Principles of Discourse

[prr]

What are the principles we want to establish for serious discussion here, and more generally? We have the chance at the outset of a new forum to discuss what these principles should be, and ideally to have them endorsed by the Mods and New PTB here.

One important principle, to me, is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," which protects us from entertaining a load of ill-conceived ideas presented by some as established truths. We place the burden of explicating a position, correctly IMO, on the person presenting it. This only makes sense but we do hit some nasty snags by those who feel that their particular hobbyhorse is so important that we must exempt it from that particular principle--we can discusss this later on, if you don't mind, but before we do I'd like to clarify that principle is one that we agree ought to guide our discussions generally.

Any other principles that you feel add to, or are necessary to, sound rational discourse? Let's lay them out first, and discuss them later.

[What Exit?]

I would hope that the partisanship here can be more restrained in The Crucible. Lets try to keep the full-on partisanship in the Thunderdome.
If we could avoid the semantic trap it would also help. There was a recent GD on Battleships that Elendil's Heir started that was conversationally polite and intellectual discourse as opposed to the thinly veiled venom that many debates on the Internet end up being.

[prr]

I agree--a calm rational disinterested discussion of principles is more productive than a highly partisan venomous personal heated argument in which we re-hash many ancient feuds, mockingly and and dismissively. Good call, Jim!!

[Harlequin]

I would mainly like to see people being polite. No shit-slinging, no insults, veiled or otherwise. You think the guy you're talking to is dumber than a sack full of toothpicks? Swallow it, or take it to the Thunderdome. Don't poison the debate.

To be clear, I don't want the above in the rules or enforced by moderators. I (probably vainly) hope people will do it voluntarily.

[Sarahfeena]

I don't disagree with your first principle, there, but what I was trying to say in the hate speech thread is that a lot of religious discussion isn't about making extraordinary claims. That is, if I'm witnessing to you, have at it with your "prove god exists" stuff. If I claim that some religiously-based idea has scientific validity, please feel free to dispute that, also. Chances are quite good that I'm not going to be doing any of that around here.

The problem I have as a quasi-religious person is when these demands are made in a thread where such claims are not being made. For instance, if I ask WhyNot to explain some stuff about Neo-Paganism to me, it's not productive or interesting in any way for you to come into the thread and start demanding that WhyNot then PROVE her beliefs are true. Recently on the SDMB I spent some considerable time explaining excommunication to people. Now, I don't give a fig if you think the RCC is full of beans...if you want to understand why they do some of the things they do, it might be helpful to understand a bit about their doctrine. Demanding that I PROVE that the stuff they teach is true is way beside the point. Saying that it's all hogwash, so who cares what the RCC says is also beside the point...you're not going to change the Pope's mind, so understanding and accepting that some people have these beliefs is just dealing with reality. (Not the reality of God, but the reality of Religion.)

ETA: I'm not sure what principle I'm espousing, unless it's "Understand what the discussion is about before you join it. If it doesn't interest you, move along."

[Chimera]

My personal way of handling matters of Religion and Belief is to classify everything as "Opinion".

Definitive proof of all so-called "truths" cannot be provided and may not be believed. Therefore it is necessary to accept that the other person's beliefs are their personal opinion, and as such, for the purposes of argument, are as valid as one's own. No matter how much they differ from what we know to be the truth. To at very least, a certain degree.

Therefore, the matter of where such arguments and statements may be made and respected on this board comes to mind. They are not "Questions and Answers" in a strict sense, regardless of how one personally feels about them. They could be considered Debates, but are not reducable truthes in the sense that "The Crucible" would seem to require.

I would therefore suggest that all matters of Religion and Belief be relegated to Jibba Jabba, as with any other matter which is purely the discussion of opinions on a subject.

Then the issue becomes, "how do we resolve conflicts and threadshiting?" That, I think, has to come down to a case by case basis.

If someone posts a thread claiming that The Great Spaghetti Monster is REAL and wishes to speak honestly with others about this claim, then I'd say that the thread should sink pretty darned quickly, as few would hold such a belief and desire to communicate about it seriously.

If someone wants to discuss the ramifications and metaphysical constructs of "the body of Christ" in a Catholic Mass, then I would expect a serious discussion among Catholics about what they believe and what they've been taught and what Catholic Doctrine says about such things.

The other option for the board would be to create a new forum called "A Matter of Opinion", which could include Religion, Politics and a few other things like that.

[Tinker]

Skepticism should actually be respected. Like if I am skeptical about the Big Bang because I personally cannot run the numbers and prove it then it is actually the MOST defensible position on Big Bang theory I could hold. Just because some scientist who COULD run the numbers figured it out doesn't mean I have to believe that he could. Rather than haranguing people to accept scientific theories that they themselves cannot figure out.

