Incivility versus recognition of a person's obvious agenda?

[Divine Insight]

Where is the line between acknowledging someone's obvious agenda and being given a warning for personal incivility?

If a person starts a "Series of Threads" that they have even been numbering specifically for the purpose of arguing for, (or "preaching"), a very specific religious agenda, and another person acknowledges that agenda, should that amount to "Incivility"?

Especially when there was absolutely no negative or derogatory implications made at all.

Why should a person receive a warning for acknowledging the obvious religious agenda of another person, especially in a case where the agenda is blatantly obvious by the other person who announced and then starting a complete series of enumerated threads that have a very "Clear Religion Agenda"?

What should that be considered to be uncivil or deserve a warning?

[otseng]

I felt that he did explicitly state what his agenda is in that debate.

You might be right, but I need the specific post where he stated his agenda for me to remove the warning.

I merely pointed out that when he posts verses to back up his position he totally ignores anything and everything within those verses that don't support his debate agenda.

Sure, you are free to state this.

If someone posts a bible verse to support their debate agenda and totally ignores all other implications of that verse, then that should be fair material for their opponent to point out.

Sure. But, then saying "Well, clearly you are focusing on it to further you religious agenda" carries it into the personal.

[Divine Insight]

Sure. But, then saying "Well, clearly you are focusing on it to further you religious agenda" carries it into the personal.

Well this is what I mean about "walking on eggshells".

The point being made is a valid debate point. I shouldn't be penalized because the other person takes personal offense to this.

Would it have made a difference had I said, "Well, clearly you are focusing on it to further your debate agenda"

The point I was trying to make is that there were quite a few other things within the same verse that would clearly support other debate agendas.

And those points were being completely ignored.

[otseng]

In cross examining a witness I am allowed to ask questions about a witness's biases. If there is evidence to support it, I am allowed to argue that a witness's biases should be considered in determining his credibility. If one has an agenda that goes to bias. It is not uncivil to point that out. It is part of effective debate.

Sure. But, we do not accept personal witnesses here as evidence. (Though some do try this, they don't last here too long.)

We are all more like lawyers laying out our case. Lawyers can, and do, have biases. They might even be extremely biased towards what they are defending. Would it be relevant in a courtroom to question the biases or agenda of another lawyer?

[Divine Insight]

Would it be relevant in a courtroom to question the biases or agenda of another lawyer?

But that's my whole point.

No one is "questioning" the bias. But rather simply pointing out how it totally ignores other evidence.

It was just poor wording on my part. I'm sure I could have made the same point stating things slightly differently.

But that's what I mean about "walking on eggshells". It's pretty sad when the "Incivility Police" are so quick to make an arrest that we need to find diplomatic ways to get around them.

Also, has this forum become so civil that we really need to nit-pick at this level just to give out citations?

[otseng]

Sure. But, then saying "Well, clearly you are focusing on it to further you religious agenda" carries it into the personal.

Well this is what I mean about "walking on eggshells".

Anything that can be considered to be directed at the individual, rather than the topic should be considered walking on eggshells. If people are not walking on eggshells regarding personal comments, then it should not come as a surprise when a moderator steps in.

Would it have made a difference had I said, "Well, clearly you are focusing on it to further your debate agenda"

Probably not. It's still a personal comment about another poster.

If you cannot point to the specific post where he said he has a religious agenda, then I'm going to lock this thread. I'm already giving you a chance to have the warning removed, but instead, you're just justifying your actions.

I'm also being lenient in that challenges to warnings should be done via PM, not publicly, which is also against the rules.

[otseng]

Also, has this forum become so civil that we really need to nit-pick at this level just to give out citations?

Believe me, I'd rather not give out any warnings. I have plenty of other things I'd rather be doing. The mod team doesn't have a quota they need to meet. If nobody breaks any rules, then there's nothing that we need to do.

[Danmark]

In cross examining a witness I am allowed to ask questions about a witness's biases. If there is evidence to support it, I am allowed to argue that a witness's biases should be considered in determining his credibility. If one has an agenda that goes to bias. It is not uncivil to point that out. It is part of effective debate.

Sure. But, we do not accept personal witnesses here as evidence. (Though some do try this, they don't last here too long.)

We are all more like lawyers laying out our case. Lawyers can, and do, have biases. They might even be extremely biased towards what they are defending. Would it be relevant in a courtroom to question the biases or agenda of another lawyer?

No, it would not be relevant in front of a jury, but it is not necessarily uncivil.
In fact, certain biases of a lawyer are relevant and they are brought up to the judge in a pretrial motion. It is not uncivil for me to ask a judge to remove a lawyer who has a conflict of interest or other bias, particularly if he is a prosecutor, which is a quasi judicial position. In fact, I have, and it is proper to do so, asked a judge to recuse himself from a case because of bias or an apparent conflict of interest. It is not uncivil.

I realize the forum is not a courtroom. On the other hand, it serves as more than analogous.

[Divine Insight]

If you cannot point to the specific post where he said he has a religious agenda, then I'm going to lock this thread.

I would simply point to the OP and the entire topic of his thread:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0

I would suggest that attempting to argue using biblical versus that forgiveness is handed out freely is by its very nature a "religious agenda".

And that's all I meant when I referred to it as such. I wasn't implying that the author of the thread was attempting to evangelize anyone.

[Danmark]

If you cannot point to the specific post where he said he has a religious agenda, then I'm going to lock this thread.

Is it not fair to say that every theist has a religious agenda; that every non theist has a non religious agenda?

[AdHoc]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

I was very interested to read through the thread that sparked this discussion and I hope its ok that I weigh in with my two cents. With the warning that my opinion means nothing since I am not on the Mod team.

First of all I may not be right but I don't think the warning was justfied for two reasons. 1) I couldn't find anything in the rules to say that you can't refer to or assume anything about a person's agenda or bias. 2) Lots of reasonable people don't think its wrong to assume agenda or bias. Whole threads have been written about religious beliefs being geographical and indoctrination being the reason I or other people believe in God. I'm hesitant to mention this because I don't want those opinions to become against the rules. The spirit of this forum is respect and civility, how is it uncivil to assume and say someone has a bias or an agenda? I can't imagine how a person could be offended by that.

On the other hand, I do find the tone of DIs posts a little... "Sandpapery" in this thread so I can see how it could generate a thought that there is more to the words than the words themselves.

Finally I do think the OP is preaching a belief but its formed correctly to stimulate debate. I think many people have somehow gotten the idea that preaching is against the rules. It's not.

Don't believe me? Check the rules.

Preaching is ok as long as you follow the structure of proper debate.

Just my sincere take as a completely unbiased (as far as this case is concerned) observer.