A Brother offended.....pt.2

[JonC]

How about a Pharisee emoji lolzzz? Speechless

Or one for the grandstanders who overlook the lies of some (out of fear) and attack the others for calling them out?

That is a good illustration. People do accuse others of grandstanding (posting in order to seek approval or praise), overlooking lies, conducting themselves out of fear, etc. All of these are personal insults/assumptions that go beyond the statements and attack strawmen of their own making. In a debate, argument, or even discussion they are all logical fallacies (Argumentum ad homineum). A type of ad homineum that often surfaces is also “poisoning the well” (adverse information about a person is presented to discredit or ridicule everything that target person has to say). In an argument we will sometimes see someone respond to a thread that the author is a Calvinist, or is anti-Calvinistic, in order to discredit anything he or she may have to say.

Perhaps a dunce cap for “logical fallacies”? Or if that's to personal (and it may be) a pic. of Spock.

 

[Benjamin]

Perhaps a dunce cap for “logical fallacies”? Or if that's to personal (and it may be) a pic. of Spock.

Well..., happen to have those too:

...

 

[Reformed]

Perhaps this is too simplistic a solution, but I do not interact with posters who engage in personal attacks, repeated ad hominems, mischaracterizations, et. al. I either ignore them effectively, or ignore them officially. I just do not have time for pointless bickering. It took me a very long time to make that choice, and the only regret I have is not doing it sooner.

 

[Rob_BW]

How about a pot & kettle emoticon? For when someone moans about some type of conduct when they were doing the same thing two posts back.

 

[Internet Theologian]

How about a pot & kettle emoticon? For when someone moans about some type of conduct when they were doing the same thing two posts back.

I like the grandstanding emoji right about here.

 

[Rob_BW]

I guess we need an animation of a foot sliding into a shoe, also.

Roflmao

 

[JonC]

Perhaps this is too simplistic a solution, but I do not interact with posters who engage in personal attacks, repeated ad hominems, mischaracterizations, et. al. I either ignore them effectively, or ignore them officially. I just do not have time for pointless bickering. It took me a very long time to make that choice, and the only regret I have is not doing it sooner.

I think that the thread which disappeared was a better discussion. What had been brought out was the fact that there are some here (probably all of us at one time or another) who have degraded into attacking other people rather than addressing what is posted. We do not know each other, yet sometimes people tend to go on the attack (personal attacks and insults) instead of dealing with discussion.

I understand that many have not experienced debate or argument within a formal Christian environment. I also understand that there may be some who believe subjective assertion and personal attack is debate (like street fighting ) as they seek to "win" an argument. I don't know what can be done about this misconceptions except that it be spelled out in the rules what is and is not acceptable. The BB should have rules against personally attacking people, insulting others, and trying to falsely discredit others. If these are rules, then they need to be enforced.

There are extreme cases. Too often we can see others making assumptions of a member’s motivations or intent. We have witnessed some going so far as to outright declare the motivations and intentions of others. This has happened to me several times (an assumption of my intent, false claims about my identity as another member, attributing to me a perceived agenda, etc.) and I have seen it happen with others as well. Insults and attacks rather than truthfully and honestly dealing with the subject matter or even the person him/herself. A member seems to conclude that they know another person and what follows is a consistent degrading of that person. We need to be careful because this is, without overstatement, satanic. This is neither Christian nor even moral by secular standards (certainly not in terms of legitimate debate).

And then there are those things we see pop up within many of our threads. We assume beforehand what another person believes and react to that presupposition rather than the conversation at hand. We fail to ask others to clarify their view and react to a misinterpretation of that position (and when this becomes clear we blame the original poster for not being clear enough when it is us who should have clarified our understanding). We are all probably guilty of some of these things. Often we do not realize it.

Someone mentioned that we all should point out when behavior becomes inappropriate in order to correct one brother and assist the other. We do not have to agree in all things, but there are some here who simply go too far. Personally, I believe that there is a line that, when crossed, should result in a member being banned. It is not a matter of hurting someone's feelings, but of maintaining a Christian atmosphere.

I also realize that some are controlled by emotion and simply put forward outbursts and knee-jerk reactions. But this type of behavior is no less Christian simply because it results from a lack of discipline.

