New rule proposal

[EduChris]

All of us have a basic, metaphysical framework that we operate within. None of us can "prove" or "confirm" that our metaphysical frame is "true and factual."

We have allowed on this forum one individual, with apparently more time on his hands than anyone else, to bully and cajole and inflame many good people for years now, with the result that discussion and debate on this forum is debased and degraded.

With some people, learning and reason and civility begin to prevail--but others seem impervious to such appeals. Many good people have left this forum because of senseless antics such as described, coming from one individual in particular.

See this post for an example.

I propose we ban demands for "confirmation" of metaphysical frameworks for anyone who has been on the forum long enough to have learned better. Newbies ought to be able to ask questions and learn, but after a certain amount of time or a certain amount of posts, if an individual still hasn't learned that metaphysical frameworks cannot be proven, then such persons should be told to stop the incessant bullying and cajoling.

[Jester]

My short answer is that, as frustrated as I am by some of the tactics to which you allude, I lean away from this.

But, because I've run into this myself, I believe (wisely or foolishly) I have more of value to add.

All of us have a basic, metaphysical framework that we operate within. None of us can "prove" or "confirm" that our metaphysical frame is "true and factual."

I'd say that we should be discussing which framework best describes experienced reality. As much as I dislike empty challenges, I feel that the solution is to ask the challenger to present a superior metaphysical framework for comparison.

We have allowed on this forum one individual, with apparently more time on his hands than anyone else, to bully and cajole and inflame many good people for years now, with the result that discussion and debate on this forum is debased and degraded.

Setting aside anyone who violates existing rules, I agree that there are some who repetitively demand evidence/proof for metaphysical positions without providing an alternative for consideration.
Personally, I created the usergroup "Seeks Answers" as a way of warning people that I would not be interacting with such individuals.
I've been hoping that the idea catches on, to the point that the 'metaphysical challenge' tactic ceases to be of any use.

I propose we ban demands for "confirmation" of metaphysical frameworks for anyone who has been on the forum long enough to have learned better. Newbies ought to be able to ask questions and learn, but after a certain amount of time or a certain amount of posts, if an individual still hasn't learned that metaphysical frameworks cannot be proven, then such persons should be told to stop the incessant bullying and cajoling.

I don't think that such behavior makes anyone who practices it look very good. A thoughtful person would, in my view, only be impressed by a person able and willing to support an alternative metaphysical position.

I'd say that the solution to this tactic is simply to alter one's claim in debate to something like "There is no more accurate description of reality than [metaphysical view X]".

Such a claim, by its very nature, cannot be challenged by someone who simply demands proof. It would require an alternative view to be presented.

[EduChris]

...As much as I dislike empty challenges, I feel that the solution is to ask the challenger to present a superior metaphysical framework for comparison...Personally, I created the usergroup "Seeks Answers" as a way of warning people that I would not be interacting with such individuals.
I've been hoping that the idea catches on, to the point that the 'metaphysical challenge' tactic ceases to be of any use...I'd say that the solution to this tactic is simply to alter one's claim in debate to something like "There is no more accurate description of reality than [metaphysical view X]"...

Those are all very good suggestions but it doesn't change the fact that Joey's behavior is uncivil and disruptive and a factor in causing good people to leave the forum. I can understand why there is some leeway for newbies who engage is such tactics, but Joey's been around long enough to know better.

The sad thing is that Joey could have a lot to contribute positively to the forum if he would channel his abundant energies into productive questions rather than his constant beating of dead horses.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Firstly, is it too much to ask for a PM when one is ostensibly seeking to ban either me or my methods?

All of us have a basic, metaphysical framework that we operate within. None of us can "prove" or "confirm" that our metaphysical frame is "true and factual."

I'm in general, if not full agreement.

We have allowed on this forum one individual, with apparently more time on his hands than anyone else...

How does one's time spent on this or any other site mean anything in this discussion?

to bully and cajole and inflame many good people for years now..

I don't doubt that many a Christian finds any challenge to their claims to be 'bullying, cajoling and inflaming'.

with the result that discussion and debate on this forum is debased and degraded.

It is my firm conviction that making claims, in debate, and then getting all upset when those claims are challenged is what constitutes "debased and degraded".

With some people, learning and reason and civility begin to prevail--but others seem impervious to such appeals. Many good people have left this forum because of senseless antics such as described, coming from one individual in particular.

I contend that "learning and reason and civility" can only prevail, in debate, when a claimant is willing to take responsibility for their claims.

That challenging claims gets some folks' feelings hurt is no concern of mine.

See this post for an example.

