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?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
Comments
- 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.
- Not every disagreement is worthy a response.
- 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.
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:
There are probably some more.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
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)
"As any translator will attest, a literal translation is no translation at all."
Looks like Oklahoma. Notice the utility pole is leaning to the left. A tornado must have gone through here.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
Looks like the ghost town is down to foundations only ... at least nothing above grass height. I like it[:D]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
I am in the middle of writing a book on American conservative philosophy (its roots, what it is, how it is misunderstood even by alleged Conservatives, etc.), and I have a chapter on "feminized discourse" that is germane to this thread. And I have a lot to say that some might or might not find interesting; I don't know how far we can or should push this thread. Prolly I'll just post this up and people will get mad at me and that will be the end of it. [:P]
I agree with much of what has been said; for example, it is not only appropriate but essential to understand your adversary's position. Indeed, you should ideally understand it better than they do.
Well and fine.
However, I have noticed that there is a decided aversion in this forum (and elsewhere) to feisty and spirited debate; that is what I personally grew up on, and I must say it’s a bit of a culture shock to meet people (in both the virtual and real world, and here) who put such an overwhelming premium on being sensitive, “perspectival” etc.
And yet, that^ is not quite true after all.
What is a bit closer to the truth is that demands that people be more “sensitive” and “nuanced” and “perspectival” (and all the other ways we try to feminize what such people call “discourse”) are usually made when a person doesn’t agree with the content of the post, irrespective of the "mode of discourse" employed.
I have many times been told in seminars that my "discourse" is "phallic" - by both men and women who believe they deserve to be affirmed at every point in the conversation; and that their viewpoints ought to be confirmed no matter how wrong-headed. This is why Aristotle is so despised in some circles: his modal logic is as inexorable as it is powerful.
This is a sad state of affairs and the result of years and years of mis-training people into believing that their viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's merely because they hold it; who have been insulated from "penetrating" questioning for so long that they are not used to having to defend their positions cogently; and, indeed, cannot do so.
In other words, these demands are more often than not ways of insulating oneself from penetrating analysis and rigorous thinking; as well as ways of controlling conversations and debate so that it conforms to one's own viewpoint.
I have seen it over and over again in this forum: if a post expresses a consensus opinion content-wise, one can be as impolite (“snarky”) as one likes and it goes un-noticed; whereas, if a post’s content expresses a non-consensus position, it is perceive it as impolite, however politely written. I have noticed (and noted) this on many threads in this forum.
In short, it seems to me that for many people perceptions of “polite” or “impolite” posts are highly (if not almost completely) mediated by whether that person agrees or disagrees with the content of the post.
As for me, my education and upbringing was entirely conducted upon spirited debate and often in tutorials with very intimidating and able adversaries as tutors; I am very used to the rough and tumble of verbal debate and do not mind at all a bit of feistiness - indeed, I relish it. And look on with chagrin at its loss in a verbal culture that has been so Carol Gilligan-ated and feminized.
~Butters [:)]
“To love means loving the unlovable. To forgive means pardoning the unpardonable. Faith means believing the unbelievable. Hope means hoping when everything seems hopeless.” ~Chesterton
However, I have noticed that there is a decided aversion in this forum (and elsewhere) to feisty and spirited debate;
Part of the reason for that is that the forum guidelines tell us that this is not a place for debate, spirited or otherwise.
And look on with chagrin at its loss in a verbal culture that has been so . . . feminized.
To consider politeness to being feminine and 'rough and tumble...verbal debate' to being masculine is to live in a world I do not live in. I know too many 'rough and tumble' sharp-tongued women and too many 'polite' men. I don't believe the traits to which you refer are inherently feminine or masculine, but rather aggressive vs. passive-aggressive (would that be fair?). Honestly, I do prefer aggressive to passive-aggressive, in the way I prefer bullets to booby-traps. On the other hand, both types of aggression (overt vs. covert), make me suspicious that the person holding the position is not totally convinced him/herself.
