Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On the ethics of debate
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 48 (270818)
12-19-2005 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Faith
12-19-2005 3:20 PM


Re: A Tedious Pattern -- indeed it is
Humm . . .
Maybe we should have a topic where I give my (very limited) understanding of TOE and its proofs, and then you tell me what you think is wrong with what I said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 12-19-2005 3:20 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 12-19-2005 3:38 PM robinrohan has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 32 of 48 (270831)
12-19-2005 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by robinrohan
12-19-2005 3:24 PM


Re: A Tedious Pattern -- indeed it is
Go for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2005 3:24 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2005 3:40 PM Faith has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 48 (270833)
12-19-2005 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
12-19-2005 3:38 PM


Re: A Tedious Pattern -- indeed it is
Go for it.
A great debate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 12-19-2005 3:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 12-19-2005 4:14 PM robinrohan has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 34 of 48 (270843)
12-19-2005 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
12-19-2005 12:37 PM


Re: A Tedious Pattern
Faith writes:
So I didn't intend anything personal but I do think this phenomenon is not exactly "innocent" on anybody's part, even if the ulterior motives are even hidden from themselves.
Overlooked this in my previous post. Interesting that you bold the first part but leave out the part that qualifies it. Even if the ulterior motives are hidden from themselves. Yes. Sometimes the dogged refusal to grant the slightest credence to even the most obvious statement of the opposition, so common at EvC, does suggest ulterior motives. But I don't think these are conscious even if I often suspect that all it would take sometimes is some rigorously honest soul-searching to reveal to oneself that such motives ARE involved. It is quite possible to go racing on with a fundamentally dishonest argument simply by refusing to stop and think about it carefully. This is not conscious fraud, but it is self-deception.
I guess we can't go on without you, after all.
Ah, let's see: my use of bold is suggestively "interesting" because an immediately adjacent phrase you find exculpatory was not bolded but merely included? Would that cover it?
I am underwhelmed: the bolded passage supported my assertion that you make accusations of deception; the phrase that follows supported my assertion that you then back off to a "lesser" charge of self-deception. I cannot think of a more appropriate use of emphases--almost meta-textual, really.
In the message above, you proceed again to mix the two (I won't add any emphases):
It is quite possible to go racing on with a fundamentally dishonest argument simply by refusing to stop and think about it carefully. This is not conscious fraud, but it is self-deception.
I am content. You may go on without me.

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 12-19-2005 12:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 35 of 48 (270845)
12-19-2005 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by robinrohan
12-19-2005 3:40 PM


not so great debate perhaps
I don't mind if it's one-on-one if that makes it easier to follow, as I'm sure it will. But how about a Mediocre Discussion instead of great debate, in which both parties of execrable science (or is yours less so?) aim to understand things better and perhaps invite in expert testimony from time to time? I mean I really would like to understand the genetics better but not the way it usually goes here.
This message has been edited by Faith, 12-19-2005 04:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2005 3:40 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2005 4:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 48 (270849)
12-19-2005 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Faith
12-19-2005 4:14 PM


Re: not so great debate perhaps
But how about a Mediocre Discussion instead of great debate, in which both parties of execrable science (or is yours less so?) aim to understand things better and perhaps invite in expert testimony from time to time? I mean I really would like to understand the genetics better but not the way it usually goes here.
Good idea. I'll compose a PNT.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-19-2005 03:30 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 12-19-2005 4:14 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by AdminNWR, posted 12-19-2005 4:33 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 38 by bkelly, posted 12-19-2005 5:39 PM robinrohan has replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 48 (270854)
12-19-2005 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by robinrohan
12-19-2005 4:29 PM


Re: not so great debate perhaps
I suggest you prepare a Proposed New Topic on this. Maybe include the words "Mediocre Discussion" in the title if you like. We could put it in the Great Debate forum as an indication that it is restricted to the agreed participants


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2005 4:29 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 48 (270883)
12-19-2005 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by robinrohan
12-19-2005 4:29 PM


Re: not so great debate perhaps
Hello robinrohan,
This will be interesting. It seems the debate is between the two of you and I have the impression that by the rules of this forum it should be limited to you two. I do have a suggestion. First order of business, establish the topic of the discussion.
Each participant should define the word "evolution" and the phrase "theory of evolution." The definition should be in your own words, not a quote pasted in from some reference.
Second suggestion: There will be numerous sub-topics and points made. Don't clutter up posts will multiple points and long winded explanations, make one or two points in a post, make them short ane clear, and see where it goes.
That first request is the core initiator of this thread and of your debate. Faith make claims, but she does not know the words she uses much less know the topic. Debating a topic when the participants do not agree on the topic will come to no useful conclusion.
No need to respond, use my suggestions or not as you choose. I will be watching the debate.
Good luck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2005 4:29 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by robinrohan, posted 12-19-2005 5:42 PM bkelly has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 48 (270885)
12-19-2005 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by bkelly
12-19-2005 5:39 PM


