Forum manners in an ideal world

I have been reading a book by a philosopher on the human mind and evolution with which I thoroughly diagree (Daniel C. Dennett's Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking). However, he has many useful ideas and uses many thinkers I admire including Anatol Rapoport. Dennett's summary of Rapoport:

1. You should attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way."

2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).

3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.

4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

Admittedly they, while good guidelines, fail to be consistently practical in the forums. So I have created my own list of guidelines for how to avoid looking like a bigoted idjit, a goal I think everyone with any interest in apologetics shares:

1. Topic: You should attempt to express your own position clearly rather than stating the others' position poorly. Show humility in the limits of your knowledge.

2. Domain: Don't use a broader brush than justified - just as there exist differences between Baptists, so here exist differences between Catholics, Muslims, Mormons, Republicans, Asians ...

3. Language: Ban the use of the pet phrases of your own tradition - they mean nothing outside your tradition. "liberals", "infidels", "idjits" mean different things to different groups. Abrasive language is a marker for our fears and ignorance. Cherry-picked facts are as useless as no facts.

4. Complexity: Don't solely blame religion when economic, social, cultural and ethnic issues are also in play. The Irish Catholic/Protestant issue has roots in English rule and Scottish immigrants more than the Reformation.

My point? Sometimes we are our own worst enemy by giving others reasons to hate or fear us. With the Noet expansion, don't we have a perfect opportunity to witness to the non-believer through the tone and content of our communication?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Alan Charles Gielczyk

Great points Martha! I would like to clarify your point #3. I believe you mean, correct me if I am wrong, more than derogatory terms. For example, as a Reformed Christian I should avoid pet terms such as "elect" for it will mean something completely different to an Arminian.

MJ. Smith

I should avoid pet terms such as "elect" for it will mean something completely different to an Arminian.

exactly

Rich DeRuiter

My point? Sometimes we are our own worst enemy by giving others reasons to hate or fear us. With the Noet expansion, don't we have a perfect opportunity to witness to the non-believer through the tone and content of our communication?

Good points here.

Maybe we should add some other common sense points here too like:

Don't caricature a position for the purpose of dismissing the caricature.
Not every disagreement is worthy a response.
I'm not likely to change anyone's mind about whatever we disagree on.
Not everyone is interested in my unique perspective on this topic/passage/point of theology/etc.
If you're not asking for help, or trying to help someone who has asked for it, ask yourself what you hope to accomplish.
As a general rule, avoid generalizations. [;)]
Delay posting when you're feeling anxious, defensive, angry, or any other strong emotion. If it's worth saying, it will be worth saying tomorrow.
Never think you know someone's motives, if they haven't specifically stated them.
No one here actually fits in your "box" about who you think they are.

There are probably some more.

MJ. Smith

nice additions, Richard.

Sleiman

My point? Sometimes we are our own worst enemy by giving others reasons to hate or fear us. With the Noet expansion, don't we have a perfect opportunity to witness to the non-believer through the tone and content of our communication?

Where's that 'chapeau bas' emoticon when you need it? Very well expressed and I agree wholeheartedly. I have learned this the hard way (translation: I have made myself sound like an idiot numerous times before). May I suggest this be 'stickied' or supplemented to the forum's rules?

1. You should attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way."

In other words, Seek first to understand then to be understood (from Steven Covey's 7 habits). More often than not, people forget about listening emphatically and tend to start thinking of what to say in response even before the other person finishes his/her statement.

Paul Golder

I'm not likely to change anyone's mind about whatever we disagree on.

I fear that if this was heeded, the internet would be a quiet, lonely place. (insert photo of a tumbleweed rolling down the street of a ghost town here)

Bruce Dunning

There are some geat posts in this thread. That especially to MJ. and Richard.

Niko

My point? Sometimes we are our own worst enemy by giving others reasons to hate or fear us. With the Noet expansion, don't we have a perfect opportunity to witness to the non-believer through the tone and content of our communication?

Maybe I didn't understand because of having a simple mind and english being not my native language, but does buying Noet make you instantly a non-believer?

My first book for Libronix was Waltke-O'Connor. I bought it because it was easier to have in my laptop than carrying that big book. Later on I have added L4 OL plus many resources relating to ancient languages. Although being a christian I still consider ancient languages to be my main motive for my Logos library.

MJ. Smith

does buying Noet make you instantly a non-believer?