 

[Benjamin]

I understand that many have not experienced debate or argument within a formal Christian environment. I also understand that there may be some who believe subjective assertion and personal attack is debate (like street fighting ) as they seek to "win" an argument.

This is very true about the differences between a Christian "debate argument" and a plain old argument.

I don't know what can be done about this misconceptions except that it be spelled out in the rules what is and is not acceptable.

Spent a lot of time trying to address this and tried that here:

http://www.baptistsymposium.com/forum/site_rules

The BB should have rules against personally attacking people, insulting others, and trying to falsely discredit others. If these are rules, then they need to be enforced.

I have heard comments such as these types of rules take away their free speech. The site above has well over 500 smilies to help with communication as well as spelled out merely ethical rules, but perhaps the "street fighting" is why people are here.

 

[JonC]

I have heard comments such as these types of rules take away their free speech. The site above has well over 500 smilies to help with communication as well as spelled out merely ethical rules, but perhaps the "street fighting" is why people are here.

Unfortunately I think you are right. It is unfortunate because those who would cling to immoral behavior under the guise of free speech or come here to insult & attack post distinctively unchristian comments. If this is allowed perhaps we should exclude a profession of faith for our members and just be a secular board about religious ideas. If the posts of some honestly reflect their spiritual condition, it would be difficult to apply the term "Christian" anyway.


Sent from my TARDIS

 

[JonC]

Spent a lot of time trying to address this and tried that here:

http://www.baptistsymposium.com/forum/site_rules

This makes a good point that we also need to keep in mind. Those who resort to attack and insult probably do so out if the emotional distress of having their view challenged. I did not think of it at the time, but now I realize this was probably the cause of a member who went after me personally. Looking back, I probably should have been more patient, but instead I responded in kind. We have to accommodate varying levels of maturity and faith on this board....to an extent. Perhaps this is even more pressing with members who are new to the faith or are still digesting their beliefs in that they do hold their views subjectively. We need to take care so as not to cause anyone to stumble.

Perhaps it would not be a bad idea to be more restrictive in allowing posts specifically on debate issues. When a brother proves weaker by resorting to ad hominem and ignores warnings, prevent him from posting on debates only, but work with him towards a more mature and Christian attitude through pm or fellowship forums. If we do this early, when signs if immaturity and emotional distress first start exhibiting unchristian conduct then perhaps we can stop it and correct a brother before it escalates.


Sent from my TARDIS

 

[Benjamin]

This makes a good point that we also need to keep in mind. Those who resort to attack and insult probably do so out if the emotional distress of having their view challenged. I did not think of it at the time, but now I realize this was probably the cause of a member who went after me personally. Looking back, I probably should have been more patient, but instead I responded in kind. We have to accommodate varying levels of maturity and faith on this board....to an extent. Perhaps this is even more pressing with members who are new to the faith or are still digesting their beliefs in that they do hold their views subjectively. We need to take care so as not to cause anyone to stumble.

Perhaps it would not be a bad idea to be more restrictive in allowing posts specifically on debate issues. When a brother proves weaker by resorting to ad hominem and ignores warnings, prevent him from posting on debates only, but work with him towards a more mature and Christian attitude through pm or fellowship forums. If we do this early, when signs if immaturity and emotional distress first start exhibiting unchristian conduct then perhaps we can stop it and correct a brother before it escalates.


Sent from my TARDIS

We have both, formal debate, which has specific guidelines and close supervision and informal debate, but the bulk of discussion forums are formatted for informal debate. There are special moderator tools, such as characters available to all moderators which give friendly reminders and helpful hints, in order to help guide the decorum toward better standards in the informal debates forums. It is understood that most people have not studied philosophical logic and critical thinking skills and therefore probably fail to recognize the difference in the “types” of arguments.


I really don’t think it has to do so much with “unchristian” behavior as it does with just throwing a lot of people into in a theological debate ring without any guidance or understanding what the better goals consist of as well as how to work toward achieving them.


The basic rule of thumb is to remember that it is a “debate argument” between Christians and not a “street fight” and so the goal should be to start learning the value of philosophical principles which help to draw out the truth in these discussions.

