Members leaving -- and religious debate.

[Quagmire]

You are aware that my very first sentence in the post that set you off, I said: "Of course, I cannot answer that for @It Aint Necessarily So,

And then you proceeded to do exactly that.

but I can say, from my own experience..." How can that be accusing you of anything? If anybody, I was accusing myself.

Every thing I posted at you in this thread so far had a point and apparently you've missed every single one of them.

Do you even consider other people's posts? Or do you just react to the tone?

No, I won't need more. This thread was meant to be an honest attempt at understanding religious debate,

I seriously doubt that that's what your intentions were.

and why it makes people want to leave. You've demonstrated the theme perfectly.

Yes I have, and thank you for letting me use you as a demonstration.

 

[Revoltingest]

Does it work for you?

Very well.
I see that you too have improved.

 

[Revoltingest]

That forum folded years ago.

Interesting.
I don't think the rules address
active vs defunct forums.
I'll check.

Edit....
No distinction is made.
So I advise not poking that bear.
Let no one be banned for a mistake.

2nd edit....
Without discussing moderation.....
I once spoke ill here of a forum that @Wirey
& I left when it folded. I'll not do that again.

 

[Alien826]

You used "jackals" seven times and "goon" one time in referring to atheists, then, in your last paragraph you said you "assumed that religious people should be the most open and honest."

Do you not even hear yourself?

I play a little game with this poster (or rather his posts). It is to stop reading when he introduces "liberals" or "democrats" in a derogatory way. My aim is to see how long it will be before I get to the end of one of his posts. In this case I stopped at the end of the third paragraph. To be fair, I do very occasionally get to the end.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Every thing I posted at you in this thread so far had a point and apparently you've missed every single one of them.

Do you even consider other people's posts? Or do you just react to the tone?

Well, as it happens, tone is of great importance in communication. Do you know the 7-38-55 rule?

It is a concept concerning the communication of emotions. The rule states that 7 percent of meaning is communicated through spoken word, 38 percent through tone of voice, and 55 percent through body language. It was developed by psychology professor Albert Mehrabian at the University of California, Los Angeles, who laid out the concept in his 1971 book Silent Messages.

Now, since your body language is totally absent over the internet, I'm left with your words and tone.

 

[Quagmire]

You used "jackals" seven times and "goon" one time in referring to atheists, then, in your last paragraph you said you "assumed that religious people should be the most open and honest."

Do you not even hear yourself?

He was calling a subset of members on a particular forum jackals and goons. The fact that they happened to be atheists was most likely a big part of their motivation for their behavior towards religious people, but it doesn't look like it had anything to do with @wellwisher's designation of them as such.

Atheist behaving badly = people behaving badly.
Not because they're atheist, but because they're behaving badly.

Unless you're trying to say that the fact that they were atheist should have given them a pass on behaving anyway they liked, because it would be easy to read your post that way.

 

[Quagmire]

The best way to lessen them is to look
in the mirror, & tell that person to clean
up their act.

I agree. There have been plenty of times that I've looked in the mirror and then came back in here and told you to clean up your act.

 

[Revoltingest]

Funny that some folk who are insistent they are the epitome of reason and probity are so devoid of self-awareness and humility...

That's an accurate description of the OP,
who claimed "logic", that was apparently
in defense of false claims about Haitians
stealing & eating pets in Springfield OH.

It’s funny that this thread and the last have illustrated exactly the problems Rival was talking about, while also highlighting the hypocrisy of some of those doing it.

No group is immune to those problems.
Including the OP's.

Speaking as a former “rationalist” myself, Michael Oakeshott’s observation that “The rationalist finds it difficult to believe anyone who thinks honestly and clearly can think differently from himself”...

That's an odd view to call "rationalist".
It is objectively observable that people are diverse,
& their rational thought begins with different premises.
They can reach different, albeit logical, conclusions.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree. There have been plenty of times that I've looked in the mirror and then came back in here and told you to clean up your act.

That guy in the mirror is such a jerk, eh.
But we tend to agree a lot, so I tolerate him.
And occasionally tell him to trim his 'stache.

 

[Quagmire]

I'll just throw this in in case it helps. I have no intention of joining in the food fight.