[Claptree]

I agree largely with prr's OP and What Exit?'s request for less partisanship. Further points:

Regarding religion, I think it would be fair to say that most discussion on the subject can be said to be either philosophical in that it stays within the tenets of said religion/belief, or witnessing to some degree, in which case it would be open to demands of proof. Like Sarahfeena said, the reception and discussion should depend on the claims made.

In this I disagree with Chimera's suggestion that religious topics be moved to Jibba Jabba. I absolutely think there is room for philosophical debates on the subject of religion. Further, I would be concerned that slower-moving topics such as this may be would quickly disappear in JJ. Besides, we already have a forum for politics which will probably handle economy as well. What else would this forum be for, if not matters of opinion? I'd rather say that matters of fact go in Q&A.

Tinker, I respectfully disagree. Your post is a fairly typical example of argument from personal incredulity. It is fine with me if you hold the opinion that the Big Bang is unlikely because you cannot do the math, but it's a good long leap from holding the opinion to debating the subject of the Origin of the Universe based on your personal inability to comprehend the math. That's not skepticism, that's ignorance.

[prr]

For instance, if I ask WhyNot to explain some stuff about Neo-Paganism to me, it's not productive or interesting in any way for you to come into the thread and start demanding that WhyNot then PROVE her beliefs are true.

Okay, this is the part where I get confused. Say you want to know the roots of Satan-worship. As a devout Satanist, I explain many, many aspects of our core belief system, including the assertion that Satan lives in cutlery drawers and in tea cozies. Are you saying that no one can ask me why I think cutlery drawers and tea cozies are such desirable places for a demon to spend his time in? Are you saying that no one can challenge me on the textual source for this belief, or to argue with me on my interpretation of scripture on this point? Or must you accept whatever nutty or contradictory assertions I may make, simply because this is a discussion of my beliefs?

I guess I don't get why religious folks are so resistant to other folks locating exactly where they have issues accepting a system of belief. If I'm asserting that I know where Satan lives, and you ask, "What's the basis of that belief?" and I say "My momma told me," why can't you assert at that point "Well, I never met your momma, and I have no reason to take her word--sorry." Is that thread-shitting? I find it helpful all around to have a basis for accepting or rejecting various systems of belief--much less "Because I say so" than a simple "This is precisely why I reject (or accept) your assertions." Doesn't mean it must be binding on you, but it clarifies why I believe what I believe in a way that others can see what the issues are for me. I don't see that as disrespectful, Sarah, especially if I preface such statements with a clear statement that you may, and must, and should, believe precisely what you want to believe. Where am I getting you wrong?

[Harlequin]

Say you want to know the roots of Satan-worship. As a devout Satanist, I explain many, many aspects of our core belief system, including the assertion that Satan lives in cutlery drawers and in tea cozies. Are you saying that no one can ask me why I think cutlery drawers and tea cozies are such desirable places for a demon to spend his time in?

I say it depends on how it is said, both by you and the people asking you.

If prr the Satanist is saying "We believe that demons live in tea cozies", then I think "Why do you believe they live in tea cozies, particularly?" is a fair question, while "Why the living fuck would a demon hang around in a tea cozy?" is not. If prr the Satanist is saying "Demons live in tea cozies so the next time you have a cup of tea make sure to say the following incantation backwards three times or your tea will be spoiled", it's a different situation.

I guess I don't get why religious folks are so resistant to other folks locating exactly where they have issues accepting a system of belief. If I'm asserting that I know where Satan lives, and you ask, "What's the basis of that belief?" and I say "My momma told me," why can't you assert at that point "Well, I never met your momma, and I have no reason to take her word--sorry."

If the religious person in question was trying to persuade you to become religious, that is a fair response, but if she were just telling you about her beliefs there is no need to go there. Asking "Why do you trust your mother on this point?" is fine.

It is possible to have an exchange of beliefs and knowledge on the subject of religion as on any other subject, but it is touchy for many people (including me) so there is a value in being careful. While I agree with Chimera that matters of religious beliefs are in the majority of cases matters of opinion, we should be able to have a debate about them without moving it to Jibba Jabba, but that is ultimately down to individual posters. If atheists start saying "You're a freaking idiot for believing in invisible fairy-tale beings" or theists start saying "You're a fool for not accepting Jesus and shall burn in Hell for your heresy", the debate is ruined.

On threadshitting: Challenging someone's beliefs, assertions or opinions in a reasonable way isn't threadshitting. Spewing venom, fire and brimstone over someone due to their beliefs, assertions or opinions is. If a thread is about the history of the Roman Catholic Church, asking "How come the church got so powerful?" isn't threadshitting, but saying "That fucking church sure pulled the wool over a lot of people's eyes" is.