 

[poncho]

Poncho, I hear Trump is holding out to participate in the Democratic Primaries. Maybe you should email Info Wars!!

You're the one who suggested we should "draw out the truth", so . . . is this an example of how it's done?

How about this . . .

Unfortunately the Trump supporters are starting to remind me of those clips of Obama supporters who were talking about getting "free money" while buying into everything he said at face value.

Is this an example of how it's done?

 

[Benjamin]

You're the one who suggested we should "draw out the truth", so . . . is this an example of how it's done?

FYI, Ted Cruz is the source who I heard say that maybe Trump is holding out to participate in the Democratic Primaries. So, 1) Therefore, it is a true statement that I heard this. 2) Cruz meant it as a joke and so did I. 3) you might to note the knee slapping smilie which was used to communicate and confirm that I was joking with you. …you might also note that the joke was on the credibility of your reference that you just gave and not you personally.


Sorry, if you are sensitive to a rhetorical joke on Info Wars,

but I fail to see where a claim against the credibility of your source, even if in the form of a rhetorical joke, is not a philosophical tool designed to “draw out the truth” in an “debate argument”.

Does that answer your question?

How about this . . .



Is this an example of how it's done?

First, that was a response regarding righteousdude2’s reply, where BTW he resorted to a personal attack on me (note he started with, “Your” playground, adolescent taunts…) concerning my conversation that you might also want to take note that I had not in the slightest previously reference him personally, as a matter of fact not once in my previous replies did I do so. I only addressed the issue of Trump (In this case the reply I got was regarding where I had merely offered a video and a claim, which I stand by, that is was a “fair commentary”) and that post wasn’t even addressed to righteousdude2. Again, his debate response was clearly to begin with a personal attack, so who is responsible for turning that debate into Ad Hominem? So, what is the “truth” here about who turned from the issue at hand to a personal attack, eh Poncho?


Further, my comparison, now indirectly addressing righteousdude2's reply (“while buying into everything he said at face value”) was quite accurate if one is to read the rest of righteousdude2’s post above mine and were to recognize that he was simply parroting Trump’s arguments right down to his boastfully declaring himself “wise” for “knowing Kelly’s motives and agenda”. It was a reference to people not thinking for themselves about where these kinds of, political pandering to people’s baser instincts to win at all costs, (in this case Trump’s very obvious Ad Hominem toward Kelly rather than him addressing the issues, clearly a fallacy, and this type of reasoning being defended by his followers) actually lead to. IOW’s I was addressing the reasoning of Trump supporters by making a comparison to Obama supporters’ reasoning through pointing out that the situation seemed just as gullible as the ones who thought they were getting free money.


Finally, Poncho, I don’t claim that all my debate arguments are always going to be taken as perfect “examples of how things should be done”, but my goals are generally geared to draw out the truth while I consider philosophical principles and I try to avoid getting personal as much as possible. My claim is that I value learning to use these principles and I’ll add to that that whatever one practices he gets better at… ...you might want to stick to that issue in this thread instead of trying to get some sort of payback from another thread in the political forum that isn't exactly typically focused on ethical debates anyway. Hmm?

 

[poncho]

FYI, Ted Cruz is the source who I heard say that maybe Trump is holding out to participate in the Democratic Primaries. So, 1) Therefore, it is a true statement that I heard this. 2) Cruz meant it as a joke and so did I. 3) you might to note the knee slapping smilie which was used to communicate and confirm that I was joking with you. …you might also note that the joke was on the credibility of your reference that you just gave and not you personally.


Sorry, if you are sensitive to a rhetorical joke on Info Wars, but I fail to see where a claim against the credibility of your source, even if in the form of a rhetorical joke, is not a philosophical tool designed to “draw out the truth” in an “debate argument”.

Does that answer your question?



First, that was a response regarding righteousdude2’s reply, where BTW he resorted to a personal attack on me (note he started with, “Your” playground, adolescent taunts…) concerning my conversation that you might also want to take note that I had not in the slightest previously reference him personally, as a matter of fact not once in my previous replies did I do so. I only addressed the issue of Trump (In this case the reply I got was regarding where I had merely offered a video and a claim, which I stand by, that is was a “fair commentary”) and that post wasn’t even addressed to righteousdude2. Again, his debate response was clearly to begin with a personal attack, so who is responsible for turning that debate into Ad Hominem? So, what is the “truth” here about who turned from the issue at hand to a personal attack, eh Poncho?