As to your 'charge' that agreement with the consensus is treated differently than disagreement as to degrees of politeness, I must say that I haven't seen it quite that way, but I do try to avoid the debate threads as much as possible. I wish I were better at it. And I even wonder whether I should debate you about the nature of debate in this thread. (!)
Note: I have no idea who Carol Gilligan is, except for what I skimmed in a wikipedia article.
Help links: WIKI; Logos 6 FAQ. (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
On the other hand, both types of aggression (overt vs. covert), make me suspicious that the person holding the position is not totally convinced him/herself
Now that's passive-aggressive!
I once had a feminist say my having lots of children was my attempt to convince myself I was not a homosexual. I just (confidently) assured her I needed no convincing.
Note: I have no idea who Carol Gilligan is, except for what I skimmed in a wikipedia article.
Me either. Butters could have just said Gilligan and accomplished the same message. [*-)]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
Note: I have no idea who Carol Gilligan is, except for what I skimmed in a wikipedia article.Me either. Butters could have just said Gilligan and accomplished the same message.
+1. I suspected a connection to Gilligan's Island, but after having read a bit about Carol and the "ethics of care" approach, I think this reference is butt on *)
My, male, summary of what I learned in ten minutes: "for the feminine side (however defined) of ethics, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong, but only that relationships don't get hurt". While I concede that some of Butters' observations are not totally out of place, I think it's a legitime interest of Logos as our provider and rule-maker as well as of the many forum users coming from very different areas of faith (or even un-faith) to make sure that people won't get hurt here. And we have no chance to establish who is or was right or wrong in faith, dogmatics, practice or even history. Going round circle, however, this IMO entitles Butters and others to hold a critical view against e.g. the mainstream "Abrahamic ecumenic" view of Islam. Logos should provide resources to research such questions from various angles - but we probably won't be able to reach a consensus here.
Mick
*) non-native speaker's weak attempt at a pun - normally we should refrain from even trying. Please don't whack me with hard, blunt & phallic-looking objects, I will edit my post if it hurts anyone....
Have joy in the Lord! 
[:D]
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
I learned to argue well from my father ... mother would often ask to be let out of the car rather than listen.[:P]
However, I learned to argue in the context of a small community - 3 room school for 8 grades; town of 125 counting Grandma's goats. Being able to rely upon one's neighbor was a higher value than proving one's self to be right. Drive off the dirt road in a snow storm and you want to trust the closest neighbor ... who was bound to be within a couple of miles most the time.
I also learned to argue in an academic environment from the head of my committee. He was so "sweet" that some students became sick the first few days he was back from sabbatical. Luckily, professors around the world had the utmost respect for him ... and did not want to work on joint projects with him.
I learned to reason from Dad and from a computer ... a billion dollar payroll does not allow for errors
I learned from experience that being aggressive rather than factual guarantees I will be ineffective.
Not sure where masculine/feminine fit into it. My style is closest to Dad and my elder brother. Mother, my sister and my other brother are less argumentative ... perhaps that is why the older brother was a research engineer ... and the younger was university administration.
P.S. Coalescent Argumentation by Michael A. Gilbert presents a model that I believe to fit well in the context of religious discussion as does An Apology for Apologetics: A Study in the Logic of Interreligious Dialogue by Griffiths, Paul J.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
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]
george
gfsomsel
יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן
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.[;)]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
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. 
"I read dead people..."
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.
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.
does buying Noet make you instantly a non-believer?
[:)] Nope ... but non-believers have more reason to purchase Noet than Logos
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
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.
Philippians 4: 4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........
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:
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.
"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein
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.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
Fallacy hound feels grossly misunderstood as he has no intent to belittle anyone ...
[:)] Prov 27:17
"I want to know all God's thoughts; the rest are just details." - Albert Einstein
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.
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.
exactly
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."