Thanks for the input guys 🙂 I've done a degree of thinking based on all your points and I've changed my view slightly (gasp of horror from the backbenchers). I guess the easiest way to explain what I now feel is to deal with each of your points and then summarise based on all of them, though this may take some time so sit back and catch a few winks.
CalJust - Whilst I agree that some sense of order needs to be in place, the idea of chairing the discussion can, in both my view and my experience, go only so far. I have no wish to be accused of moderating a discussion from a biased point of view and whilst I believe I am open minded and impartial on the whole, I am only human, not overtly intelligent and as such I am prone to annoyance and emotional outbursts from time to time. A precarious position it would be for me to sit atop others' views and cast a judgement of worth upon them. I will of course continue to make my points of view in my own way and hopefully contribute to the debate, but I feel the course of the debate is somewhat (despite my hopes) out of my hands. Which brings me to my second point.
Telerion - I have not had much chance to banter with you so far, but your posts show an obvious understanding of both the rational logic required in decent debating and the emotional processes of humans. I agree that there is a middle ground which must not be ignored here. This forum is only in exsistence due to the members and as such each has his own style and standpoint through which to futher any conversation, be it in the general forum or here. Humour and metaphor are not always counterproductive to debate, sometimes they give us an insight from which we can unravel further reason.
Nemesio - I agree with the notion that apathy is a big factor in the way people respond to issues, distraction is much better quelled by dismissal and amusement than it is by perseverance and concentration. I too suffer from these things in my chess playing and as a result will never achieve 1600, which is what I should probably be able to play at if I ever had the gumption. People, perhaps, do not care enough about what they are saying, or perhaps in some cases they care too much and fail to graps the point.
To sum up I guess that whilst I would love to see an end to (as Nemesio puts it) religiously convicted attitudes, I also feel there is no possibility of this without some enforcement and as we all know, force is the worst way of calming zeal. So the alternatives are not having anything to do with debates in which zealous off topic participants interject, to allow those interjections to become part of the debate and to argue against them, or finally to allow such preaching to wash over you and continue unhindered in the debating process. For me, it is important that the forums retain a sense of community and that people repsect members who are both clear and explanatory and also those with humour and goodwill. I would like to place myself in both these groups and whilst I understand that I may lose something of the rationality of things if I err too far down this path in respect to debating, I will gain in other ways. It is about human interaction, the biggest equation there is and the most unsovable one, I must decide whether to fight against the populace to express my views and champion rationality, or to be subsumed by it and dream along in apathy.
At the end of the day though, both these paths are futile if adhered to vehemently. I will continue to hope that people wish to discover more about the world instead of arrogantly deciding they know the answers already, but I will aslo not refute their right to be part of a community in whichever way they will. If there are those of us that do not wish to see any other possibility than that which we hold at the moment so be it. I shall sigh for you, but it is your choice.
Peace and rationality to you all 🙂
Originally posted by Starrman
To Telerion - I have not had much chance to banter with you so far, but your posts show an obvious understanding of both the rational logic required in decent debating and the emotional processes of humans. I agree that there is a middle ground which must not be ignored here....
To Nemesio - I agree with the notion that apathy is a big factor in the way people respond to issues, distraction is much better quelled by dismissal and amusement than it is by perseverance and concentration.
I'd like to pick up on these related points. We all have religiously
convicted viewpoints on some things. There is nothing inherently
wrong with that; what is wrong is the a priori assumption that
other people ought to have those exact same convictions. All beliefs
should be evaluated constantly because we are always being introduced
to new evidence, new points of view, and new experiences. Some of
what I thought was a good idea about government, religion, and science
three years ago seems pretty foolish now; some of it was 'ahead of its
time.'
When we have convicted viewpoints, we ought to share them, exchanging
how we think with other people who make think differently. If we do
this in the context of sharing, we stand to both learn and to educate. If
we do it by preaching, we stand either to intimidate/force someone into
agreeing, or turning them off by our attitude (rather than content, which
they never hear).
Regarding 'humor:' Generally, I think that emotion should be checked at
the door in serious debates. However, there are (at least) two emotions
we all must have in order to be good debators: 1) Humility, the ability
to recognize that you were wrong and accept it, or that the other was
wrong and to be gracious; and, more importantly, 2) The ability to laugh
at yourself. If you can't see the humor in your own point of view, then
you haven't examined it thoroughly. If a debate has been truly fruitful,
where exchange of information has truly taken place (even if the parties
agree to disagree), then humor can function as the great unifier, an
opportunity for solidifying a relationship between and amongst debators.
Nemesio
Some random thoughts having read all the contributions so far - phew!! 😀
Firstly, this subject is definitely a very worthwhile one, and if we can come to some kind of consensual opinion, it would be a victory for constructive discussions on RHP!
Secondly, my suggestion (of a Thread Champion) clearly has limitations, as pointed out by Starrman (I think!). In a physical debate (e.g. the two presidential candidates), the Chairman was a neutral person. Bush could not have regulated his own debate! So, maybe the Thread Originator could suggest (appoint?) a champion whom he would like to act as Modertor/Chairman.
Thirdly, the contribution about the two kinds of posts (debates vs preachments) was excellent. However, I would call the second kind "Lecturing" rather than preaching, for the obvious moral and religious connotation in "preaching". Many posts are not actually religious, but have no element of debate (reasoned argument) but are merely stating emotional opinions. A thread champion/ chairperson would have to look out especially for this.
The main item still to be resolved is (IMHO) how to react to those who clearly do not wish to abide by any suggested self-governing rules, and insist on posting garbage. A concerted policy of ignoring them may be in order.
Again, if we could come up with some kind of self-designed policy of how to manage a constructive debate or discussion, it would certainly enhance my personal enjoyment of RHP, and therefor it is a marketable issue.
as always, in peace,
CJ