One Basic Rule - PLEASE READ

editing_for_authors
Editing for authors: because every writer needs a good editor.

MacAllister

'Twas but a dream of thee
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
21,811
Reaction score
10,077
Location
Out on a limb
Website
macallisterstone.com
Respect for each other, and for beliefs sometimes alien to ourselves, is the order of the day here.

We're going to have very little tolerance for sweeping generalizations about religions -- for example, if you believe Mormonism is a cult, that's fine--believe whatever you want. But keep it to yourself in the course of conversations in this room.

Okay: "What's up with the emphasis on eating Kosher that I sometimes see the media going on about, wrt Jews? What's that about?"

Not Okay
: "I'm sorry. I just think refusing to take your kid to the doctor is child abuse and people who claim that their religion demands that they trust God for healing deserve to be prosecuted by law."
 

Reilly616

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 2, 2008
Messages
390
Reaction score
35
Why is that last one not okay? It's a very valid opinion. A child doesn't choose his parents. If he is stuck with ones who refuse to care for him then, surly, it should be the state's job to make sure he is safe.
 
Last edited:

MacAllister

'Twas but a dream of thee
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
21,811
Reaction score
10,077
Location
Out on a limb
Website
macallisterstone.com
Reilly, you can believe it. That's fine. It falls under the "keep it to yourself" part of our single rule, though. This room is for the discussion of religious variances, towards a better understanding -- not the challenge, criticism, or dismissal of other people's beliefs.

I fully expect we may find ourselves discussing news events or other specifics that deal with things we may, personally and individually, find profoundly alien or even offensive.

The conversation in here about those events will remain both thoughtful and respectful, though.
 
Last edited:

Ken

Banned
Kind Benefactor
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
11,481
Reaction score
6,197
Location
AW. A very nice place!
"What's up with the emphasis on eating Kosher that I sometimes see the media going on about, wrt Jews? What's that about?"

...to be honest this first example might be better phrased.
"Going on about" implies that the media is giving the issue undo attention and importance, implying bias in reportage. "What's up with" is often used in a disparaging way when introducing a topic: "What's up with her?"

First example, minus modification = What's up with Jews?
Clearly not acceptable, though of course in this instance, accidental.
 

Reilly616

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 2, 2008
Messages
390
Reaction score
35
MacAllister; What is disrespectful about that opinion? I know I didn't make that comment, but I do happen to think that denying medical care to a child (or anyone) is a terrible thing. Why is my opinion less valid, and "more offensive", than someone who states that they think that is fine. Can you not see how one sided you are making this?

"discussion of religious variances". Disagreeing is a variance.

I'll put it another way so you might understand my point.

Say there are three people and Person one wants to buy a red skirt.
Person two advises that she should buy a yellow skirt instead.
Person three advises that she might be better off saving her money for elsewhere.

Are they not all valid opinions on the topic of skirt-buying? If Person one is offended by Person three's suggestion, does it become a less valid opinion?

I really am trying to explain my meaning here, this isn't just for fun. I hope you can see my point.
 

MacAllister

'Twas but a dream of thee
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
21,811
Reaction score
10,077
Location
Out on a limb
Website
macallisterstone.com
Ken, you're absolutely right. It could be much better phrased -- which was part of my point. I don't want us to quibble semantics, so much as to try to look through even awkward or inarticulate phrasing to the underlying attitude expressed by the poster. Also note, an honest question is going to automatically get more traction in here, than is an assertion or generalization about someone else's belief.
 

AMCrenshaw

...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
4,671
Reaction score
620
Website
dfnovellas.wordpress.com
"people who claim that their religion demands that they trust God for healing deserve to be prosecuted by law."

That's the sweeping generalization. It's "valid", but, as a sweeping generalization, it's offensive and denies the differences among people even of the same faith.

The first half is probably geared more toward the Hardcore Politics forum than a forum which tries to understand differences between traditions. It might be hard, but criticism can be separated from questioning.

