17 Mar 14
Originally posted by divegeesterPressing a matter in the face of stonewalling and then being accused of being a "stalker" or trying to get a poster banned for "stalking" (for comments and questions posted in a public forum), strike me as particularly poisonous forum behaviour.
This can certainly occur after some exchange between the combatants and as Swissgambit indicated, a mutual "agree to disagree" should be forthcoming from both parties. Refusing point blank to respond to a point made is, in my opinion, not acceptable forum behaviour.
17 Mar 14
Originally posted by divegeesterI'm not sure the "agree to disagree" thing works so well when one poster is still dodging questions that have specifically pointed out deceit, inconsistency or contradiction. I think a poster that has been called on contradicting him or herself, for example, and it is very specific and posts have been quoted, then I think that ought to be cleared up first and then after the that the "agree to disagree" kicks in if necessary.
Agreed; a mutual "agree to disagree" stance is perfectly acceptable.
17 Mar 14
Originally posted by divegeesterIt's lovely weather we are having, isn't it.
This forum is very popular with its regular users and all of us generally seem to abide by an unwritten code of forum etiquette; a code which ranges from avoiding the use of insults (OK most of us try) to not misrepresenting another posters words or obvious meaning, to checking back to reply to respondents especially if the OP is ours.
This latter pi ...[text shortened]... e other regulars here as to whether I'm harbouring overly ambitious expectations in this matter?
17 Mar 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasI say no to moderators intervening. I don't want moderators deciding what I see and don't see. I don't want moderators second guessing what I might like or dislike. I don't want moderators setting a benchmark for acceptable and unacceptable insults on my behalf. I find the insults people dish out interesting and revealing. I don't claim any right-to-not-be-offended, and I certainly think any such right trumping the right to express oneself freely would be a terrible state of affairs.
The (3) Insults is always annoying, and creeps under my skin. As a moderator I would be very hard on those using insults as a method to win a discussion. Intellectual low, and very contagious too.
18 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterSpirituality: "Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after."*
This forum is very popular with its regular users and all of us generally seem to abide by an unwritten code of forum etiquette; a code which ranges from avoiding the use of insults (OK most of us try) to not misrepresenting another posters words or obvious meaning, to checking back to reply to respondents especially if the OP is ours.
This latter pi ...[text shortened]... e other regulars here as to whether I'm harbouring overly ambitious expectations in this matter?
All valid points which, from my perspective, reduce to one word: civility (or lack thereof). Contributors to this public forum more so than to any others on the site are motivated to place emphasis on defending long held positions. This posture militates against the topics suggested* which by definition invite exploration and discovery. Result: ocassional incivility.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by Nick BourbakiI will say more strongly that the people who duck out are following a kind of script that says to disengage from the infidel or apostate when the possibly of conversion seems too remote to salvage the situation but instead seems to threaten your own faith. Such people are not here looking for new knowledge from the likes of us. I don't want to go all conspiracy theory on it, but there Biblical passages recommend distancing from Satan, if that is whom you seem to be encountering when spreading the good news...
I say no to moderators intervening. I don't want moderators deciding what I see and don't see. I don't want moderators second guessing what I might like or dislike. I don't want moderators setting a benchmark for acceptable and unacceptable insults on my behalf. I find the insults people dish out interesting and revealing. I don't claim any right-to-no ...[text shortened]... ny such right trumping the right to express oneself freely would be a terrible state of affairs.
Matthew 16:23
Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns."
Matthew 6:13
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
Matthew 26:41
Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak.
and
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011524
"False teachers are like dried-up wells. Anyone coming to them for waters of truth will be bitterly disappointed. Jehovah through the apostles Paul and Peter warns us about false teachers. (Read Acts 20:29, 30; 2 Peter 2:1-3.) Who are such teachers? The inspired words of these two apostles help us to identify where false teachers come from and how they operate."
"How can we protect ourselves against false teachers? The Bible’s counsel regarding how to deal with them is clear. (Read Romans 16:17; 2 John 9-11.) “Avoid them,” says God’s Word. Other translations render that phrase “turn away from them,” “keep away from them,” and “stay away from them!” "
So when you turn from a willing student to a false teacher, you invite the other person to exit the scene.
But yes, they should at least say, "Hasta Luego.""
18 Mar 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyPersonally, I think a bit of lack of civility here and there is neither here nor there. I note that you, from time to time, gently reprimand other posters for a lack of civility, and I strongly believe that this is your prerogative. I also note that you only ever reprimand people whose beliefs you don't share, and I cannot recall you ever once reprimanding posters like RJHinds, FreakyKBH, Rajk999, robbie carrobie or any others who on occasion lack civility but whose beliefs are nearer to yours. 🙂
[b]Spirituality: "Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after."*
All valid points which, from my perspective, reduce to one word: civility (or lack thereof). Contributors to this public forum more so than to any others on the site are motivated to place emphasis on defending long held positions. This posture mi ...[text shortened]... suggested* which by definition invite exploration and discovery. Result: ocassional incivility.[/b]
18 Mar 14
Originally posted by JS357Point taken. To me, though, a form of human spirituality that creates an imperative not to gain or weigh or respond to new knowledge, and instead try to isolate oneself from it, is paradoxical or maybe even dysfunctional [or maybe some other word that is on the tip of my typing fingers but I can't quite locate at this very moment ~ paradoxical and dysfunctional are maybe not be exactly what I am getting at].
