Gentle reminder

[The Paineful Truth]

The tone of conversations here at PD has been relaxed and friendly for the past three years. The standards here are so high that the moderators intervene but rarely. In the spirit of freedom of expression no lines are drawn which cannot be crossed, but it is consistent abuse of this freedom which will bring action.
Dad.

So, once again I ask, what's brought this all up? I don't see a problem, and judging by your post, it looks like you don't either.

[Helium]

Yeah Nada, like I say if I take my wife to a restaurant we usually have a grand ol' time but the tone and ambieance is really you know quaint or something.

The other day I was on kinda of a blind date for a buddy and, again the tone and demeanour are kinda like, you know, really civilized like about all the renovations at home, what our jobs are etc.

But if I'm out at my favourite pub with a couple of my best friends, if we're not playing pool then chances are we might get into a real animated discussion.

As I say I'll definitely respect the forum's demeanour, for sure.

But I'm just more of a fan of animated discussion than idle chit chat, actually one of my weaknesses is my inability to engage in idle chit chat.

Although, ironically, my wife tends to see my non-idle chit chat in these forums as pretty idle Oh well, least she knows where I am

[paine_wwweb_r]

It keeps you off the street...

...unless, of course, you are on a laptop stealing someone's bandwidth...




PW

[Helium]

It keeps you off the street...

...unless, of course, you are on a laptop stealing someone's bandwidth...

I have a hard enough convincing by nine-year-old to give me come computer time

[MarkN]

But I'm just more of a fan of animated discussion than idle chit chat

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the issue here is animated discussion, which I believe is fine. My interpretation is:

Discussion A
Speaker 1: "I believe that left is really right and right is really left."

Speaker 2: "I disagree because I've always seen right as right and left as left."

Speaker A: "I believe that I can support my stance, but I respect you in taking your stance."

Discussion B:
Speaker 1: "I believe that left is really right and right is really left."

Speaker 2: "I disagree because I've always seen right as right and left as left."

Speaker 1: "You are no better than an ignorant religious fundamentalist to hold such as view. I have thought about my view and therefore only I can be right."

Speaker 2: "I'm sorry, I still disagree with you."

Speaker 1: "Only a fool would hold to that opinion. I can't understand why you insist on being ignorant."

Discussion A, as animated as it may get, is fine. Discussion B is what this forum wishes to avoid.

Do I have that right?

[Dad]

Yes, Mark, plus anything that comes close to that style. (edited)

I thought your earlier post summed it up nicely

In addition to the fact this website is for "Positive Deism", I signed up because of the posting policy. There are plenty of Blog's out there where I can be told what I think is wrong. This Blog is more of a haven and place for intelligent discussion. A place to go and not have my blood pressure rise as a result. Reason and Respect.

Dad.

[paine_wwweb_r]

One of the truly animating factors of a discussion group like this one emerges from the desire we all have to learn from one another. Being in a group in which many variations on the theme are allowable gives all of us the chance to hear and consider points of view that we may not have considered before. Antagonizing each other diminishes our ability to gain anything from the discourse.

Some people need a discussion group that engages in Fox-News-style shouting matches. Those groups are animated in a different way. That's fine. They can go find those groups. This is not one of them.

The bottom line is that none of us can prove, with no doubt whatsoever, that we are right. But if we assume that each of us has something to contribute and that none of us is any more wrong than anyone else, we cultivate learning and understanding.

That's why I'm more at home here than on any other religion/spirituality online discussion group. And it's why we try to keep it that way.


PW

[Dad]

Excellent points, PW. A fine post.

Dad.

[Helium]

I hear ya Mark.

That's one of my mantras, which is basically the second posting rule here, about never ever criticizing the speaker, only commenting on your perception of the logic behind what he says. I have to say, and it's not a comment on anything specifically here or DD or whatever that different people want different levels of engagement and intensity in discussing that logic. For instance, again if I'm talking with my wife, a lot of the time she just wants acknowledgement of what she said, that that's her opinion, and not have everything totally scrutinized and challenged. And I have lots of real friends that fit in with this and online friends that fit in with this

On the other hand I have real friends that, like me, prefer to get into an animated discussions and online friends that fit in with this. And certainly, for me, I think I'm sensitive enough, but perhaps not, to engage in both types of discussion. Sometimes the second one is definitely inappropriate even if non-threatening cause it can just give everyone a headache. The second type can, I would say more easily generate into road rage, but at this state of my life (Very busy) that's why I only enter into it, basically, with trusted friends. Again at this stage of my life I'm not trying to change the world, I'm just trying to get the kid off to school and the mortgage paid down.

So I guess this can also serve as clarification that there is a difference between the animated discussions that I have had the privelege to enjoy with my friends, and the road rage or Fox shouting matches or shock radio and TV that painew keeps alluding to. For the record, I haven't watched or listened to five seconds of HOward Stern or any other shock TV personality. Again I'm totally in support of your rule number two, so much so that if I were ever to sponsor my own website (when I retire ) I'd probably use it word for word.

Anyway I do also understand Paine's concern 'bout not givin' everyone a headache

Cheers!

[Dad]

I have read these comments and taken them on board. I, too, am torn the same as Helium and Nada. Perhaps the essence of that position is that we are able to see both sides in any situation: therefore we are less inclined to shout down opposition the way a purist or extremist is liable to do.

There is no mandate on these forums to see all sides in a discussion. Intransigence does not lead to being banned. There is nothing wrong with being a purist. But what's the point of discussion if all we are doing is blinkeredly pressing that point of view? Putting forward a strong case is fine - if one is open to considering an equally strong argument against. Not being open to the argument against is not an offence here, but when that intransigence repeatedly escalates into rudeness and personal attack the moderators will step in and remove the offender.

Purists particularly must become aware of the danger of allowing emotion to get the better of them. Unfortunately the moderators have found it necessary to ban a member here in the last few days. Some will disagree with the move, others will heave a sigh of relief. The decision is not irrevocable but a change of heart in the moderators will rest upon a change of heart in the member.

Pax vobiscum.

[Yehya]

Greetings

I think there can be several levels of criticism, or disagreement. Some are constructive and some not.

Constructive criticism can be where you disagree with the substence of the arguement being posted and have valid reasons why.

Constructive criticism can also be directed towards the style of the writing which I think we tend to avoid but some of us, myself especially, could use. For I not only want to refine my theories and arguements but how I present them. I can have the most insightful viewpoint on a topic imaginable but if I can't present it clearly and concisely where others can easily understand it what use is it to any but myself? how can I learn from others if I can't convey my own meaning. I don't know if others are interested in this type of criticism as well but it would be good if there could be a place for it.

Non constructive criticism is the type applied not to the arguement, or the style, but the person of the poster. The other thing to avoid is what I call the cheap hit. I take the role of critic or opponent as not to "win" the argument through clever words or a more polished style but help the opponent to more clearly state his or her arguement and refine it so that both can arrive at a reasonable understanding of the positions being debated. I am constantly trying to learn from those that are wiser then I am, which includes just about everyone, and often when their meaning isn't clear it becomes so through questioning.


Peace - Yehya

[iDeismFounder]

I think we all welcome constructive criticism, but we should always be deferential to the person. At Cathy stated in another post, we all arrive at our consclusions differently. Just because we may not choose to employ the others method it does not make it wrong. This is especially true for something as intangible as God. As the board says: "Reason and Respect in all you think, say, and do."