[prr]

If prr the Satanist is saying "We believe that demons live in tea cozies", then I think "Why do you believe they live in tea cozies, particularly?" is a fair question, while "Why the living fuck would a demon hang around in a tea cozy?" is not.

Are you claiming that the question's fairness depends purely on whether the person being questioned perceives an insulting tone in the question?

I'm far from the most tactful of questioners, but even when I've tried my level best to frame things in tactful ways, I've often hit the wall of "I don't like the way you asked that, so I refuse to answer it" or, worse, a hijack on why certain people need to ask rude questions and who the fuck do I think I am, anyway? It's often not enough that I'm couching issues in a relatively value-neutral way, a compromise if you will between what I'd like to say and what the person I'm questioning would like the phrasing to be, but anything short of "Why would Jesus Christ, the Divine Lord of the Universe, says things that to my unwashed heathen ears seem contradictory, or am I just unworthy to question his Holy judgment?" starts the shit a-flying. This seems to me to be a convenient out for people who don't want to discuss what they're claiming but simply want to filibuster until the conversation goes away.

I'd really like to stipulate that I don't think anyone is going to change anyone else's mind on religious or spiritual matters here. I may convert to Christianity someday, but (which is where monkeys will fly out of first) that will be my own doing, not that of anyone else, and likewise for my beguiling any believers to embrace hardcore atheism. If you don't want your beliefs questioned, I think you ought to label your OP "FOR MORMONS ONLY" or whatever, and you can preach to the choir to your heart's content. But most of these discussions are open for everyone to participate in, and sometimes conversations don't go in the most pleasing direction for everyone. That's life, not threadshitting or hijacking, and I find that religious folks tends to feel very self-righteous in asserting the shape they would like discussions of religious topics to take.

[Harlequin]

I understand what you mean, prr. I've often been misunderstood myself despite trying to be neutral and polite. But I can't imagine that any sensible person would find anything objectionable in "Why do you believe demons live in tea cozies?" if they are at all ready to discuss their beliefs. I'm just saying that we should all try our hardest not to piss people off unnecessarily, and if we find it necessary to do so it should be done in the Thunderdome.

Why? Because it's not constructive to piss people off. It ruins debates.

[Chimera]

Upon consideration after posting last night, I have to go back to my last suggestion above.

A Matter Of Opinion
A forum for Civil Discussion of Religion, Politics and other Ideology.

Both subjects, and other ideologies, are "hot topics" and keeping discourse civil has always been a tough go. Therefore I'm suggesting that we keep these things together in one forum where the goal is to converse and discuss in a civil manner while respecting differences of opinion. After all, virtually all ideologies make wild assed, improbable and unprovable claims. We don't hold discussions of politics to the same level of proofs that we would do with matters of science, so let's move matters of religion to the same position.

[Harlequin]

If that forum can work I think it will be great, but what will remain for The Crucible?

[prr]

I understand what you mean, prr. I've often been misunderstood myself despite trying to be neutral and polite. But I can't imagine that any sensible person would find anything objectionable in "Why do you believe demons live in tea cozies?" if they are at all ready to discuss their beliefs. I'm just saying that we should all try our hardest not to piss people off unnecessarily, and if we find it necessary to do so it should be done in the Thunderdome.

Why? Because it's not constructive to piss people off. It ruins debates.

I actually agree completely with this. Where I have a problem is with people who are determined not to engage in discussion, but who don't wish to be seen as sullen or closed-minded, and who prefer to make claims that the tone of the discusssion has offended them. They tend to change the subject to HOW the discussion is being held, and so don't have to actually discuss it anymore. Grow some balls. Accept that some people believe in stuff that offends you, and entertain their beliefs (and lack thereof) anyway. Don't demand that your ass gets kissed (or that His does) as a prerequisite to having a discussion.

[Harlequin]

We are in agreement.

[prr]

Cool. Anyway, I'd rather not get into an extended discussion (yet) of this issue, but rather open the floor to other principles of discourse that Domebo wishes to support. "Fighting Ignorance" is a little too SD for me at this point, but something like it is pretty sound as an operating principle. "A Commitment to Truth" or something of that sort is little bit open-ended, and pretentious (said jesting Pilate) but I wonder if someone could articulate some standards we want to uphold.

[Chimera]

If that forum can work I think it will be great, but what will remain for The Crucible?

Seems to be a lot of other threads in here that would still be here.

[Speusippus]

What's the status of a "Principle of Discourse" as described in the OP?

Is it being proposed that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" be codified as a rule posters are expected to be compliant with? If so, it's hard to see how the rule could be enforced objectively.