It's my contention EduChris has a deeply held belief in this regard - but is unable to support that belief - and now wants new rules to ensure such a claim is never challenged again, on this, a site dedicated to debate.

I propose we ban demands for "confirmation" of metaphysical frameworks for anyone who has been on the forum long enough to have learned better.

I propose we ask folks to just fess up as to the nature of their claims.

Newbies ought to be able to ask questions and learn, but after a certain amount of time or a certain amount of posts, if an individual still hasn't learned that metaphysical frameworks cannot be proven, then such persons should be told to stop the incessant bullying and cajoling.

I'm aware that many Christians consider any challenge to their unsupportable claims to be "bullying and cajoling".

I propose that if folks would just fess up as to the nature of their claims, my work here would likely cease.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 7:

Essentially, Joey's incessant demands are his way of shutting down the discussion...

Please note, I have no means by which to prevent folks from presenting any argument or post they wish to present.

Why might'n the challgenging of claims "shut down" a discussion? Could it be the claims are unsupportable, and folks ain't too happy when they can't support their claims?

by dictating...

Please note, I do not make the rules of this site, nor am I in a position to enforce them. Thus, the charge of my being a "dictator" is in your mind, and I can't help about that.

...to everyone else that the theistic metaphysical framework must be empirically demonstrated "true" before any discussion of the particulars of the Christian religion can take place.

When's the last time I showed up at someone's computer and prevented them from posting?

It is my contention your line of argument here is nothing more than your being upset because I challenge claims.

I see nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with a claimant saying, "Well, about that..."

But we don't get that, do we?

No, we get this -ahem- incessant drumbeat about how unfair it is to simply ask "how can we know you speak truth".

But this is an inherently hypocritical demand, since no metaphysical framework--theistic or non-theistic--can be empirically demonstrated true or false.

I contend that what is "hypocritical" is entering into a debate site and then getting all upset when one occurs.

[EduChris]

...I have no means by which to prevent folks from presenting any argument or post they wish to present...

Your behavior and your multiple posts (which all amount to the same thing) cause good people to avoid the site altogether. It is the repeated pattern of behavior, rather than any one single post, that adds up to incivility. All you need to do is stay within the parameters of the OP--don't keep insisting that all metaphysical questions must be fully addressed before anything else can be discussed. If you want to debate metaphysics, then go to the philosophy subforum.

...It is my contention your line of argument here is nothing more than your being upset because I challenge claims...

The answer to every one of your claims is precisely what Jester proposed, and what I and others have also said to you in various ways--viz, the claim is based not on the actual truth of the matter (which cannot be empirically proven one way or the other) but simply because no better working hypothesis is available, no better alternative metaphysical framework has been presented. And of course if you have something better to offer, then present it. Just don't shut down the discussion by repeated challenges regarding matters which can only be decided by weighing the only options currently on the metaphysical table.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 10:

...And then Joey blitzes in and stops the discussion right out of the gate...

I challenge EduChris to produce just one instance where I have stopped a discussion.

If I can stop the hundreds or thousands of people on this site from posting, I contend I'm God and y'all need to do as I say!

Joey does not have the right to dictate to everyone that all discussions must go through him and his incessant demands for "proof" of that which virtually every educated person admits cannot be proven, one way or the other.

Please note, I am NOT a moderator, nor am I in any position to prevent folks from presenting their best argument.

I am, however, in a position to challenge claims, and will NOT stop challenging those claims I deem worthy of challenge, until or unless I am prevented from doing so.

If we were to apply Joey's methodology consistently, we would need to force the nontheists to refrain from posting a single word unless and until they have proven to everyone's satisfaction that this universe really did just "poof" into existence as a result of some admixture of chance & necessity alone. Is that really what you want?

I make no claims regarding how the universe got here, but do expect those who claim they know how it did to offer something, anything by way of confirmation.

Offer the Bible.

Offer the Quran.

Offer the Brothers Grimm.

Offer any evidence you deem pertinent.

But for the love of all that's holy, quit complaining about claims getting challenged in a debate.

Joey's methods prevent any rational discussion at all.

It is my contention that if challenging a claim stops "rational discussion", the claim itself is irrational, and should be dismissed. Notice here now, I am most certainly NOT "dictating" what folks should or shouldn't do or think, and I for danged sure ain't seeking to prevent anyone from challenging my statement.

Go ahead, challenge it!

I'll offer up my evidence, and let the chips fall where they may.

But I won't carry on about how the mere challenging of a claim has "stopped" debate.

Numerous good people have left this forum because of Joey's bullying, hypocritical behavior. It's time to put a stop to it, so that discussion of religion can proceed.

I propose that EduChris, and that bunch that's left because I challenge claims, may find more comfort in Theology, Doctrine & Dogma, or Holy Huddle.

