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.

[JoeyKnothead]

On the issue of whether a claim or challenge is or is not on topic, I present the following thread as a prime example of how what one considers topical, another may not...

Christianity & Apologetics: Ephesians 2:10.

Notice, where I sincerely felt that by challenging the single statement within its original thread, I couldn't tell if such a challenge would be acceptable or not.

So, I singled the statement out, linking back to it so folks could see the entire post, to ensure they could see it in context. I didn't even mention the new OP within the old thread to ensure that no challenge was presented that may then be considered "off-topic".

So, I feel the statement itself is ripe for challenge - but, do I start a new OP, where by addressing the sole claim, I'm now considered as taking it out of context - creating an "off-topic" form of challenge in a new OP, or do I risk derailing a thread, as some claim for any "off-topic" challenge?

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but some of us are simply unaware of just how to tell by an objective measure what can be, as I contend the above referenced OP shows, a subjective determination (topicality).

Notice too, it is a moderator who is having difficulty understanding under what context my OP is being presented (realizing I may well be missing something, while contending I ain't). If we have difficulty understanding what context an OP is presented, can't we reasonably conclude that by challenging a claim it may simply be a fact that the challenger doesn't understand the context under which a statement or claim is made?

I propose that where we see "off-topic" challenges, we do not sanction such, but expect a claimant to clarify the "topicality" of their claim.

I do not seek to play "debate games", I do not seek to feign ignorance when I know full well a claim has been presented with certain qualifiers. What I do seek is an understanding that just because the rhetorical "you" may see a claim within a given context, others may not.

[EduChris]

...do I start a new OP....I do not seek to play "debate games", I do not seek to feign ignorance when I know full well a claim has been presented with certain qualifiers...

I suspect that TGAs comments have been directed at you on the thread you reference at least partly because of the "cry wolf" syndrome. You have started so many unnecessary, redundant, off-top posts and threads and challenges in the past, so that now every thread you start, evey post you make, is automatically placed into the "here he goes again" bucket, unless there is some good reason to suppose you have actually started a thread apart from "debate games" and "feigned ignorance."

I wonder why you are so quick to start a new thread, when in fact there are already numerous existing threads wherein interested people are already engaged in conversation about the very point you are raising?

All that said, I am waiting for your response to this post.

[ThatGirlAgain]

On the issue of whether a claim or challenge is or is not on topic, I present the following thread as a prime example of how what one considers topical, another may not...

Christianity & Apologetics: Ephesians 2:10.

Notice, where I sincerely felt that by challenging the single statement within its original thread, I couldn't tell if such a challenge would be acceptable or not.

So, I singled the statement out, linking back to it so folks could see the entire post, to ensure they could see it in context. I didn't even mention the new OP within the old thread to ensure that no challenge was presented that may then be considered "off-topic".

So, I feel the statement itself is ripe for challenge - but, do I start a new OP, where by addressing the sole claim, I'm now considered as taking it out of context - creating an "off-topic" form of challenge in a new OP, or do I risk derailing a thread, as some claim for any "off-topic" challenge?

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but some of us are simply unaware of just how to tell by an objective measure what can be, as I contend the above referenced OP shows, a subjective determination (topicality).

Notice too, it is a moderator who is having difficulty understanding under what context my OP is being presented (realizing I may well be missing something, while contending I ain't). If we have difficulty understanding what context an OP is presented, can't we reasonably conclude that by challenging a claim it may simply be a fact that the challenger doesn't understand the context under which a statement or claim is made?

I propose that where we see "off-topic" challenges, we do not sanction such, but expect a claimant to clarify the "topicality" of their claim.

I do not seek to play "debate games", I do not seek to feign ignorance when I know full well a claim has been presented with certain qualifiers. What I do seek is an understanding that just because the rhetorical "you" may see a claim within a given context, others may not.

As I thought I made clear, I was not being a mod in that thread, just cranky old (20!!!) TGA.

It was the apparent implications of the presentation - a direct reference to a post written in a certain context and the context-laden thread title (a scriptural reference) - juxtaposed with the context switching tone of the OP that struck me as very problematic. In short, a statement made in a certain specific context was extracted from that context and a justification sought for that now anchorless statement. In even shorter, an out of context challenge. (Off-topic challenge is the wrong phrase IMO.)