Is it simply being proposed that everyone should feel bound to the principle, even though it shouldn't be taken as an enforceable rule? If that's all, it's hard to see what the OP means when s/he says that this principle would "take care of" certain kinds of posts. With no means of enforcement, the principle can't "take care of" anything. People will easily convince themselves that they are presenting the right kind of evidence for their claims, and will either deny the claim is extraordinary, or will claim the evidence is extraordinary enough. The principle will have "taken care of" nothing--it will simply have determined what words get used in defense or attack of its validity. In any case, without a means of enforcement, a key reason is missing for anyone to feel they should be bound by the principle. (Rational thought is another key reason, of course, but presumably rational people will tend to try to abide by this principle (assuming its a good rational principle) without it needing to be adopted in any official or quasi-official capacity by the board or its members.)

Is the OP proposing that we should all feel free to demand extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claim? But if that's what the OP is proposing, I can't see the use in proposing it. Of course we should all feel free to demand such evidence for such claims--because we should all feel free to demand whatever evidence we like for whatever claims we like. Some choices of types of evidence for types of claims are silly, of course, but presumably people who make silly demands simply won't last long around here simply due to the way they will go unsatisfied and everyone else will start to annoy them. (People can be tenacious, of course, but experience at the SDMB seems to indicate that a discussion board like this has room for a few total weirdos in the bunch without needing to fear some kind of implosion.

[Sarahfeena]

For instance, if I ask WhyNot to explain some stuff about Neo-Paganism to me, it's not productive or interesting in any way for you to come into the thread and start demanding that WhyNot then PROVE her beliefs are true.

Okay, this is the part where I get confused. Say you want to know the roots of Satan-worship. As a devout Satanist, I explain many, many aspects of our core belief system, including the assertion that Satan lives in cutlery drawers and in tea cozies. Are you saying that no one can ask me why I think cutlery drawers and tea cozies are such desirable places for a demon to spend his time in? Are you saying that no one can challenge me on the textual source for this belief, or to argue with me on my interpretation of scripture on this point? Or must you accept whatever nutty or contradictory assertions I may make, simply because this is a discussion of my beliefs?

No, that's not at all what I'm saying...in fact, the examples you give are exactly what belongs in a discussion of theology. I have no problem with challenging religious belief, I'm just saying that it has to make sense in the context of the discussion. For instance, I'm a Catholic. If I'm having a discussion with a Protestant over the meaning of the Eucharist, it's not particularly interesting for an athiest to jump in and start demanding scientific proof from me that the bread & wine turn into the body & blood of Christ. I'm not arguing science, I'm arguing theology. I might be able to make a case to the Protestant that my view of the Eucharist is based on sound theology, but I'm not going to be able to convince you that it's based on sound biology. It's a theological discussion...science doesn't belong.

Similarly, It wouldn't be appropriate if we were discussing evolution and someone came into the thread to demand of me how I reconcile it with the Bible. It's a scientific discussion...theology doesn't belong.

I guess I don't get why religious folks are so resistant to other folks locating exactly where they have issues accepting a system of belief. If I'm asserting that I know where Satan lives, and you ask, "What's the basis of that belief?" and I say "My momma told me," why can't you assert at that point "Well, I never met your momma, and I have no reason to take her word--sorry." Is that thread-shitting? I find it helpful all around to have a basis for accepting or rejecting various systems of belief--much less "Because I say so" than a simple "This is precisely why I reject (or accept) your assertions." Doesn't mean it must be binding on you, but it clarifies why I believe what I believe in a way that others can see what the issues are for me. I don't see that as disrespectful, Sarah, especially if I preface such statements with a clear statement that you may, and must, and should, believe precisely what you want to believe. Where am I getting you wrong?

It's obviously not disrespectful for you not to believe the things I believe, and I have no problem with whatever reason you might have for not accepting a system of belief. If you want to say, "I don't believe in anything that can't be proven by science," that's great. But your issue here once again presupposes that I'm trying to convince you that my belief is true. If I'm not, why give me a hard time about the fact that I don't have the same criteria for accepting a system of belief?

[Speusippus]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but the distinction Sarahfeena's making seems easy enough. Trying to explain religious doctrine is a different task than trying to argue that it's true. If someone is trying to explain it, then to demand arguments for its truth is to be unresponsive to what they're trying to do.

S: According to Christian doctrine, Jesus died and was resurrected.
P: Prove it!
S: Well, look at any Christian catechism and you'll see it's a Christian doctrine.
P: No, I mean prove it happened!
S: But I wasn't arguing that it happened, I was explaining what the doctrine is.

That seems clear enough. S's responses to P seem exactly on point to me. I can imagine that P might want to continue the conversation something like this, maybe?:

P: Yeah but, you're a Christian, right?
S: Yes.
P: So you believe what's in those catechisms.
S: Yes.
P: So you believe Jesus was resurrected?
S: Yes.
P: Well then, you're not insane are you? You think your beliefs have a rational basis, right? So prove it! Prove he was resurrected.