Further, my comparison, now indirectly addressing righteousdude2's reply (“while buying into everything he said at face value”) was quite accurate if one is to read the rest of righteousdude2’s post above mine and were to recognize that he was simply parroting Trump’s arguments right down to his boastfully declaring himself “wise” for “knowing Kelly’s motives and agenda”. It was a reference to people not thinking for themselves about where these kinds of, political pandering to people’s baser instincts to win at all costs, (in this case Trump’s very obvious Ad Hominem toward Kelly rather than him addressing the issues, clearly a fallacy, and this type of reasoning being defended by his followers) actually lead to. IOW’s I was addressing the reasoning of Trump supporters by making a comparison to Obama supporters’ reasoning through pointing out that the situation seemed just as gullible as the ones who thought they were getting free money.


Finally, Poncho, I don’t claim that all my debate arguments are always going to be taken as perfect “examples of how things should be done”, but my goals are generally geared to draw out the truth while I consider philosophical principles and I try to avoid getting personal as much as possible. My claim is that I value learning to use these principles and I’ll add to that that whatever one practices he gets better at… ...you might want to stick to that issue in this thread instead of trying to get some sort of payback from another thread. Hmm?

Wow dude you sure do use a lot of words to say "I'm the smartest most critical thinking guy on the board".

If your goal is trying to draw out the truth then why is your first post to me belittling my source and laughing at me? You could have said "Hi Poncho my name is Ben glad to meet you let's seek some truth together" instead of inferring my source is a liar and having a laugh at my expense.

FYI I'm not that sensitive about people putting down my sources or even laughing at me (unless you make a habit of it) and I'm not trying to get any "payback" I just have this thing about people who claim to be this but act like that and get all condescending when they're speaking to the person who questions them about it.

I think you'll find that treating people with a little dignity and respect goes a lot further to gain one's mutual respect than treating people like inferior beings

Especially at the first meeting. You didn't make a very good first impression with me then you compounded it with the condescending tone.

I mean this thread is about how to go about having a debate without offending a brother isn't it?

If so then I have a suggestion to add to this discussion. I suggest treating people as equals instead of inferiors as that's one of the main things here I've noticed that offends people the fastest. It's also one of the main reasons there are so many empty pews in churches today.

People have a tendency to respond in kind, be kind get kind, be rude and condescending get rude and condescending.

Go through all my threads and posts and I think you'll notice that I treat people the same as they treat me. There are people here that I have enjoyed many respectful discussions with because they have been respectful to me you'll also find that I can give as well as I get. I won't be treated as anyone's inferior without a fight, it's not in my DNA.

The choice is your's Ben is it going to be dignified and respectful between us from now on?

 

[John of Japan]

This makes a good point ....

Jon, post again quick; you are at 666 posts!

 

[Benjamin]

Wow dude you sure do use a lot of words to say "I'm the smartest most critical thinking guy on the board".

Poncho, I realize that my tone can easily be mistook in my writings on a forum. I tried to explain my reasoning just like you have asked, I even went into depth but obviously I have continued to offend you which becomes pretty apparent when someone starts off their reply the way you just did, so for offending I’ll apologize.

If your goal is trying to draw out the truth then why is your first post to me belittling my source and laughing at me?

Now you have started out asking me another question while bringing up my critical thinking skills in a way to be insulting while putting words into my mouth to assign a sort of arrogant elitism, which you should probably admit, to be truthful, is clearly meant to be a personal attack. To be honest, I can be very patient and forgiving to people that are attacking me while explaining my reasoning to them, but I hesitate to answer it here because I suspect you’re more interested in a fight than listening to me break down your “argument’s” sentence structure into premises, claims and issues as per critical thinking skills and get down to the truths about it.