Re: not so great debate perhaps
Thanks. My idea is to use plain language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by bkelly, posted 12-19-2005 5:39 PM bkelly has not replied

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 48 (270893)
12-19-2005 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by purpledawn
12-19-2005 5:04 AM


Re: To Answer or Not to Answer?
Hello purpledawn,
No. This is not a formal debate. There is no contract or promise etc.
I take a differing view. Yes, this is a formal debate. This forum has a clear and stated purpose. This forum has clear and stated rules. (Recognizing that the rules are not comprehensive) Topics are declared for each thread. Moderators try to keep threads on topic. While Robert’s rules are not specified, it is formal just the same.
There are implicit rules in conversation. One of them is that when you make a claim, you are obligated to explain your position and substantiate it. Imagine you and I are having a discussion and I declare that you are full of crap. Imagine that I insist that you accept my position and expect you to believe my position. (A bit arrogant?) Imagine further that I will not explain my position. Am I playing by the rules?
Now remember that I have the opportunity to stick my opinion into your conversations without others without your permission such that you really cannot ignore it.
You would probably hold that my behavior is odious. And you would be right. And how would you feel if I persistantly and flagarently behaved in that manner?
This message has been edited by bkelly, 12-20-2005 01:52 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by purpledawn, posted 12-19-2005 5:04 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by purpledawn, posted 12-19-2005 7:36 PM bkelly has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 41 of 48 (270930)
12-19-2005 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by bkelly
12-19-2005 6:09 PM


Re: To Answer or Not to Answer?
quote:
Imagine that I assumem make that insist, that you accept my position and expect you to believe my position.
quote:
Now remember that I have the opportunity to stick my opinion into your conversations without others without your permission such that you really cannot ignore it.
Typos have made these sentences unclear, please clarify the sentences. Previewing before posting helps.
quote:
Imagine you and I are having a discussion and I declare that you are full of crap.
Declaring that I am full of crap breaks rule #10
Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.
quote:
You would probably hold that my behavior is odious. And you would be right. And how would you feel if I persistantly and flagarently behaved in that manner?
IMO, you are describing something different than simply not answering a direct question.

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by bkelly, posted 12-19-2005 6:09 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by bkelly, posted 12-20-2005 2:03 AM purpledawn has replied

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 48 (271000)
12-20-2005 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by purpledawn
12-19-2005 7:36 PM


Re: To Answer or Not to Answer?
Hello purpledawn,
The hour is late, I cannot sleep, and so must make this short and go to bed anyway.
Declaring that I am full of crap breaks rule #10
I did not use my imaginary conversation to hide a slam at you. I truely did mean it to illistrate a point. While I disagree with your position, I am impressed with the things you say and the quality of your positions. I fear that I did not make the perspective of my post clear.
In quick summary, I feel that Faith makes unwarrented statements and will not defend them, and will not justify them. She puts her comments in and takes offense when she is called to task. Then she runs off to other threads and makes the same types of posts. When it comes to simple questions such as, "How do you define evolution?" (consider in the context of the posts) she should be required to answer.
Thanks for your comments. If I did sound as though I was hiding a slam at you, then I do appologize. That was not my intent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by purpledawn, posted 12-19-2005 7:36 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by purpledawn, posted 12-20-2005 3:34 AM bkelly has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 43 of 48 (271012)
12-20-2005 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by bkelly
12-20-2005 2:03 AM


Re: To Answer or Not to Answer?
quote:
I did not use my imaginary conversation to hide a slam at you.
I took it as an illustration as it was intended. Unfortunately, your example fell under rule #10.
quote:
She should be required to answer.
Out of curiosity, how do you propose that should happen?

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by bkelly, posted 12-20-2005 2:03 AM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by bkelly, posted 12-20-2005 4:00 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 48 (271153)
12-20-2005 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by purpledawn
12-20-2005 3:34 AM


Re: To Answer or Not to Answer?
Hello purpledawn,
I do not propose any specific action. I want to clarify obligations that people have when they enter debates and conversations such as those here. And that is in part that any active member does have an obligation to answer topic related questions. Topic related questions do include any opinions stated and points made to support their position.
I will reconsider my actions IAW rule 10.
Thanks for your post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by purpledawn, posted 12-20-2005 3:34 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
custard
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 48 (271275)
12-21-2005 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bkelly
12-18-2005 3:19 PM


1. In an environment such as this EvC forum, should a participant be required to answer relevant questions? For example, what is your definition of evolution?
No. But it demonstrates poor etiquette if the person can't even address a legitimate question.
2. I hold that if a participant does not answer, they are being unethical. Do you agree or disagree?
If the person was responding to other questions prior to this, then I agree.
At the very least he/she is guilty of rude behavior.
3. If a participant behaves in an unethical manner and yet continues to participate, are they being dishonest? Obviously, I say yes.
No, but they are certainly being rude and demonstrating they don't really want to discuss the topic, just jabber away broadcasting their own thoughts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bkelly, posted 12-18-2005 3:19 PM bkelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 12-21-2005 8:43 AM custard has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024