As I said, it is not the topic that is the issue. It is the presentation and its hard to avoid inference of asking for justification of a biblical reference with a stated scope of biblical references but in a non-biblical setting. IMO it is exactly this kind of thing that the 'shouting' is all about in this thread.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 74:

...do I start a new OP....I do not seek to play "debate games", I do not seek to feign ignorance when I know full well a claim has been presented with certain qualifiers...

I suspect that TGAs comments have been directed at you on the thread you reference at least partly because of the "cry wolf" syndrome. You have started so many unnecessary, redundant, off-top posts and threads and challenges in the past...

I don't doubt many folks describe or consider challenges to claims in the manner you describe.

so that now every thread you start, evey post you make, is automatically placed into the "here he goes again" bucket, unless there is some good reason to suppose you have actually started a thread apart from "debate games" and "feigned ignorance."

I present challenges because I seek the truth. If such truth can be resolved with a simple, "Well, about that..." I contend we're that much closer to it. The truth of a given matter may well be grounded in irrefutable fact, it may well be grounded in reasoned and logical conclusions, and it may well be grounded in "the Bible said it, so it's true". I contend that without challenging a given claim, we're left to wonder.

I accept any charge of ignorance one seeks to lay on me. I contend this ignorance is best cured by seeking the truth.

I wonder why you are so quick to start a new thread, when in fact there are already numerous existing threads wherein interested people are already engaged in conversation about the very point you are raising?

I think the confusion here is a prime example of why we shouldn't discourage or sanction challengers. Where I, me, JoeyKnothead, may have my own context, even if not spelled out, I present challenges or OPs to discuss such. Often though, folks jump to their conclusions as to what I'm trying to get at, or jump to their conclusions regarding what I may or may not "allow" folks, whom I have no control over, to post. As I've said many, many times, I don't care what folks present in support of their claims, nor do I continually challenge a claim where a claimant has clarified, supported, or retracted. Notice, in this regard, I'm willing to accept that one's evidence is fine for them, but I may challenge or argue against their conclusions drawn from such.

So, if only to me, the Bible is evidence insofar as that's what folks use as their evidence (circular maybe, but there, I said it). I contend it's the conclusions drawn from the Bible that are so often faulty.

All that said, I am waiting for your response to this post.

I'm trying to get to ya quick as I can, and feel you deserve a response.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 75:

As I thought I made clear, I was not being a mod in that thread, just cranky old (20!!!) TGA.

Agreed on the first bit, but downright refusing to accept you're just a cranky old anything. My point was that you are indeed a moderator, and that as such, your ability to understand from a mod's perspective shows that sometimes even the best of us - and you are most certainly among the best - are unable to understand in just what context a given deal is presented. That works from my POV as well - where I may and often do have difficulty explaining my own position.

By no means did I seek to imply you were making rulings, and I do 'preciate that we are having that discussion. I'm willing to admit to any error I may make, but I just don't think I have in that thread, which is from my context, not the original claimant's.

It was the apparent implications of the presentation - a direct reference to a post written in a certain context and the context-laden thread title (a scriptural reference) - juxtaposed with the context switching tone of the OP that struck me as very problematic. In short, a statement made in a certain specific context was extracted from that context and a justification sought for that now anchorless statement. In even shorter, an out of context challenge. (Off-topic challenge is the wrong phrase IMO.)

And my point of view is that I linked to the entire post to ensure context, that I then presented the pertinent part of what I sought to address, and that I've done everything I can to explain that I understand the statement to be from a Christian perspective. I placed that OP in the context of apologetics, not Christian belief.

As I said, it is not the topic that is the issue. It is the presentation and its hard to avoid inference of asking for justification of a biblical reference with a stated scope of biblical references but in a non-biblical setting. IMO it is exactly this kind of thing that the 'shouting' is all about in this thread.

But how come I've avoided the inference? I contend that where you fail to understand the context in which I placed that OP, or where I failed to properly explain the context, your challenges to me within that thread will help us all come to a better understanding of the claim in question.

You ostensibly argue in that thread that I don't even understand the context in which I presented my own OP.