Such people are not here looking for new knowledge from the likes of us.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
18 Mar 14
Originally posted by Nick BourbakiPretty good descriptors, those two words. The ideology that demands that no further revelations are to be accepted, while exempting itself from that ruling. After all, it was the last book of the Bible. Whoever decided that, was brilliant.
Point taken. To me, though, a form of human spirituality that creates an imperative [b]not to gain or weigh or respond to new knowledge, and instead try to isolate oneself from it, is paradoxical or maybe even dysfunctional [or maybe some other word that is on the tip of my typing fingers but I can't quite locate at this very moment ~ paradoxical and dysfunctional are maybe not be exactly what I am getting at].[/b]
18 Mar 14
2 edits
Originally posted by JS357I mentioned "spurious excuses" in my OP and while I agree with your high level objectivity, I would propose that in the 'case in hand', this is one of those excuses. I would also challenge that if this spiritual "talk to the hand 'cos the face aint listening" aloofness, is in fact the modus operandi, then it is not executed with grace, not executed without prejudice and certainly not executed unilaterally or with dicernment. Furthermore, if a person feels that sensitive about simple questions and challenges to thier position I would suggest that this forum is not the place for them and that they are going to have a tough time of it in the real world.
I will say more strongly that the people who duck out are following a kind of script that says to disengage from the infidel or apostate when the possibly of conversion seems too remote to salvage the situation but instead seems to threaten your own faith. Such people are not here looking for new knowledge from the likes of us. I don't want to go all conspirac ...[text shortened]... invite the other person to exit the scene.
But yes, they should at least say, "Hasta Luego.""
18 Mar 14
Originally posted by Nick BourbakiAgreed.
I'm not sure the "agree to disagree" thing works so well when one poster is still dodging questions that have specifically pointed out deceit, inconsistency or contradiction. I think a poster that has been called on contradicting him or herself, for example, and it is very specific and posts have been quoted, then I think that ought to be cleared up first and then after the that the "agree to disagree" kicks in if necessary.
This is a timely thread, thank you divegeester.
I agree with all the sentiments being expressed which intend to steer discussions into an impartial, lets-stick-to-the-subject, mode.
Also, selfmoderation is imho preferable to a policeman/woman. What about an appeal court of peers, made up of, say, three or four regulars that have been nominated and selected on the basis of a record of sound common sense? Only to be called upon as a last resort in adjudicating problems with procedure rather than content.
I would be prepared to submit my recent experience with twhitehead as a case study to such a panel. On the one hand, there is the accusation that I was too easily offended by a nonevent, and am unwilling to pursue (or defend) a statement that I made, and on the other hand I feel that he too glibly brushed off what I truly felt was a demeaning and insulting jibe.
I have found this TED talk a very useful discussion of how and why to debate.
www.ted.com/talks/daniel_h_cohen_for_argument_s_sake
Originally posted by CalJustTwo thoughts, CalJust.
This is a timely thread, thank you divegeester.
I agree with all the sentiments being expressed which intend to steer discussions into an impartial, lets-stick-to-the-subject, mode.
Also, selfmoderation is imho preferable to a policeman/woman. What about an appeal court of peers, made up of, say, three or four regulars that have been nominated and sel ...[text shortened]... ul discussion of how and why to debate.
www.ted.com/talks/daniel_h_cohen_for_argument_s_sake
1. "I agree with all the sentiments being expressed which intend to steer discussions into an impartial, lets-stick-to-the-subject, mode."
If you are saying that people should be steered towards being impartial in discussions, then I strenuously disagree ~ although my disagreement is irrelevant as such 'impartiality' would be utterly impossible to achieve and utterly undesirable.
2. "What about an appeal court of peers, made up of, say, three or four regulars that have been nominated and selected on the basis of a record of sound common sense? Only to be called upon as a last resort in adjudicating problems with procedure rather than content."
As you will already know from a previous post of mine, I would not be in favor of this at all. But as a side note, there was absolutely nothing that went on between you and twhitehead that came anywhere remotely near needing moderation or adjudication. Nowhere close. If you were to envisage your "appeal court of peers" idea to be activated by the kind of verbal friction that there was between you two, I think it would be a terrible idea.
18 Mar 14
1 edit
Originally posted by CalJustI might have been more understanding had you not proceeded to behave in exactly the way you accused me of behaving and essentially threw right back at me 'demeaning and insulting jibes'.
I would be prepared to submit my recent experience with twhitehead as a case study to such a panel. On the one hand, there is the accusation that I was too easily offended by a nonevent, and am unwilling to pursue (or defend) a statement that I made, and on the other hand I feel that he too glibly brushed off what I truly felt was a demeaning and insulting jibe.
Edit: And I feel compelled to point out that you cannot honestly deny this as you worked your way into a corner by claiming that the meaning of a post and whether or not it is insulting may be decided by the reader regardless of the writers original intent. So if I claim that what you said was 'demeaning and insulting' then you cannot deny it.