![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Forum Etiquette
We expect all members to conduct themselves in a manner which encourages growth in our community, and fosters an atmosphere of learning.
I - Abusive behavior is strictly prohibited. Obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any communication through our forums which threatens, belittles, or otherwise demeans our members will not be tolerated.
II - Personal attacks are strictly prohibited. While it's normal for debates to sometimes grow heated, all comments should remain focused on the actual theories being presented, and/or the responses to challenges from fellow posters. We do not tolerate posts which demean another user on a personal level.
III - Offensive comments referring to a person's gender, race, ethnicity, age, or sexual orientation made with the intent to offend are strictly prohibited. Using offensive language may result in the termination of your account.
IV - General disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. Disruptive behaviors include the following
a) Posts deemed by the moderators to be devoid of any intelligent content.
b) Repeated refusal to cite sources or other evidence to support your claims.
c) Repeated refusal to respond to a moderators request.
d) We do not provide a medium for circular debates which have no end. If a debate has gone on a significant length of time, and the moderators feel that it's going nowhere, they are charged with refocusing the debate, or when that fails, to end it. If a thread is locked, do not start a new thread resurrecting old issues.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain » July 7th, 2017, 1:00 am wrote:Incorrect. Because terrorism was NOT defined as the use of force but the use of violence for a specific purpose. It only falls under the definition when you equivocate force with violence and completely ignore (for the purpose of empty rhetoric alone) the part about the purpose for which it is used.
To illustrate with another example. Bank robbers use force to get the money in a bank. Sure they create fear in order to manipulate people but that was not how terrorism was defined either. Bank robbers are not terrorists. They may be equally contemptible but they are still not terrorists because they don't fit the definition. You keep leaving out key features of the definition to suit the purpose of empty rhetoric.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Lomax » July 11th, 2017, 6:26 pm wrote:The rules seem mostly fine. I look forward to you following the part of rule 3 about dictating what other people think.mitchellmckain » July 7th, 2017, 1:00 am wrote:Incorrect. Because terrorism was NOT defined as the use of force but the use of violence for a specific purpose. It only falls under the definition when you equivocate force with violence and completely ignore (for the purpose of empty rhetoric alone) the part about the purpose for which it is used.
To illustrate with another example. Bank robbers use force to get the money in a bank. Sure they create fear in order to manipulate people but that was not how terrorism was defined either. Bank robbers are not terrorists. They may be equally contemptible but they are still not terrorists because they don't fit the definition. You keep leaving out key features of the definition to suit the purpose of empty rhetoric.
(My italics.)
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Lomax » July 11th, 2017, 8:24 pm wrote:There you go again. Imputing motives to others. How does this reconcile with your rule 3?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
wolfhnd » July 11th, 2017, 8:28 pm wrote:The point I was trying to make is that not everything you find offensive is worthy of not just shaking off and it is dangerous to assume the intentions of others. Turning the forums into a police state so as to assure no one's feelings will be hurt is likely to do nothing but reduce participation.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain » July 12th, 2017, 2:27 am wrote:Lomax » July 11th, 2017, 8:24 pm wrote:There you go again. Imputing motives to others. How does this reconcile with your rule 3?
I did not impute any motives to you. I asked you to keep to the topic of the thread and make an actual statement about what rules you agree with and what you do not!
Can we take it that you do not agree with number 5 since you are dragging us into a dispute from another thread?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain » Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:32 am wrote:wolfhnd » July 11th, 2017, 8:28 pm wrote:The point I was trying to make is that not everything you find offensive is worthy of not just shaking off and it is dangerous to assume the intentions of others. Turning the forums into a police state so as to assure no one's feelings will be hurt is likely to do nothing but reduce participation.
I agree.
But why does an exploration of what we think a "respectful discussion" means equate to a police state.
Why is this discussion forbidden? Is it because people don't like turning an analytical eye upon themselves perhaps?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
wolfhnd » July 11th, 2017, 8:58 pm wrote:
Could be because we see the pernicious effect of good intentions to limit free speech on university campuses.
wolfhnd » July 11th, 2017, 8:58 pm wrote: If you have read the Soviet Union's constitution and looked at the actual conditions people lived under it becomes clear why liberal democracies are horrible places where no one is safe from being verbally attacked but paradoxically are the best places to live. Creating set of rules is meaningless without enforcement.
wolfhnd » July 11th, 2017, 8:58 pm wrote:I'm an authoritarian and moral busybody by nature but I see the flaws in this approach to social interaction.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain » July 11th, 2017, 8:53 pm wrote:Is the difficulty with this topic that people are suspicious of my motivation?