Here is my thinking, your first premise (after opening your “argument” by throwing out an Ad hominem and an attempt to “poison the well”) is about my goal trying to draw out the truth. …So, first I look at the message (premise) you opened with, which is about “how I think I’m all that” and then I think about your claims and issues after coming to the obvious conclusion that your opening is clearly demonstrating some frustration here.


I know the best course is, if I want to get to the truths, is to forego personal attacks and get to the claims and issues.


Therefore, your first issue being, “Wow dude you sure do use a lot of words to say” is also sending messages about the subject, such as perhaps the “truth” of which I presume we agree the goal should be to draw out, is that you’re not sincerely interested in the argument(s) being broke down.

The practical response here, then, is to probably just consider that it is illogical for you to suggest that I can break down and explain an argument in detail without using a lot of words, which isn’t a very rational request. But, if you really want to get into CTS (critical thinking skills) to draw out the truth that’s where it begins.


The second issue you bring up begins by putting words into my mouth ("I'm the smartest most critical thinking guy on the board") that are meant to suggest I’m an arrogant elitist rather than simply sharing ideas. Just how you expect me to answer that is anything but bringing about an attempt to begin a reasonable discussion.


But frankly, I see your opening argument for what it is (an offensive rhetorical device containing an Ad Hominem) and rather than being offending and getting my emotions all stirred up about it and striking back with all the offensive rhetoric I can muster I feel have more important things to consider. Such as, not getting caught up in a “street fight” argument and would rather actually attempt to answer some of your questions.


Pertaining to drawing out the truth with CTS and “belittling your source and laughing at you”, although, the credibility of your source is fair game in a true debate there are certainly better ways to go about the objective of questioning your source. I used a comical demonstration (a rhetorical horse laugh) about something (such as offering a lead to a news story that might be stereotypically turned into hyper sensationalism) which seemed humorous to me considering the environment of the discussion I was getting involved in, which I wasn’t really considering anyone there having the goals of drawing out the truth in a real debate (why I typically stayed far away from that forum for the 10+ years when I posted more regularly here), so frankly, I wasn’t taking the conversion very seriously. Although, I generally try to stay away from the personal attacks regardless I thought I was going with the flow and keeping it lighthearted with a little humor but apparently you took it as me being offensive.

Especially at the first meeting. You didn't make a very good first impression with me then you compounded it with the condescending tone.

We have both been here 12 years and I would guess have had at least a dozen exchanges in that time. I have seen the “conspiracy theorist” thrown around with you countless times and figured you knew me well enough to know I was laughing with you and not at you on that subject of your source.

FYI I'm not that sensitive about people putting down my sources or even laughing at me…

I mean this thread is about how to go about having a debate without offending a brother isn't it?

You were either offended or you were not.


You brought that discussion into this thread for a reason, (I'll leave the truth behind that to you) and after my reply started your next response on the attack while accusing me of being condescending throughout your post and, now, I really don’t expect any explanation, no matter how gentle I try to be, that I give you will go by without you taking it and making endless claims that it or I are an offensive to you.


Back to the beginning, I took the time to collect a smilie to help communicate the message that I was merely having a “horse laugh” with you and honestly didn’t think you would find it offensive. But, I’m not going to allow this escalate any further and think it better to just offer my apology for my oversights which made you feel you had a score to settle.


Be blessed.

 

[JonC]

Jon, post again quick; you are at 666 posts!

Is there a rating for that? [emoji1] [emoji14]

Sent from my TARDIS

 

[John of Japan]

Is there a rating for that? [emoji1] [emoji14]

Sent from my TARDIS

It must make you the anti-something or other.

 

[JonC]

It must make you the anti-something or other.

I think I've been called something like that before .....or worse....here on the BB...[emoji14] [emoji1] [emoji14]

Sent from my TARDIS

 

[Reformed]

A few more thoughts...

Message boards have a way of exposing people with thin skin. These type of people are often self-offended. They invent ways to be offended. This is not a theological problem, it is a personality problem. No amount of reasoning will change the perception of your words with these individuals. They are a lot like Donald Trump. As long as you are agreeing with me, fine. Disagree? I am offended. What is almost worse are those people who know this personality trait exists with certain posters, but egg them on. We should not seek to exasperate a problem that we know exists.