban on such preached interjection would help rectify the problem and improve the all round quality of the debates
c) how such a ban could be realised and if there are other alternatives.

Hi Starrman,

Maybe you saw some previous attempts of mine to improve the quality of debates on RHP.

Needless to say, I support your point entirely. However, as some people gave already stated, censorship is not the answer; and would be difficult to police externally anyway.

IMHO the argument/debate should be moderated and kept on the right track by the originator/author of the thread. Call him/her the Thread Champion if you wish.

In this case, it is you! We will expect you to keep the discussion focussed, reprimand those that bring red herrings, and (perhaps this is the best policy) to simply ignore those that are already notorious for their ridiculous inflammatory comments. (Responding to them clearly merely fuels the flame).

So, yes, in order to have a good instructive debate (such as about sheep shearing 😀 ) we need some kind of control and direction. This is what the Chairman in a physical debate provides.

I suggest that that role be played by the Thread Champion.

In peace

CJ

Originally posted by CalJust
Hi Starrman,

Maybe you saw some previous attempts of mine to improve the quality of debates on RHP.

Needless to say, I support your point entirely. However, as some people gave already stated, censorship is not the answer; and would be difficult to police externally anyway.

IMHO the argument/debate should be moderated and kept on the right track by ...[text shortened]... ebate provides.

I suggest that that role be played by the Thread Champion.

In peace

CJ

Gets my rec, for being innovative!

Originally posted by CalJust
IMHO the argument/debate should be moderated and kept on the right track by the originator/author of the thread. Call him/her the Thread Champion if you wish.

In this case, it is you! We will expect you to keep the discussion focussed, reprimand those that bring red herrings, and (perhaps this is the best policy) to simply ignore those that are already n ...[text shortened]... ebate provides.

I suggest that that role be played by the Thread Champion.

In peace

CJ

This was proposed by Phlabibit (I think) about six months ago.
It was discussed and seems implausible.

For example, imagine one of the rabid (a)theists creating a
thread about God. Now imagine a person who holds the opposite
opinion posts a response. This could be 'moderated' by the
originator of the thread. That is, an unscrupulous thread-creator
can use that power to censor.

If you mean that the thread-creator should do this in some
symbolic sense, then it requires the agreement of everyone in
the community. If someone chooses not to respect that thread-
creator, then what is to stop them from 'spamming' a thread?

I'm not sure the idea works if you give the creator any power
(for there is a danger that the creator will abuse that power),
and without the power, it has no teeth.

Nemesio