[:)] Nope ... but non-believers have more reason to purchase Noet than Logos

Milford Charles Murray

Peace! *smile* Thanks to all who have contributed to this very pleasant and helpful thread. I will be bookmarking it and re-reading it a number of times.

Ward Walker

I'm not likely to change anyone's mind about whatever we disagree on.

I fear that if this was heeded, the internet would be a quiet, lonely place. (insert photo of a tumbleweed rolling down the street of a ghost town here)

Can do:

Matthew C Jones

Looks like Oklahoma. Notice the utility pole is leaning to the left. A tornado must have gone through here.

Brother Mark

Not every disagreement is worthy a response.

I simply wanted to agree with you, but now I'm in doubt as to whether agreement might disqualify my response on the basis of worthiness.

George Somsel

I'm not likely to change anyone's mind about whatever we disagree on.

I fear that if this was heeded, the internet would be a quiet, lonely place. (insert photo of a tumbleweed rolling down the street of a ghost town here)

Right ! MJ, are you trying to create "the best of all possible worlds"? We'll be bored out of our gourd. [:D]

MJ. Smith

MJ, are you trying to create "the best of all possible worlds"? We'll be bored out of our gourd.

and here I thought it was practicing for heaven.[;)]

Patrick S.

I had held off reading this thread as I though initially it would just have been a whinge session, but enjoyed reading through it all yesterday and have some thoughts.

Forums, and specifically the Logos forums with Logos' (hoping everyone will remember they are Christians) clear instructions (paraphrased) to users "be nice to each other and only talk about Logos products" can be characterised like parents giving 'instructions' to kids to behave themselves in the back seat of cars [:)].

I don't know about you, but I was one of four — in the days before seat belts — and a trip in the car was more like world war three than a politely restrained United Nations discussion. Part of the strategy was knowing how far ones' parents could be pushed before things went thermonuclear. As DEFCON 1 was being approached we would all turn down the volume and stop whining to them and continue our battles staying under the radar, everyone being aware of the unpleasantness of mutual assured destruction (MAD).

http://www.deviantart.com/art/Fights-in-the-Car-171098526

From the parents' perspective the policy basically was — as long as no-one was being strangled, and blood was not being splattered all over the back seat, and the noise was kept to a dull roar, then they would feign benign disinterest.

Sound familiar? And no, I'm not talking about your childhood car trips with siblings.

If Logos held strictly to it's policy of keeping discussions focused only on Logos Bible Software then the forums really would be a tumbleweed alley. As it is, when the (cough) kids play up and things are heating up to DEFCON 1, they can simply quote their (selectively enforced) rule and say "it's in the Forum Guidelines!" as they act parental and cool things down. Fortunately the Logos team exhibit a fair degree of parental long suffering!

So... given that there is a general policy of avoiding MAD between 'combatants' (forum users) , one would hope that when there are differing points of view offered that people would:

in the case of beliefs and articles of faith listen and try and see what it is which may attract the other person to that belief (as crazy as that belief may seem!)
in the case of presenting facts and/or logical arguments (arguments, not fights) then if one is going to try to refute them then that is done by directing ones' guns at the argument, not the person.

This would mean that devices such as the so-called 'fallacy hound', which usually does not make the effort to address and refute points being raised, but simply attempts to belittle the deliverer, should be banned by mutual assent.

MJ. Smith

This would mean that devices such as the so-called 'fallacy hound', which usually does not make the effort to address and refute points being raised, but simply attempts to belittle the deliverer, should be banned by mutual assent.

Fallacy hound feels grossly misunderstood as he has no intent to belittle anyone ... in fact, fallacy hound is careful not to indicate whose fallacy he is on the trail of as there have been multiple, generally ad hominem variations, before he sneaks out from behind the bushes, Fallacy hound agrees whole heartedly with your emphasis on listening, persuasion and logical arguments ... but even when fallacy hound gets to ride in the pickup, he doesn't like verbal abuse ... his parents (and pack) didn't allow it to reach the point of hurtful even in the back seat on long trips.

Patrick S.

Fallacy hound feels grossly misunderstood as he has no intent to belittle anyone ...

[:)] Prov 27:17

Lee

Regarding use of certain canine devices, I would advise a healthy dose of restraint and self-examination, as Patrick S. points out.

One need only note a recent flag of "atrocious logic" and how fast it went downhill from there.