But this is off topic. S's claim at the outset wasn't that S's beliefs are true, but rather, that Christian doctrine says such-and-such. The requests for proof of the truth of these claims belong in an entirely different conversation.

[Sarahfeena]

You've got it exactly.

[Tinker]

Tinker, I respectfully disagree. Your post is a fairly typical example of argument from personal incredulity. It is fine with me if you hold the opinion that the Big Bang is unlikely because you cannot do the math, but it's a good long leap from holding the opinion to debating the subject of the Origin of the Universe based on your personal inability to comprehend the math. That's not skepticism, that's ignorance.

See this is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Your post is a fairly typical example of a disrespect for skepticism. First, you posit a Straw Man, skepticism of the Big Bang =/= a belief that the Big Bang was unlikely. Apparently you don't know what the word skepticism means.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skepticism

1: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object2 a: the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b: the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics3: doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)

Your logical failing here is assuming that because I don't BELIEVE the Big Bang Theory that I must therefore DISBELIEVE the Big Bang Theory. And to be honest I doubt that YOU believe in the Big Bang for any reason other than you trust the scientists who tell you that it is so. This is likely true for 99.999999999% of the people who accept Big Bang Theory. I doubt that there are more than 3 people who have ever posted on the SDMB that can do the math themselves.

Your second fallacy, you draw a false dichotomy between skepticism and ignorance, and say my position is ignorant like you are giving some sort of cogent critique, when you're not. Considering what I said was, I am 'SKEPTICAL' because I am 'IGNORANT'.

So to recap you assume that skepticism means that I hold the opposite belief, it doesn't, and you use ignorance as an epithet rather than recognizing that it is the natural state of all people on the vast majority of topics.

[Tinker]

For instance, if I ask WhyNot to explain some stuff about Neo-Paganism to me, it's not productive or interesting in any way for you to come into the thread and start demanding that WhyNot then PROVE her beliefs are true.

Okay, this is the part where I get confused. Say you want to know the roots of Satan-worship. As a devout Satanist, I explain many, many aspects of our core belief system, including the assertion that Satan lives in cutlery drawers and in tea cozies. Are you saying that no one can ask me why I think cutlery drawers and tea cozies are such desirable places for a demon to spend his time in? Are you saying that no one can challenge me on the textual source for this belief, or to argue with me on my interpretation of scripture on this point? Or must you accept whatever nutty or contradictory assertions I may make, simply because this is a discussion of my beliefs?

I guess I don't get why religious folks are so resistant to other folks locating exactly where they have issues accepting a system of belief. If I'm asserting that I know where Satan lives, and you ask, "What's the basis of that belief?" and I say "My momma told me," why can't you assert at that point "Well, I never met your momma, and I have no reason to take her word--sorry." Is that thread-shitting? I find it helpful all around to have a basis for accepting or rejecting various systems of belief--much less "Because I say so" than a simple "This is precisely why I reject (or accept) your assertions." Doesn't mean it must be binding on you, but it clarifies why I believe what I believe in a way that others can see what the issues are for me. I don't see that as disrespectful, Sarah, especially if I preface such statements with a clear statement that you may, and must, and should, believe precisely what you want to believe. Where am I getting you wrong?

This would be an useful argument if most of the arguments weren't simply assertions by atheists that the supernatural doesn't exist and any belief in it is stupid, and therefore we must shout people down until they feel too intimidated to post this kind of drivel that offends our atheist egoes.

Maybe the solution to this is to allow witnessing in the opinion forum and not only in the debate forum.

[prr]

To me, it's pretty civilized if someone says, "Well, it's fine with me that you reject my beliefs as having no validity from your point of view, and you'd like to Pit me [or Tip me, or Thunderdome my ass, or whatever the verb is], then please go ahead and I'll respond if I feel so inclined, but could you please leave this thread for those who accept my religious premises? Thanks." Depending on how purely religious the thread in question is ("Should all Muslims be killed according to methods approved in the Koran, or is incriminate slaughter sufficient?" has certain political implications as well), most atheists will remove themselves from a theologial discussion that doesn't draw on historical, scientific, or other factual bases for discussion.

[prr]

What's the status of a "Principle of Discourse" as described in the OP?

Is it being proposed that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" be codified as a rule posters are expected to be compliant with? If so, it's hard to see how the rule could be enforced objectively.

Is it simply being proposed that everyone should feel bound to the principle, even though it shouldn't be taken as an enforceable rule? If that's all, it's hard to see what the OP means when s/he says that this principle would "take care of" certain kinds of posts. ...

It's a good question. Do we want to bind ourselves to the principle that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" ?