Not too long ago, @Rival posted a thread about nasty atheists being rude (not the exact words). I thought that she sounded like a relatively new member who had inadvertently blundered into the cut and thrust world of internet debate, so I posted what was intended to be a helpful response, based on that understanding. Someone else pointed out to me that she had not only been around in RF for 10 years, but was a moderator. I was very surprised, as that was not how she came across to me.

OK, carry on.

Well, thats one instance. And it's one of somebody while they're not at their best.

I've known @Rival for 12 years and I've worked with her for most of that.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that that probably counts for more than one isolated incident of somebody posting a thread on a bad day.

 

[an anarchist]

Well, thats one instance. And it's one of somebody while they're not at their best.

God, I know people can pull up some of my threads that I posted when I’m not at my best. If people judged me solely based on those threads, well, they would have a different opinion of me.

Thank you for bringing this up, I feel like it is important to realize and understand that people can sometimes make less than optimal posts but as long as that is not their shtick, we should be understanding as I’m sure we all have posted something we later regretted with hindsight.

 

[Quagmire]

God, I know people can pull up some of my threads that I posted when I’m not at my best. If people judged me solely based on those threads, well, they would have a different opinion of me.

Thank you for bringing this up, I feel like it is important to realize and understand that people can sometimes make less than optimal posts but as long as that is not their shtick, we should be understanding as I’m sure we all have posted something we later regretted with hindsight.

Well, I don't regret anything that I've posted, but that's mostly because I'm kind of a sociopath.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, thats one instance. And it's one of somebody while they're not at their best.

I've known @Rival for 12 years and I've worked with her for most of that.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that that probably counts for more than one isolated incident of somebody posting a thread on a bad day.

I've known her for some years too, & read of
difficulties coping with an environment wherein
other people had conflicting values. I know that
can be tough. She's young. Coping with life's
visssitoods viscitueds viscisitudes vicissitudes
improves over time. I didn't achieve my Zennish
virtues over-night. It took many decades.
I expect that she too will survive & thrive here.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

So, I don't think the main issue in religious debates is a lack of willingness to have one's beliefs criticized. I suspect that most people on this forum knew they would find that here when they joined or at least after spending a couple of weeks here. I tend to think that unproductivity in debates often comes from condescension, assumptions of bad faith, jumping to conclusions or not asking enough questions, dehumanization, demonization, and other issues that crop up in public discourse about various issues, let alone two issues as consequential, personal, and controversial as religion and politics.

I think some of the problem also comes from conflict cycles in which one member becomes defensive from a percieved (valid or not) personal attack or attack on an idea or individual they take personally, to which the other person becomes defensive and the main point of the thread gets lost in an elaborate "nuh-uh!" "Yeah-huh!" argument. I think we're all guilty about it at some point, but it's hard to not to given human nature.

This thread has several examples.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'll just throw this in in case it helps. I have no intention of joining in the food fight.

Not too long ago, @Rival posted a thread about nasty atheists being rude (not the exact words). I thought that she sounded like a relatively new member who had inadvertently blundered into the cut and thrust world of internet debate, so I posted what was intended to be a helpful response, based on that understanding. Someone else pointed out to me that she had not only been around in RF for 10 years, but was a moderator. I was very surprised, as that was not how she came across to me.

OK, carry on.

@Rival and I are good friends, and we've known each other for years through various different stages of change in our respective views. We haven't had any issues with handling disagreement or openly discussing our differing views with each other, and we disagree on most major issues I can think of.

As has already been said, some posts on one or two bad days are not enough to form a definitive conclusion about someone's MO and attitude. That and, from what I have experienced, how disagreement is handled and expressed is an important factor—to many people, either just as important as or even more important than the fact that the disagreement itself exists.

 

[Alien826]

Well, thats one instance. And it's one of somebody while they're not at their best.

I've known @Rival for 12 years and I've worked with her for most of that.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that that probably counts for more than one isolated incident of somebody posting a thread on a bad day.

Well, that's certainly fair enough.

I've been around for quite a while now and for some reason didn't recognize the fact that she had been around longer, which could mean something or nothing.