AMC
 

Ken

Banned
Kind Benefactor
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
11,481
Reaction score
6,197
Location
AW. A very nice place!
Ken, you're absolutely right. It could be much better phrased -- which was part of my point. I don't want us to quibble semantics, so much as to try to look through even awkward or inarticulate phrasing to the underlying attitude expressed by the poster. Also note, an honest question is going to automatically get more traction in here, than is an assertion or generalization about someone else's belief.

...agree 100% with this.
Points in discussions should be stated without any flavoring and should stand or fall on the soundness of the logic and reasoning that supports them. Any other tactic of winning an argument, by rhetoric and whatnot, is similar to cheating in a boardgame. One may win, but not really and they also haven't improved their skills in debating, which is one of the aims on a writing site as this.
 

MacAllister

'Twas but a dream of thee
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
21,811
Reaction score
10,077
Location
Out on a limb
Website
macallisterstone.com
MacAllister; What is disrespectful about that opinion? I know I didn't make that comment, but I do happen to think that denying medical care to a child (or anyone) is a terrible thing. Why is my opinion less valid, and "more offensive", than someone who states that they think that is fine. Can you not see how one sided you are making this?
It's a perfectly valid opinion. It doesn't belong in this forum, though. This is NOT the "Holy Wars 2009 Forum." If you want to talk about what you believe, great -- but NOT in terms of taking a critical stance to what other people believe. Seriously - I'm going to have a pretty-much zero-tolerance stance on that. So, in those terms "my belief system suggests that God led man to develop modern medicine, so of course it's absolutely okay with my Higher Power for my child to have a bone marrow transplant" is fine.

In contrast:

"JW's are just wrong, because I don't believe what they believe" is, in fact, offensive, arrogant, and won't fly.

That's not one-sided. This room is not about who is right. If we're going to be able to discuss volatile topics with anything approaching an assumption of goodwill on the part of other participants, than those participants cannot be approaching the conversation without that goodwill.

"discussion of religious variances". Disagreeing is a variance.

I'll put it another way so you might understand my point.
Careful. You're verging on sounding awfully condescending. I understand your point fully. I'm just not inclined to let you act like a pig towards people who happen to believe differently than YOU believe, for no more reason than you're pretty sure you're right and they're wrong.


Say there are three people and Person one wants to buy a red skirt.
Person two advises that she should buy a yellow skirt instead.
Person three advises that she might be better off saving her money for elsewhere.

Are they not all valid opinions on the topic of skirt-buying? If Person one is offended by Person three's suggestion, does it become a less valid opinion?
Let's take your example, then. It actually doesn't work, because Person One, theoretically, asked for input from those three people. If Person Three walked up to a total stranger about to buy a red dress, and told her to save her money -- yeah. That's rude. Especially if Person Three walks up to the woman about to wear the dress, and explains how wearing dresses is simply being a tool of a patriarchal and misogynistic society, and All Right Thinking People know that women should refuse to wear dresses.
 
Last edited:

Reilly616

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 2, 2008
Messages
390
Reaction score
35
It's a perfectly valid opinion. It doesn't belong in this forum, though. This is NOT the "Holy Wars 2009 Forum." If you want to talk about what you believe, great -- but NOT in terms of taking a critical stance to what other people believe. Seriously - I'm going to have a pretty-much zero-tolerance stance on that. So, in those terms "my belief system suggests that God led man to develop modern medicine, so of course it's absolutely okay with my Higher Power for my child to have a bone marrow transfusion" is fine.

Okay, I can totally accept that way of looking at that thread. But to be fair then you would have to also complain about anything that took a critical stance against what I believe. I don't think that should, be done, but for the purposes of the thread and your rules it would follow.

"JW's are just wrong, because I don't believe what they believe" is, in fact, offensive, arrogant, and won't fly. That's not one-sided. This room is not about who is right. If we're going to be able to discuss volatile topics with anything approaching an assumption of goodwill on the part of other participants, than those participants cannot be approaching the conversation without that goodwill.

I don't know who said that, but I agree fully that it's a stupid comment. Had evidence and reasoning been given it would have been valid. Rude, but valid.

Careful. You're verging on sounding awfully condescending. I understand your point fully. I'm just not inclined to let you act like a pig towards people who happen to believe differently than YOU believe, for not more reason than you're pretty sure you're right and they're wrong.