I have no desire whatsoever to accuse anyone of breaking any of these rules.
So why did I raise this topic?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain » July 11th, 2017, 8:22 pm wrote:1. We do not call the other person derogatory names.
2. We do not say that they are lacking in intelligence or good moral character. This does not include judgments regarding what they say for smart people can say stupid things and people of good moral character can say things which have terrible implications for morality. We can point these things out assuming their intelligence and good moral character will recognize the mistake in their words.
3. We do not attribute words of our own choosing to them, dictating what they think or say but stick to the words they have posted without altering them in any way.
4. We do not say they believe or support a particular position which they have not specifically stated they believe or support without overwhelming evidence provided.
5. We confine our responses to the particular topic of discussion and do not wander off into disputes from other threads or launch into discussion of a personal nature seeing it as our job to improve their character.
6. We try to address what people are saying rather than focus upon or complain about how they are saying it.
7. We do not state guesses about their personal lives as fact just because our imagination suggests such a thing, deluding ourselves that an internet discussion can possibly be enough to come to such conclusions.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mitchellmckain » July 12th, 2017, 2:22 am wrote:I hope such a meta-discussion isn't to volatile, but this does seem to be an appropriate venue for discussing the more specific ethics regarding discussion itself. I confess this is part of an ongoing dialogue between Athena and myself. In any case, I proposed these as rules for respectful discussion, and thought I should get more feedback than just from Athena alone.
So as I suggested before, what we could do is try to find out what sort of rules we would agree upon as part of respectful discussion. So I shall throw a few out there and see if there are any you agree with.
1. We do not call the other person derogatory names.
2. We do not say that they are lacking in intelligence or good moral character. This does not include judgments regarding what they say for smart people can say stupid things and people of good moral character can say things which have terrible implications for morality. We can point these things out assuming their intelligence and good moral character will recognize the mistake in their words.
3. We do not attribute words of our own choosing to them, dictating what they think or say but stick to the words they have posted without altering them in any way.
4. We do not say they believe or support a particular position which they have not specifically stated they believe or support without overwhelming evidence provided.
5. We confine our responses to the particular topic of discussion and do not wander off into disputes from other threads or launch into discussion of a personal nature seeing it as our job to improve their character.
6. We try to address what people are saying rather than focus upon or complain about how they are saying it.
7. We do not state guesses about their personal lives as fact just because our imagination suggests such a thing, deluding ourselves that an internet discussion can possibly be enough to come to such conclusions.
There is a start... what do you think?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
wolfhnd » July 12th, 2017, 11:56 am wrote:This whole discussion seems to ignore that there are existing rules that get enforce when necessary. The when necessary is the important part because the mods have lives. Even if the rules were enforced without exception the total elimination of trolls is impossible. I would rather the mods devote their limited free time to discussion than policing the forums.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
BadgerJelly » July 12th, 2017, 1:41 pm wrote:An awful lot is to do with familiarity. I would say certain things to members are am more familiar with than with someone new to the site. Every site has a certain "community" and getting a feel of the different members is probably what we really mean about being "respectful"?
BadgerJelly » July 12th, 2017, 1:41 pm wrote:Generally if someone asks you to voice your opinion about their thoughts on X and they are VERY specific about what they are asking for, you should respect their wishes and attempt to give what they are asking for before giving your own take on a related subject. This is not a rule more something of a self-checking system we all fail at some point and find ourselves stuck on this or that subject due to what we've recently been reading/studying.
BadgerJelly » July 12th, 2017, 1:41 pm wrote:I think mitch's set of guidelines are ones we all generally try to remember. For different people they may shift. If I feel that being more caustic in my remarks helps get the point across I will try this.
BadgerJelly » July 12th, 2017, 1:41 pm wrote:Like Annie Lennox says "Some of them want to abuse you. Some of them want to be abused." I would be lying if I said I was not guilty of both of these at some point. Some subjects make us feel under attack and other more comfortable.
BadgerJelly » July 12th, 2017, 1:41 pm wrote:I really think on this kind of forum it is the tough and demanding questions that really bring out reactions. Strong feelings and passions can tell us a great deal about our own biases and beliefs. They can help reveal points we need to work on in our presentation and/or reasoning.
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests