19 Jul 04
1 edit
Originally posted by CribsNope...from what I see all were posted AFTER midnight. Please post the EXACT dates otherwise stop making foolish accusations. How many times do I have to ask you to do something simple? Are you purposfully avoiding posting the dates?
Examine the last three posts of that thread. All were posted
prior to you posting your summary statistics, and you statistics
did not account for those.
Cribs
Feivel
19 Jul 04
2 edits
Originally posted by FeivelI have claimed from the beginning that the posts in question were from today.
Nope...from what I see all were posted AFTER midnight. Please post the EXACT dates otherwise stop making foolish accusations.
Feivel
'Today' happened to be the first word of one of my posts, which you must
have failed to read. The last three were made today.
Now, in your summary statistics, you claim that all 40 posts made today
were not debate about religion. I'm telling you, examine the last three
posts. Your statistics do not account for these. They were made today
and are part of the debate.
Cribs
19 Jul 04
Originally posted by FeivelFrom these statistics, I deduce that there are 49 posts, at most 9
the origin oft the thread was yesterday. There were 9 posts yesterday on which was saying that they were sad to see the thread was not on the debate forum anymore and a few were quibbiling about word definitions. The other 40 posts were today and they were a debate about moving the thread or leaving it here. Now out of the original 9 if you remove Cribs post, ...[text shortened]... ng with anybody, please read the thread yourself to find out what EXACTLY is going on.
Feivel
of which constitute a religious debate, correct?
If not, please show me how your statistics could possibly account
for 10 or more religious posts.
If so, then your statistics are inaccurate.
Cribs
19 Jul 04
Originally posted by wibWib: "But maybe a religion only forum would put all of them in one place and probably, as someone mentioned in another post, help get rid of them. If not then at least they're isolated to one place "
I don't have a problem with religious threads in the debtaes forum. I agree. Like I said that's where they're gonna end up anyway. Just one big old fight.
But maybe a religion only forum would put all of them in one place and probably, as someone mentioned in another post, help get rid of them. If not then at least they're isolated to one place.
Could you tell us what exactly you want to get rid of ? Debates about religion ? Debates about issues that are religiously and morally related issues ? Debates about what you could call "secular religion" ? Debates about philosophy, Debates about bio-ethics ?
If you want to get rid of certain subjects because you don't like them, I myself also have my personal wishes in that field.
We cannot silence others or advocate some segregational politics to get rid of people or issues we don't like.
19 Jul 04
1 edit
Originally posted by wibWib: "It just seems sad but true that most religious topics simply can't be discussed rationally. Even when a topic starts out not wanting an argument, if it involves religion it usually ends up as just one big fight."
I know. I especially don't like someone telling other people when, where, or what to post. Especially when most of us posting here are paying members.
It just seems sad but true that most religious topics simply can't be discussed rati ...[text shortened]... it involves religion it usually ends up as just one big fight.
You are generalising in an unacceptable way. The way things are going on the debates forum is absolutely acceptable. There is a debating climate that is very polite, benevolent, respectful and tolerant.
19 Jul 04
Originally posted by royalchicken
You've all forgotten about the difference between religion and metareligion.
I don't think proselytizing constitutes a debate. The problem with what Cribs is saying is that while a debate may start in one of those threads, I don't think the intent of the OP is to debate (in this case, he doesn't ever seem to want to). Now some of the most ridic ...[text shortened]... fficulty: religious discussion goes in General, discussion [b]about religion goes in debate.[/b]
To clarify things. Could you give a few instances of "religious discussions" going in the General forum ?
19 Jul 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeTrue, I am generalizing, but I don't think it's unacceptable. It's been my experience, and not just on the web, that religion is one of the most personal and highly flammable topics to discuss. Now keep in mind I'm not saying it shouldn't be discussed, like I said before, I don't want people told what they can and can't post. But religion rarely, in my experience, is discussed rationally.
Wib: "It just seems sad but true that most religious topics simply can't be discussed rationally. Even when a topic starts out not wanting an argument, if it involves religion it usually ends up as just one big fight."