Your "careful" sounds condescending to me. I read my post before I posted it and I thought there might have been ambiguity. That's why I added: "I really am trying to explain my meaning here, this isn't just for fun. I hope you can see my point." Apologies if it wasn't clear enough.


Let's take your example, then. It actually doesn't work, because Person One, theoretically, asked for input from those three people. If Person Three walked up to a total stranger about to buy a red dress, and told her to save her money -- yeah. That's rude. Especially if Person Three walks up to the woman about to wear the dress, and explains how wearing dresses is simply being a tool of a patriarchal and misogynistic society, and All Right Thinking People know that women should refuse to wear dresses.

My example doesn't involve asking. If person two walked up and suggested yellow in the same manner you portray Person three as xpressing their opinion then they too would be rude. But still, they are all valid opinions.

Anyway, can we just leave it there and agree to disagree? I hope there isn't any animosity between us. Maybe if you want to continue, we could do so by PM.
 

MacAllister

'Twas but a dream of thee
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
21,811
Reaction score
10,077
Location
Out on a limb
Website
macallisterstone.com
Well, no.

We can agree to disagree, certainly -- but we're going to do it my way in this room. That's not actually up for discussion.

If you feel like your beliefs have been attacked, then point it out to one of your mods, rather than going on counter-attack.
 

MacAllister

'Twas but a dream of thee
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
21,811
Reaction score
10,077
Location
Out on a limb
Website
macallisterstone.com
I'm done.

Reilly won't be posting in this forum, because he's pretty clearly unwilling to abide by our single, simple requirement of respect for each others' beliefs.
 
Last edited:

small axe

memento mori
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
1,940
Reaction score
261
Firstly, I hail and salute the One Rule. It's a Good Rule.

Secondly, I wonder (wistfully) why it cannot be a general rule for ALL the forums: disagree, discuss and debate intelligently and respectfully, but avoid empty and insulting over-generalization ...

(Perhaps such enlightenment DOES exist in all AW forums, I don't know, all may weigh it for themselves)

How is the intelligent discussion concerning Religion and Philosophy (even if only taking them as social or cultural issues) somehow possible ... where discussion of Politics and Current Events etc cannot aspire to the same high standards?

Questions not necessarily expecting or needing answers, just ...

Why cannot we all get along so well, no matter what the topic or where the forum, etc?
 

Fade

The Captain of My Soul
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
597
Reaction score
73
Location
USA
I do agree with the One Basic Rule.

I also agree with small axe in wishing that it would not only a good rule for this forums, but also for all forums, and for real life.

It's sad that people can't treat each other nicely without being told to do so.

MacAllister, I am very glad that you told people this rule so that there'd be less disrespect of other's belief (at least, less mentioned disrespect).
 

Jean Marie

calm waters ahead
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
6,341
Reaction score
2,261
Location
Somewhere in the recesses of my mind
Website
www.jeanmariewiesen.com
Gee, you guys want everything ;)

The one rule to exist in all the forums? are you mad :e2thud:

It would be brilliant if it could as well as in rl, wouldn't it.

Meditate on the possibilities and proceed to dream.

Once upon a time, a bazillion years ago, in another universe, I learned it as, The Golden Rule. Thank you, Mac for re-instituting it, here :)
 
Last edited:

James81

Great Scott Member
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
5,234
Reaction score
1,014
I can't carry it for you Reilly, but I can carry you. lol
 

jennifer75

SupahStah!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
2,558
Reaction score
3,227
Location
So Cal
MacAllister, I am very glad that you told people this rule so that there'd be less disrespect of other's belief (at least, less mentioned disrespect).

It's true...I feel more open about discussing my ignorances and interests knowing that somebody wont correct me and tell me how wrong I am and then push their way onto me.
 

AMCrenshaw

...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
4,671
Reaction score
620
Website
dfnovellas.wordpress.com
Dialogue Decalogue


I do suggest reading through this and digesting a bit of what it says. I think it's possible that "do unto others" might be too over-heard or jaded of a statement to make us conscious of ourselves, others, and what we write. Sincerity, honesty, trust, no assumptions, desire to change, learn, share, etc. Thanks.

AMC
 

Featured Book