I'm actually okay with that being set in stone, and worshipped. If I start claiming bizarre and inexpliable stuff as true (and don't get me started on the call I received on my cel phone last sunday!) you should be able to challenge my claim according to that principle alone. Not "Okay, you say that that a burning bush spake unto you as you drove on the Montauk Highway, so I'm forced to accept your word for it" but I should be called to support my claims. Otherwise we're opening the door here, and legitimizing every nutjob and troll who wishes to waste our time and energy, and have no principle to support our basis for questioning. The ultimate cite will be "Because I said so!" or "My nutjobbery is my cite."

Now I realize that some of my fellow posters here claim to have had experiences that cannot be substantiated yet which they claim to be factual and true. I don't want to be disputatious, and I see no point in disputing things that are purely subjective and unverifiable by their nature--people are free to believe as they please, and I'm free to adjust my own esteem for people as I see fit, though I feel no crying need to be gratuitously rude,either. I'm usually happy, once I understand someone's claims, to note that a claim that I can never test approaches being meaningless to me. When I get told that my near-total lack of interest or credence is rude or uncalled-for, that's where I have a few concerns.

Is there anyone here who wants us NOT to support the principle of "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" ? If so, could you please explain your reasoning?

[Claptree]

<snip>

So to recap you assume that skepticism means that I hold the opposite belief, it doesn't, and you use ignorance as an epithet rather than recognizing that it is the natural state of all people on the vast majority of topics.

You got all that from three sentences? Man, I did some serious assuming up in that bitch.

Nah, I wasn't disrespecting skepticism. What I was doing was getting stuck on the surface of your post and reading it as I expected it to read. You lost me at the word "Like"; I went somewhere completely different at

Just because some scientist who COULD run the numbers figured it out doesn't mean I have to believe that he could.

(Not believing he could, when he per your statement could, strikes me as a bit silly.) By the time I got to

Rather than haranguing people to accept scientific theories that they themselves cannot figure out.

I had you pegged as a loon. That means I misplaced the weight of your argument, which apparently was on the value of skepticism, and I took to be on disbelieving scientists in favor of some undefined fluff. I believe I did you a disservice, and for that I apologize.

So, to recap: you recap is inaccurate, in that you attribute the wrong error to me. I did not assume a meaning of skepticism, I assumed that you were a loon similar to pseudo-science fans as seen on the Dope, who sometimes hide behind skepticism in order to lend credibility to their beliefs. Again, apologies.

[jali]

Again, apologies.

snipped by me.

Really classy apology. I like you!

[Claptree]

Hey, thanks! I just wish I hadn't misread the post in the first place. Classy or no, I'd just as soon not have to apologize, you know.

[prr]

I'd like to add another topic, divorced from specific applications, to this thread of principles we really should establish here, courtesy this thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1031

1. What does "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" mean?
2. What exactly is "threadshitting"? What standards must we find in a post that demarkate if it is threadshitting or not?

[Speusippus]

I'd like to add another topic, divorced from specific applications, to this thread of principles we really should establish here, courtesy this thread: http://www.domebo.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1031

1. What does "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" mean?
2. What exactly is "threadshitting"? What standards must we find in a post that demarkate if it is threadshitting or not?

Threadshitting is arguing, within a thread, that the thread should not exist. (I just pulled that out of my ass--another form of threadshitting!)

Now, sometimes it is true--some threads shouldn't exist. But it would be threadshitting to point this out in the thread. Point it out somewhere else. (A link within the thread pointing to the new thread might be okay, though. A link does not really constitute an argument, though it may point to an argument.)

About the Extraordinary Claims thing, I've never been clear on the meaning. I'm not sure what "extraordinary evidence" is supposed to be.

[prr]

But it would be threadshitting to point this out in the thread. Point it out somewhere else. (A link within the thread pointing to the new thread might be okay, though. A link does not really constitute an argument, though it may point to an argument.).

Well, if this works it's an elegant solution to a chronic issue. Does anyone have a problem with this?

1) If you notice someone shitting on your (or anyone's) thread, say something to that effect in the thread, or better yet,

2) report it,

3) maybe write in the thread that you've reported it (maybe we can find a term that's less provocative than "Reported for threadshitting"?)

4) the threadshitter (and his hordes of supporters) would then refrain from continuing to comment in that vein until the Mod returns with a ruling

5) If the Mod says it's ok, then the thread may continue to be heavily dumped on,

6) at which point you can address the Mod in the Thunderdome, if you like, but

7) if the Mod says to refrain from further posts in the thread of that nature, you can link to the Thunderdome and rant and rave to your heart's content.


Does this work for everyone?

