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?
Incivility versus recognition of a person's obvious agenda?
Moderator: Moderators
- Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Incivility versus recognition of a person's obvious agenda?
Post #1[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
- Danmark
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 12697
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
- Location: Seattle
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Incivility versus recognition of a person's obvious agen
Post #21Astute observations. In my not so humble opinion some get dinged for fairly innocuous posts, like referring to someone's "religious agenda," because of prior posts blasting the religion in question. Example, Debater A gets whacked for calling God an evil liar, while Debater X says exactly the same thing, but couches it differently:AdHoc wrote:....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. ....
Just my sincere take as a completely unbiased (as far as this case is concerned) observer.
"If the myths of the Bible are taken literally, then they portray God as an evil liar."
If Debater A repeats his claim with an entire paragraph it is called a "rant."
Debater X does the same thing but is more concise so it is not called "ranting."
In fairness to the moderators, much of this is a judgment call and every moderator has his or her biases. However, it continues to be my contention that this forum is moderated more fairly and allows more open and unrestricted discussion than any religious forum on the internet.*
We are even allowed to criticize the rules and how they are applied, as long as we do it in general terms on this subforum, or in in private messages.
This very thread testifies to the truth of this fact.
[If I may be permitteda little teasing, I note that there was a post this thread will be locked. ]
_______________________
*My claim is easily rebutted if it is wrong. Simply cite the religious forum that is more open to divergent points of view than DCR.
- Wootah
- Savant
- Posts: 9198
- Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 108 times
Post #22
Each thread does not represent an opportunity to air our beliefs, but should the thread topic be of interest then of course we encourage people to debate on it.
This thread: ref:Simple%20repentance... doesn't deserve the ad nauseum rants against religion. You can see the premises of assuming God that are needed to support the question.
If we all just approached each thread with a bit more respect for the intentions of the original poster then would this post: [Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight] occur?
Even DI acknowledges that he was not on topic and the part that was on topic was basically a footnote.
Diana was spot on: Do not make assumptions about the poster's agenda or motives. Address the content of a post, not the character of the writer.
If the thread isn't for you, leave it be, is the only unnecessary addition that i would make.
This thread: ref:Simple%20repentance... doesn't deserve the ad nauseum rants against religion. You can see the premises of assuming God that are needed to support the question.
If we all just approached each thread with a bit more respect for the intentions of the original poster then would this post: [Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight] occur?
Even DI acknowledges that he was not on topic and the part that was on topic was basically a footnote.
Diana was spot on: Do not make assumptions about the poster's agenda or motives. Address the content of a post, not the character of the writer.
If the thread isn't for you, leave it be, is the only unnecessary addition that i would make.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.
Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826
"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image ."
Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826
"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image ."
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20520
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 337 times
- Contact:
Re: Incivility versus recognition of a person's obvious agen
Post #23I see it as a truism. So, why bother to bring it in the discussions?Danmark wrote: Is it not fair to say that every theist has a religious agenda; that every non theist has a non religious agenda?
Let me add that if someone has a history of violations, even a seemingly trivial violation can result in a warning. Basically, if we feel that multiple warnings and comments are not having an effect, we give warnings to go to the next disciplinary step.
We encourage everyone here to abide by the rules. If people feel that have to walk on egg shells to do so, so be it. But, I don't feel you have to feel that way. What we do allow here is free expression in attacking ideas, but not people. You want to attack Christianity? Go for it. You feel a desire to comment about another poster (or even their motivations)? Better not do it.
Locking the thread.