Staff/members discussion thread. Report-free.

[A New Dawn]

Ministry and Life Stages is a no-debate zone, though.

Then we should close all the threads that have turned into a debate? Aren't a lot of threads OPs designed to draw the respondants into debate? Should we not allow them?

 

[dallasapple]

Here is another observation ..Some people..can NOT accept..that YES the listerner DOES understand you point of view...but they think thats a "negative" in THEIR opinion ..like 'well I wouldnt want to live that way.."..or I PERSONALLY would be undhappy with that point of view prevelant in my life..or in society.."I reject that in my personal life"..

They cant or wont accept that doesnt translate to they "must not understand you "...I dont know if it makes them feel 'bad" that someone else thinks thats no way thye would live..or what..but it seems they have to "clarify" so the person will go "oh ..in that case thats AWESOME..NO..some views..some outlook on life..are going to be distasteful to some..period.. dont 'like" your POV..period..

Im INCLUDED..some will think.."I think the way YOU think ..is something I wouldnt hope for '..period..that doesnt mean they completely MISUNDERSTAND me..that "could " be the case..but if after clarifying they 'still" find my view distateful..or agaisnt their "eithics" morals" hwo they choose to live..its NOT becasu ethey are 'misrepresenting me..

Thats a cop out IMHO..to think anyone who finds your views..or yoru way of life even "disturbign" to them or WOULD be if they were "subjected" to that IRL..to say "they arent listening"..or 'they are making you look like a terrible PERSON" etc..

Dallas

 

[FaithPrevails]

Then we should close all the threads that have turned into a debate? Aren't a lot of threads OPs designed to draw the respondants into debate? Should we not allow them?

Yes.

I mean seriously? This was a pretty rude response to my post to dallas.

If the threads are designed that way, then they are OT, IMO. I come to Ministry for the very reason that it is labeled a no-debate zone, Dawn.

If that won't be enforced, then I don't know how much longer I will be around. Getting banished from Singles was hard enough. Now being told that the no-debate zone won't be enforced is just the icing on that cake.

 

[dallasapple]

Ministry and Life Stages is a no-debate zone, though.

O.K well then THAT needs to be adressed..Im not 'debating " with myself Faith..in fact..MANY threads are started that are under the title of "discussion" but someone is telling a littel fib..it they say there isnt a LOT of debating going on in those threads..

Threads started for example on "feminism" not even marriage related for discussion you and I both know the people involved are debating points.Thats just one example...

Am I the only one thats going to admit thats exactly what they are doing?And call it 'discussing' instead?

Dallas

 

[chaz345]

Generally, not qualifying a generality does imply "all". If you mean to indicate some, or even many, you should add "some" or "many". Even saying things like "In general, women _______" implies that it is not all. I really am not sure what the resistance is to adding qualifying words to your statements when you know that without them the statements can be applied broadly, which is what makes it offensive. It just boggles my mind that some are insisting it needs to remain all or nothing. You all (generally speaking) get upset at the people who think generalities are offensive, and want them to change, but don't want to change anything on your end. It isn't going to be put all on one group. If you want to use generalities, they need to be qualified, especially if it is an offensive generalization.

I'm not resisting adding qualifying words, I'm resisting the idea that that's actually the bulk of the problem. There are dozens or hundreds of examples of perfectly clearly qualified generalizations being reacted to defensively.

And your saying that some are insisting on not changing anything on our end is what's truly baffling. Seriously, I honestly think you need to go back and read what those of us who are "resisting the adding of qualifications" have actually said because you've completely missed it.

I've said a dozen or more times that yes we can all be a little more clear in how we speak. How is that "resisting adding qualifiers"? Seriously explain how in your mind you can get from those words to that meaning.

My concern is that the idea of adding qualifiers has been applauded and stated that it will be done but the idea that the listener bears some responsibility for their interpretation and reaction has been seemingly ignored.

 

[WolfGate]

Generally, not qualifying a generality does imply "all". If you mean to indicate some, or even many, you should add "some" or "many". Even saying things like "In general, women _______" implies that it is not all. I really am not sure what the resistance is to adding qualifying words to your statements when you know that without them the statements can be applied broadly, which is what makes it offensive. It just boggles my mind that some are insisting it needs to remain all or nothing. You all (generally speaking) get upset at the people who think generalities are offensive, and want them to change, but don't want to change anything on your end. It isn't going to be put all on one group. If you want to use generalities, they need to be qualified, especially if it is an offensive generalization.