About the Extraordinary Claims thing, I've never been clear on the meaning. I'm not sure what "extraordinary evidence" is supposed to be

As I understand it, an ordinary claim can be simply cited (a wikipedia cite, or even just "I see it all the time--yesterday, in fact" or no cite at all) but something that multiple posters dispute or would dispute as being accurate or factual needs at least a firm, reliable cite (and probably several). "Catholics claim to believe in God" needs no cite; "Some Catholics claim the wafer is actually the physical body of Christ" needs a cite; "The wafer is actually the physical body of Christ" is a widely contested assertion and therefore (to my mind) an extraordinary claim and needs some pretty goddamned extraordinary evidence. Does that work for everyone? Can I get a "Amen" here?

[Claptree]

That's how I interpreted the phrase, and I rather like it as a basic rule.

[Oliveloaf]

ETA: I'm not sure what principle I'm espousing, unless it's "Understand what the discussion is about before you join it. If it doesn't interest you, move along."

Every message board I've ever visited would benefit from poster adhering to this simple rule.

[Tinker]

Claptree Glad we got that sorted. Don't worry, I feel no need to try and justify my nutty beliefs by scientific principles. I might believe in some nutty shit, but if I can't explain it scientifically, then I won't claim it's scientifically proven.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Threads and comments like these are a bit scary. is this the Crucible or the TV DInner Tray, where you get a lukewarm heating of separate compartments? I have to agree with the suggestion that if you can't handle the Crucible, take it to Jibba Jabba. So far on this board, there's been a ton of discussion about what we can say and how we can say it. Let's just start saying it, and deal!

[prr]

Threads and comments like these are a bit scary. is this the Crucible or the TV DInner Tray, where you get a lukewarm heating of separate compartments? I have to agree with the suggestion that if you can't handle the Crucible, take it to Jibba Jabba. So far on this board, there's been a ton of discussion about what we can say and how we can say it. Let's just start saying it, and deal!

Suck my hairy nutsack!!

See, that's over the top in a Crucible thread on principles of discourse, and if it were voiced by anyone other than the OP and in any tone other than eye-rollingly sarcastic, it would be reported, and rightly so.

Actually, your post seems to me classic threadshitting, Hentor: you entered a discussion you found to be totally without value, merely to point out that the discussion and all the comments in it is scary and needs to be stopped now. If that's not threadshitting, what is? Wipe up, flush, and be gone, 'kay?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

It's an opinion on a topic of importance to me that runs counter to other opinions here. I want the ability to discuss, hash out, and challenge points of debate to be the primary focus of this forum. I don't want to have to give deference to whether or not my position made you unhappy.

I see an effort to change what Great Debates was on the Dope to something where woo woo nonsense can only be peripherally challenged, and I don't like it.

Make a Jibba Jabba subforum called Kid Gloves, or Hands Off My Opinion.

That's my position on the matter. Don't like it - too fucking bad, but threadshitting it ain't.

[prr]

But threadshitting it is.

To take up your previous analogy, it's more like one of those TV trays that has some compartments icy cold, and others piping hot. For a serious discussion of Roman Catholic theology, dial Thread A. For a thorough sucking of my hairy nutsack, dial Thread B. Win-win. In fact, I'm opening up a special thread just for you (and my hairy nutsack--so pucker up!) in the Thunderdome, so meet me there for a continued discussion, please.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

They tend to change the subject to HOW the discussion is being held, and so don't have to actually discuss it anymore. Grow some balls. Accept that some people believe in stuff that offends you, and entertain their beliefs (and lack thereof) anyway. Don't demand that your ass gets kissed (or that His does) as a prerequisite to having a discussion.

What I'm saying is not meaningfully different than what you've said above, combined with a suggestion akin to that of Chimera. I left a board to join the Dope because requesting a cite was becoming akin to hate speech, and the prevailing attitude of that board was to allow evasions during debates in preference to not making someone feel bad by asking them to support their assertions. This latter point is not directly counterpoint to anything posted here, but is in the ballpark (on the other end of the spectrum) to some suggestions here.

How it can be threadshitting?

[ulfhjorr]

It's threadshitting because, it seems, the new definition of that term for this board is posting anything not approved of by the OP and/or the most vocal posters in the thread. I mean, how dare you express an opinion against these oh-so-wonderful "principles" that prr and others are trying to lay down? What's next, suggesting that someone's personal character means that they shouldn't be canonized in a thread about whether or not they should be? The horrors!

I do have to say, though, that the outrage at expressing contrary opinions has made me reverse positions on Chimera's suggestion for a new forum. I have only two suggestions to improve the idea: (1) Threads may be started in the new forum, but that they not be moved just because people don't like the direction a discussion has turned toward and (2) The name be something more akin to Head in the Sand: A place for those who are to weak to have their ideas challenged.

[Speusippus]

How it can be threadshitting?