You are generalising in an unacceptable way. The way things are going on the debates forum is absolutely acceptable. There is a debating climate that is very polite, benevolent, respectful and tolerant.
Time and time again I have seen discussions begin that were wonderful, hopeful, full of the prospect of learning something (especially for me) and then BAMM! From out of nowhere come the guys on the far end of the spectrum. Then comes the other side firing back. And the next thing you know, people who just wanted to talk about religion find themselves having to defend their position over and again against fanatics. And I mean fanatics on both sides.
I'm just saying, it detiorates. So why not put it all in one place and let it do whatever it wants to there.
But if it stays in the general forum, or the debates forum, or wherever, I'm fine with it. No one's forcing me to debate so I can choose to read them or not. And I'm glad to hear you say things are acceptable in the debates forum. Good! I hope that continues.
19 Jul 04
Originally posted by CribsClever post. OP = original poster.
What is OP?
Some members of our community may not appreciate, recognize,
or even be capable of the level of abstract thought required to
recognize a difference between religion and meta-religion. For these
members, would you suggest that they be banned from participating
in meta-religion discussions in the debates forum? If so, would you
be able to ...[text shortened]...
understand, given that they don't recognize the religion/meta-religion
distinction?
Cribs
I would not ban them from such discussions, though I think such discussions are self-selecting in the long run. I don't think it is unfair to strive for some level of abstraction in debates, as that is what debates are. I think a straightforward discussion of religion in which one side is not willing to answer questions or debate in a rational manner is equivalent to any of the other discussions which take place in the general forum.
19 Jul 04
1 edit
Originally posted by wibWib: "Time and time again I have seen discussions begin that were wonderful, hopeful, full of the prospect of learning something (especially for me) and then BAMM! From out of nowhere come the guys on the far end of the spectrum. Then comes the other side firing back. And the next thing you know, people who just wanted to talk about religion find themselves having to defend their position over and again against fanatics. And I mean fanatics on both sides.
True, I am generalizing, but I don't think it's unacceptable. It's been my experience, and not just on the web, that religion is one of the most personal and highly flammable topics to discuss. Now keep in mind I'm not saying it shouldn' ...[text shortened]... e acceptable in the debates forum. Good! I hope that continues.
I'm just saying, it detiorates."
My claim is, it is NOT detiorating on RHP <debates> forum. My aim always has been to avoid such deteriations by speaking out to those "debaters" who are on the verge of performing other actions than debating. Ridiculing others, degrading others, having fun at the expense of others, pumping up one's ego, constantly playing the clown or stand-up comedian, etc. are signs we will be going astray if we do not change our course. A lot of things are happening on the <Debating> forums and certain people are/were on the verge and some were indeed crossing lines, but the <Debates> forum is still on course. Nothing wrong with it.
19 Jul 04
Originally posted by PhlabibitPrecisely! The best way to deal with a troll (which is essentially what
If they are for the general forums, I wish people wouldn't come in to debate them....
If you don't like a topic stay out? Let it trickle down???
these posts are) is to ignore them. When they stop getting replies
they will stop posting.
Don't feed the trolls!
20 Jul 04
Originally posted by royalchickenI agree. But in addition, I would also say that ANY discussion
I think a straightforward discussion of religion in which one side is not willing to answer questions or debate in a rational manner is equivalent to any of the other discussions which take place in the general forum.
in which one side is unwilling to answer questions and debate in a
rational manner is equivalent to what takes place in the
general forum.
I think we can agree that numerous threads in the debates
forum are of this sort. This says a couple things to me:
1. It is unfair to single out RBHILL or any set of habitual
religious posters, as they are not the only ones who
fail to meet your criteria.
2. Since we observe this failure so often, it indicates to me
that the observed caliber of discussion is closer to people's typical
ability, and thus the type of ideal forum that you suggest
would leave a lot of our community left out, were the standards
to be enforced.
Cribs