I disagree with the bolded. Saying "girls have higher SAT scores than boys" in no way implies all girls have higher SAT scores than boys.

However....I understand that in many discussions in this forum people have and will continue to interpret things that way. And I recognize that in some threads people HAVE meant to imply "all".

So I absolutely agree that using qualifying words can help us move past some of the issues we've had. And it's a very easy thing to try and do. So no problem personally there.

Dawn - I'm not making that point to beat on a dying horse. The only reason I say that is because it would be a travesty for the defacto response to a post to become "you didn't qualify, therefore you meant all" when context or later clarification makes it clear the poster did not. Because there will be times people write what to them are clearly not "all" statements that may be interpretable as such.

I said earlier, I'm optimistic the 911 process with work us through that.

 

[dallasapple]

Then we should close all the threads that have turned into a debate? Aren't a lot of threads OPs designed to draw the respondants into debate? Should we not allow them?

That would in the long run..eventually be about 90% of the threads around here.(even if they dont start ut that way..or go in and out of debate like and ebb and flow type thing).If there is NO debating..???This place would be crawling slow (I imagine IN comparison))..Which is an option..Im not saying thats a "bad " thing..but thats "part" of the draw..at least for me.I do love a good "debate"..

Dallas

 

[chaz345]

Yes.

I mean seriously? This was a pretty rude response to my post to dallas.

If the threads are designed that way, then they are OT, IMO. I come to Ministry for the very reason that it is labeled a no-debate zone, Dawn.

If that won't be enforced, then I don't know how much longer I will be around. Getting banished from Singles was hard enough. Now being told that the no-debate zone won't be enforced is just the icing on that cake.

Ok I"m confused here. Maybe my confusion is over a definitional difference between debate and discussion. Is there a distinction in terms of CF rules? Or does "no debate" mean an area is strictly for help/support and no general discussion is allowed at all?

 

[WolfGate]

Debate - discussion. Generally we can have different viewpoints and discuss. We have hit problems (part of the reason for this thread?) when we slide into 4) and 8) below. Otherwise, what I see us doing in here is discussing, not debating.

Of course, mods can tell me if "debate" has a different interpretation in CF.

de·bate

   /dɪˈbeɪt/ Show Spelled [dih-beyt] Show IPA noun, verb, -bat·ed, -bat·ing.
noun 1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.

2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.

3. deliberation; consideration.

4. Archaic . strife; contention.


#mid1{border-top:solid 1px #E4E4E4;border-bottom:solid 1px #E4E4E4;padding-bottom:8px;padding-top:8px;}verb (used without object) 5. to engage in argument or discussion, as in a legislative or public assembly: When we left, the men were still debating.

6. to participate in a formal debate.

7. to deliberate; consider: I debated with myself whether to tell them the truth or not.

8. Obsolete . to fight; quarrel.

 

[chaz345]

Then we should close all the threads that have turned into a debate? Aren't a lot of threads OPs designed to draw the respondants into debate? Should we not allow them?

If a thread that was originally started as a request for help has turned into two or more of the people offering help fighting over differing advice then yes, some action is required. A single exchange disagreeing respectfully or pointing out something in the OP they may have missed MIGHT be appropriate, but most of the time, in advice threads, we all need to do better at addressing the OP and their issues and spend less(or no) time addressing the advice of others.

But, having said that, there is a place for both specific help threads and general discussion threads and if we're headed toward a place that's purely help only, I've got little interest.

 

[WolfGate]

That would in the long run..eventually be about 90% of the threads around here.(even if they dont start ut that way..or go in and out of debate like and ebb and flow type thing).If there is NO debating..???This place would be crawling slow (I imagine IN comparison))..Which is an option..Im not saying thats a "bad " thing..but thats "part" of the draw..at least for me.I do love a good "debate"..

Dallas

Yep.

I'll start the "sort the leaves by where they fall on the color wheel" thread. Want to join me there?

 

[dallasapple]

right..tomato tomAto..LOL!!

But our 'discussions" many times make NO mistake are IMHO 'debates"..

The fighting quarreling contention is never good under any form of communication.

But debating is common here even if it doesnt result in that.

I "disagree " and heres why ''...and "I agree and heres an example" .."take this hypothetical " ready set go! is common here...on threads about a topic in general.

Dallas

 

[JaneFW]

That's NOT blue, it's green, and if you can't tell the difference between blue and green you're obviously NOT a Christian!!

 

[dallasapple]

Yep.

I'll start the "sort the leaves by where they fall on the color wheel" thread. Want to join me there?