The argument that it is threadshitting is that it fits the definition given above (it happens to be me who gave it ): Threadshitting is arguing within a thread that the thread shouldn't exist.

I didn't expect that to be agreed to by all as the definition, though, I was just throwing out the proposal.

Having seen your post, I don't think it's threadshitting but I do think it's close. It's not threadshitting because it's actually a direct response to the OP. The OP asks "What should our principles of discourse be?" and your response is "There shouldn't be any." That's a viewpoint that definitely deserves discussion. (I hinted at such a viewpoint in my earlier posts in this thread.)

What makes your post fall under my definition of threadshitting is that you couch your response as an argument that the OP shouldn't even have asked the question.

I'm not sure how to amend the definition to allow a post like yours. One could add a "relevance" clause--the post in question is threadshitting only if it is non-responsive to the OP. (To be clear, nonresponsiveness would be necessary, but not sufficient, for a post to count as threadshitting.) But I'm pretty sure some creative threadshitting can be done which is responsive to the OP.

[prr]

I'm just interested in discussing what principles we want and don't want. And in expressing my views, but I'm always willing to be persuaded. Let's don't get hostile before understanding each other fully, shall we?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I wasn't trying to say that this thread shouldn't exist. I was saying that it scares me to see people arguing for a kid glove approach to the Crucible, and that in general on this board I'm looking forward to moving on from meta-discussion about discussion to actual, you know, discussion.

[MsRobyn]

Ok. The mod speaks.

First, I define "threadshitting" as someone who comes in, and without intending to engage in the debate or present an argument, posts with the intention of riling up those who are participating. For example, if there's a thread about the laws of kashrut, a post that says "Jews are stupid because they follow the laws of a magical sky pixie" would be threadshitting. OTOH, if the poster comes in to ask a question or raise a point that is relevant to the discussion and the poster intends to remain in the discussion, that's not threadshitting. So a post in that same thread that says "So if kashrut is about food safety, how do you reconcile that with modern refrigeration and sanitation practices?" isn't threadshitting. Depending on how the post is worded, it may come across as hostile, but it's still not threadshitting.

As far as moderation is concerned, I intend to take a lot of middle ground. All I really ask is that common sense and civility should prevail. I don't think problems should be legislated into existence, but I do think that some mutually agreed-upon ground rules would be good.

One more thing. If this describes you, take a break. I don't dispute that fighting ignorance is important, and some people are obstinate in the face of a ton of cites that prove their positions wrong. But with some people, it really is like teaching a pig to sing. It's OK to walk away.

[Sarahfeena]

It's threadshitting because, it seems, the new definition of that term for this board is posting anything not approved of by the OP and/or the most vocal posters in the thread. I mean, how dare you express an opinion against these oh-so-wonderful "principles" that prr and others are trying to lay down? What's next, suggesting that someone's personal character means that they shouldn't be canonized in a thread about whether or not they should be? The horrors!

You might have a point if that was the issue people were having, but since it's not, maybe you should pick a better example.

[prr]

it scares me to see people arguing for a kid glove approach to the Crucible

No one was doing that, though. The purpose of this thread is to see what kind of principles we can agree to endorse here, and to get the Mods in on it as well. If we can define threadshitting in a fairly specific way (which we're starting to, I think), then we can recognize it, not falsely accuse each other of commiting it, develop remedies for it that don't leave the shitter feeling totally invalidated, etc.

Speaking of which, can we develop an understanding of what is and isn't a straw-man argument? Hentor will probably deny this, but his previous post struck as a pure straw man argument: he admits to acting out of fear that people were proposing a kid glove approach to the Crucible, which I don't think anyone would cop to doing....so he was arguing against a strawman, and getting us all worked up on that account. Bad Hentor!

[Speusippus]

Ok. The mod speaks.

First, I define "threadshitting" as someone who comes in, and without intending to engage in the debate or present an argument, posts with the intention of riling up those who are participating.

[raises hand]

That's trolling, not threadshitting.

[McNutty]

Why can't we have a "no threadshitting" rule which, rather than being enforced by saying "hey, you're threadshitting and that's against the rule", is enforced by saying "It seems this topic is counter to the point of the thread and is causing a significant hijack. Please start a new thread if you want to continue."? Half the discussion seems to be bickering over the definition of what should be labeled "threadshitting." Don't label it at all, just ask that it be moved to a new thread.

[Harlequin]

Why can't we have a "no threadshitting" rule which, rather than being enforced by saying "hey, you're threadshitting and that's against the rule", is enforced by saying "It seems this topic is counter to the point of the thread and is causing a significant hijack. Please start a new thread if you want to continue."? Half the discussion seems to be bickering over the definition of what should be labeled "threadshitting." Don't label it at all, just ask that it be moved to a new thread.

Sounds good to me.