Christianity & Apologetics.

So, some folks are gonna say such as, "In my belief system, which is Christianity, there's this...".

Cool. Now, what I typically try to do is to remove the context or perspective of the belief system, in this case Christianity, and turn it into an issue of apologetics. I contend that I am within the rules of this site, and the subforum in question when I do. I fully agree that a poster or claimant will have their belief, they'll have their perspective, they'll have their context. How could they not? I don't say that a poster can't present their belief, I don't say they can't present anything they want in support of that belief, and I don't even say they can't change or disagree with my own context* if that is what is required to support their notions. *While remaining within site/forum rules and guidelines.

Granted, I could have or should have fully explained the context under which that OP was presented, within the OP itself. Hindsight is indeed brilliant. I contend though that by answering challenges to that context, I've done the best I possibly can to ensure folks understand exactly under what context the OP was presented. That folks may disagree and say my own context is in error is fine with me, as I can't force anyone to accept anything. And of course, I agree that I may fail in my ability to explain the context in which I presented my own OP.

[ThatGirlAgain]

From Post 75:

As I thought I made clear, I was not being a mod in that thread, just cranky old (20!!!) TGA.

Agreed on the first bit, but downright refusing to accept you're just a cranky old anything. My point was that you are indeed a moderator, and that as such, your ability to understand from a mod's perspective shows that sometimes even the best of us - and you are most certainly among the best - are unable to understand in just what context a given deal is presented. That works from my POV as well - where I may and often do have difficulty explaining my own position.

By no means did I seek to imply you were making rulings, and I do 'preciate that we are having that discussion. I'm willing to admit to any error I may make, but I just don't think I have in that thread, which is from my context, not the original claimant's.

It was the apparent implications of the presentation - a direct reference to a post written in a certain context and the context-laden thread title (a scriptural reference) - juxtaposed with the context switching tone of the OP that struck me as very problematic. In short, a statement made in a certain specific context was extracted from that context and a justification sought for that now anchorless statement. In even shorter, an out of context challenge. (Off-topic challenge is the wrong phrase IMO.)

And my point of view is that I linked to the entire post to ensure context, that I then presented the pertinent part of what I sought to address, and that I've done everything I can to explain that I understand the statement to be from a Christian perspective. I placed that OP in the context of apologetics, not Christian belief.

As I said, it is not the topic that is the issue. It is the presentation and its hard to avoid inference of asking for justification of a biblical reference with a stated scope of biblical references but in a non-biblical setting. IMO it is exactly this kind of thing that the 'shouting' is all about in this thread.

But how come I've avoided the inference? I contend that where you fail to understand the context in which I placed that OP, or where I failed to properly explain the context, your challenges to me within that thread will help us all come to a better understanding of the claim in question.

You ostensibly argue in that thread that I don't even understand the context in which I presented my own OP.



Christianity & Apologetics.

So, some folks are gonna say such as, "In my belief system, which is Christianity, there's this...".

Cool. Now, what I typically try to do is to remove the context or perspective of the belief system, in this case Christianity, and turn it into an issue of apologetics. I contend that I am within the rules of this site, and the subforum in question when I do. I fully agree that a poster or claimant will have their belief, they'll have their perspective, they'll have their context. How could they not? I don't say that a poster can't present their belief, I don't say they can't present anything they want in support of that belief, and I don't even say they can't change or disagree with my own context* if that is what is required to support their notions. *While remaining within site/forum rules and guidelines.

Granted, I could have or should have fully explained the context under which that OP was presented, within the OP itself. Hindsight is indeed brilliant. I contend though that by answering challenges to that context, I've done the best I possibly can to ensure folks understand exactly under what context the OP was presented. That folks may disagree and say my own context is in error is fine with me, as I can't force anyone to accept anything. And of course, I agree that I may fail in my ability to explain the context in which I presented my own OP.

Nobody said anything about rules. Like I said no moderatifyin' going on.

All I am saying is that if your context is other than that of the post you quote and link to and what would reasonably seem to be implied by the thread title, make your assumptions/context clear and explicit. Otherwise you will not be understood by everyone and the debate on how to debate will continue to be debated. Or debatified.