Would you accept that the thread I mentioned and the "farewell" thread came over as somewhat "fragile" (I wouldn't use that word)? After all it was that latter thread that the people you are criticizing were replying to.

If there's a lesson here, and there may not be, is that a long association with somebody probably gives a better appreciation of that person's character than a single (or even double!) interaction. Let's try an analogy. You run a boarding house. One of the tenants decides to leave and accuses you of all kinds of bad things. The place is never cleaned! The toilet is bunged up again and you haven't fixed it! There's a horrible smell in my room! You don't think any of these accusations are fair. If you don't know the person very well, you'll react to what you see as unreasonable criticism differently from if you know them well and have generally found them to be pleasant and reasonable.

 

[Alien826]

I think some of the problem also comes from conflict cycles in which one member becomes defensive from a percieved (valid or not) personal attack or attack on an idea or individual they take personally, to which the other person becomes defensive and the main point of the thread gets lost in an elaborate "nuh-uh!" "Yeah-huh!" argument. I think we're all guilty about it at some point, but it's hard to not to given human nature.

This thread has several examples.

Agreed. Not too long ago someone annoyed me enough that I stopped visiting the forum for a few weeks. I doubt anyone noticed! After a while I came back, lurking at first, then replied to something, and here I am contributing to the general hubbub once again.

Advice I would give to anyone considering "rage quitting" is to just leave. Anything you post while you are still angry you will surely regret later. You may come back or you may not. You may calm down and come back to address the matter in a more reasonable way. Either way, give yourself time to cool off.

 

[an anarchist]

Agreed. Not too long ago someone annoyed me enough that I stopped visiting the forum for a few weeks. I doubt anyone noticed! After a while I came back, lurking at first, then replied to something, and here I am contributing to the general hubbub once again.

Advice I would give to anyone considering "rage quitting" is to just leave. Anything you post while you are still angry you will surely regret later. You may come back or you may not. You may calm down and come back to address the matter in a more reasonable way. Either way, give yourself time to cool off.

I’ve stepped away for weeks or months at a time. 10/10 would recommend

 

[Quagmire]

Well, that's certainly fair enough.

I've been around for quite a while now and for some reason didn't recognize the fact that she had been around longer, which could mean something or nothing.

Would you accept that the thread I mentioned and the "farewell" thread came over as somewhat "fragile" (I wouldn't use that word)? After all it was that latter thread that the people you are criticizing were replying to.

Volatile maybe.

See, a big part of my objection to the use of the word 'fragile' is because it was pretty obviously chosen specifically for it's demeaning quality. The person who posted that wasn't just making an observation, they were purposely poking the op with a stick because, idk, for his own amusement? To punish a religious person for being a religious person?

Who knows. All I know is that it was a cheap shot and a way of kicking somebody when they were already down.

And I realize you wouldn't use that word because you're not a #$@&!

If there's a lesson here, and there may not be, is that a long association with somebody probably gives a better appreciation of that person's character than a single (or even double!) interaction. Let's try an analogy. You run a boarding house. One of the tenants decides to leave and accuses you of all kinds of bad things. The place is never cleaned! The toilet is bunged up again and you haven't fixed it! There's a horrible smell in my room! You don't think any of these accusations are fair. If you don't know the person very well, you'll react to what you see as unreasonable criticism differently from if you know them well and have generally found them to be pleasant and reasonable.

That reminds me: you're not allowed to have a hot plate in your profile.

 

[Alien826]

Volatile maybe.

See, a big part of my objection to the use of the word 'fragile' is because it was pretty obviously chosen specifically for it's demeaning quality. The person who posted that wasn't just making an observation, they were purposely poking the op with a stick because, idk, for his own amusement? To punish a religious person for being a religious person?

Who knows. All I know is that it was a cheap shot and a way of kicking somebody when they were already down.

And I realize you wouldn't use that word because you're not a #$@&!

I wouldn't use it but I might think it. The word "fragile" means something easily broken, and it implies something/someone that needs to be handled with care. I don't see it as necessarily demeaning, though I suppose it might to someone that considers strength and toughness to be the most admirable characteristics. So, I'd think it and not say it, but it would influence my subsequent words and actions.