Oh gosh..I would LOVE too..but Im really busy knitting..then after that I have to go watch the paint dry ...maybe some other time when its not so hectic aroudn here..

Dallas

 

[dallasapple]

It would be impossible IMHO to have "no debate" on a marriage forum..marriage is a debate..for your entire life.(even if its in your head)

Dallas

 

[dinonum]

Typically on other forums once the goal becomes to get another party to concede that they are wrong - it becomes a debate. All too often we debate over here, I didn't know this was against the rules though.

 

[JaneFW]

It would be impossible IMHO to have "no debate" on a marriage forum..marriage is a debate..for your entire life.(even if its in your head)

Dallas

LOL. Too true.

 

[WolfGate]

Yes.

I mean seriously? This was a pretty rude response to my post to dallas.

If the threads are designed that way, then they are OT, IMO. I come to Ministry for the very reason that it is labeled a no-debate zone, Dawn.

If that won't be enforced, then I don't know how much longer I will be around. Getting banished from Singles was hard enough. Now being told that the no-debate zone won't be enforced is just the icing on that cake.

In the joking about debates/discussions I don't want to slide over this concern. It does, perhaps, touch on the line of when a discussion becomes a debate. Clearly semantics for some of us, and we've already seen Dallas and I understand the line differently (though we stopped well short of trying to argue the other into agreeing with our point).

Faith - I've seen you engage well in some discussions with differing viewpoints. So I'd be interested in understanding where you see debate/discussion division. Or is it one of those things we can't define, but we know it when we see it?

 

[Edial]

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't come here to argue and fight with people. Heck, I can get that at home. What I come here for is the socializing. That's something I don't get in real life. I want to know that I can be heard without someone making fun and telling me that what I say isn't important. That's all "I" want. And I'm sure I'm not alone...........

Arguments and fights are what destroys forums.
Why should a person even log on when s/he is probably be yelled at, dismissed or criticized mercilessly?
You are correct - this is a place where people socialize.

And in civilized societies socialization includes respect towards all involved.

And all have a God given right as a human being to be treated as one.

No verbal abuse or harassment from either "side" will be tolerated.

And as far as disagreement, tempers, flareups - well, things happen.
We could always figure something out in MSC.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

 

[A New Dawn]

I'm not resisting adding qualifying words, I'm resisting the idea that that's actually the bulk of the problem. There are dozens or hundreds of examples of perfectly clearly qualified generalizations being reacted to defensively.

And your saying that some are insisting on not changing anything on our end is what's truly baffling. Seriously, I honestly think you need to go back and read what those of us who are "resisting the adding of qualifications" have actually said because you've completely missed it.

I've said a dozen or more times that yes we can all be a little more clear in how we speak. How is that "resisting adding qualifiers"? Seriously explain how in your mind you can get from those words to that meaning.

My concern is that the idea of adding qualifiers has been applauded and stated that it will be done but the idea that the listener bears some responsibility for their interpretation and reaction has been seemingly ignored.

I disagree with the bolded. Saying "girls have higher SAT scores than boys" in no way implies all girls have higher SAT scores than boys.

However....I understand that in many discussions in this forum people have and will continue to interpret things that way. And I recognize that in some threads people HAVE meant to imply "all".

So I absolutely agree that using qualifying words can help us move past some of the issues we've had. And it's a very easy thing to try and do. So no problem personally there.

Dawn - I'm not making that point to beat on a dying horse. The only reason I say that is because it would be a travesty for the defacto response to a post to become "you didn't qualify, therefore you meant all" when context or later clarification makes it clear the poster did not. Because there will be times people write what to them are clearly not "all" statements that may be interpretable as such.

I said earlier, I'm optimistic the 911 process with work us through that.

I'd like to point out that I made a lot of generalizations in my post rather than responding point by point to the quoted post and several other posts I read where the posters still indicated that the brunt of the misunderstandings lie with the interpreter rather than with the poster. My generalizations were all qualified, though, and both of you found fault with it. Why? Because you didn't fall into the generalization. That is the point I'm trying to make. My generalizations weren't even offensive, yet you rebelled against them even though you agree that generalizations are acceptable. Think of how those who don't like generalizations feel, then, when they are posted, and especially when they are offensive.

Making the point I was trying to make doesn't negate that everyone here does need to make the effort to see the best rather than the worst, and to try to not let history get in the way (which is very hard, I have to admit), but it was to show that everyone needs to make the effort, not just some.