Again, I do NOT have the ability to prevent anyone from posting anything they wish to post, and find such a charge to be nothing more than a theist accepting the weaknesses of his own claims.

If Joey really wants to prove or disprove a metaphysical framework, he has the philosophy section available to him.

Please note, site rules don't require I prove that which I haven't claimed.

When folks challenge my claims, I'm ready to support them, explain the nature of the claim, or retract. I've plowed under more of my own claims than I care to admit.

"God don't want you a-doin' that!"

"How can I know you speak truth?"

Possible responses...

"Here's my evidence!"

"I contend it's the reasonable and logical conclusion."

"Well, about that..."

"I retract the claim "

"It's one of them metaphysical deals there, where I heap assumption on assumption, like we all do, but I swear it's important you accept it."

"Oh poor me, Joey's done gone and challenged my claim, and now I can't continue makin' it, even if he's way over yonder, and his arms ain't near long enough to reach over here and unplug my internet!"

[LiamOS]

Those are all very good suggestions but it doesn't change the fact that Joey's behavior is uncivil and disruptive and a factor in causing good people to leave the forum. I can understand why there is some leeway for newbies who engage is such tactics, but Joey's been around long enough to know better.

The sad thing is that Joey could have a lot to contribute positively to the forum if he would channel his abundant energies into productive questions rather than his constant beating of dead horses.

Here's my opinion:
Ironically, this behavior is not civil either. A much more appropriate course of action would've been to privately message the moderators about it(Or even Joey himself), as opposed to attempting to make a show of Joey. I'm still unsure of my stance on the rule you propose, but I'm sure of my stance on how you proposed it.
Further, this is not your first time publicly attempting to ridicule members of the forum with whom you disagree. To quote somebody who's been around long enough to know better, "It is the repeated pattern of behavior, rather than any one single post, that adds up to incivility".

And that concludes my involvement in this thread.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 12:

Those are all very good suggestions but it doesn't change the fact that Joey's behavior is uncivil and disruptive and a factor in causing good people to leave the forum. I can understand why there is some leeway for newbies who engage is such tactics, but Joey's been around long enough to know better.

I challenge a claim and note that often times the claimant is unable or unwilling to support their claim with any argument whatsoever, except to complain that the challenge is unfair. I contend that when such occurs, the observer is better able to judge the non/merits of the claim.

The sad thing is that Joey could have a lot to contribute positively to the forum if he would channel his abundant energies into productive questions rather than his constant beating of dead horses.

If them horses, dead or not, didn't keep making claims they can't support, I wouldn't keep a-beatin' 'em!

[EduChris]

...A much more appropriate course of action would've been to privately message the moderators about it(Or even Joey himself), as opposed to attempting to make a show of Joey...

A number of people have all tried to reason with Joey about his behavior, publicly and privately. For whatever reason, he remains intractable, and we lose good people here as a result. This is the "Suggestions" subforum; as such, it is an appropriate place to bring up a matter which has gone on for years now, with no sign of any letup.

...this is not your first time publicly attempting to ridicule members of the forum with whom you disagree...

Ad hominem. If you have a problem with my behavior, PM me or the moderators or propose a new rule here on this subform.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 15:

Your behavior and your multiple posts (which all amount to the same thing) cause good people to avoid the site altogether

If challenging claims is so upsetting, I can't help it.

It is the repeated pattern of behavior, rather than any one single post, that adds up to incivility.

Then tell folks to quit repeating claims.

All you need to do is stay within the parameters of the OP--don't keep insisting that all metaphysical questions must be fully addressed before anything else can be discussed.

I challenge you to present just one instance where I've declared folks can't post as they please.

If you want to debate metaphysics, then go to the philosophy subforum.

I'll post where I deem fit, thank you. When you start reporting any post you deem fit to report, perhaps then we'll get an understanding of what posts go where.

The answer to every one of your claims is precisely what Jester proposed, and what I and others have also said to you in various ways--viz, the claim is based not on the actual truth of the matter (which cannot be empirically proven one way or the other) but simply because no better working hypothesis is available, no better alternative metaphysical framework has been presented.

Then we should expect folks to at least say as much when their claims are challenged.

And of course if you have something better to offer, then present it. Just don't shut down the discussion by repeated challenges regarding matters which can only be decided by weighing the only options currently on the metaphysical table.

He says while attempting to shut down challenges. It is my contention that if we shut down challenges, we shut down debate.

I contend that it is reasonable and logical to conclude a claimant has their evidence at the ready when they go to making claims. That challenges to these claims cause folks to get all upset is of no concern to me.