Here's a thought exercise: I'm here making a post in Creationism. I'm agreeing with another evolutionist here, Kerr Metric, and I'm about to criticize some points mark kennedy has said.
So instead of having the opportunity to discuss Creationism with Creationists I have to have a debate with you and Kerr Metric. By the way, I never used the report button until I saw this forum turning into another Crevo snake pit.
The chances are that someone here is going to seriously consider reporting me without hearing another word. And if I continued the post exactly as I had planned, the chances are that at least one creationist here will consider me intrusive and unwelcome, and will see me siding with an evolutionist against a creationist, and will automatically come to the conclusion that I am breaking forum rules being here - at the same time, I will not be reported, because there is no concrete criterion for a post like this to be reported.
Maybe it will be removed and maybe it won't. Next time you will be a little more subtle but you won't stop because this is now your happy hunting ground. I'm beginning to wonder if that isn't what this is turning into anyway.
And yet, nowhere will I have actually supported evolution or criticized creationism.
See the problem?
Yea I can see that creates a real problem. Boy, I never thought of it like that we really have to be more tolerant of people like Kerr Metric and people who agree with him. Never mind that engaging in divisive and contentious debates is against the religion of many Christians who will read your posts and shun these discussions. We have to tolerate these critical posts.
When a rule says "only fellowship posts are allowed / no debate posts are allowed", it is a rule asking observers to confirm the propriety of a post based on intent. And since the observer cannot access my actual intent, they have to judge it based on perceived intent. And since the observers are not neutral here, you can bet that at least one will perceive hostile intent. And because there is no objective rule or ruleset according to which one can report the post, the offended user simply lets the hostility seethe and boil within, and when compounded with confirmation bias and selective memory, we get gems like "TEs were flooding every thread with coarse and condescending remarks" which are obviously factually wrong and yet in a sense entirely accurate - this accurately reflects what someone sees in the forum, even if it does not accurately reflect what the forum itself is.
And you wonder why? Kerr Metric just flames me in a thread that was supposed to ask Old Earth Creations and Young Earth Creationists not to report one another. Hey! I got an idea, why don't you just call yourself a creationist and that will solve everything since we are never allowed to question it.
The simplest way is to ban TEs altogether, either via filters or via rules. A regrettable but workable approach.
I got a better idea, why don't you just stop fishing Creationism for debates?
The complex way is to develop a rule, or ruleset, that does not depend on perceived intent. It must have objective criteria that determine whether or not a post is objectionable. Particular cases include:
- Is a TE allowed to make a factual correction to a creationist's perceived scientific mistake?
No, and the rule is clear.
- Is a TE allowed to make a factual correction to a creationist's perceived theological mistake?
As if TEs have any real interest in the theology of Creationism. I have in fact been told repeatedly that theology and the gospel was inappropriate for a discussion of Origins Theology.
- Is a TE allowed to make a factual correction to a harmful and untrue comment on TEs?
Sure they can, Pats even got one of mine removed after converting to TE and blasting me zealously.
- Is a TE allowed to supply a coherent TE interpretation of facts for which it is alleged that no coherent TE interpretation exists?
I'm going with no but who care what I think, I'm just a Creationist the TEs are running things now.
- Is a TE allowed to link to a thread on Origins Theology where s/he does any of the above?
You can do whatever you like, no one cares.
- Really, is a TE ever allowed to say or imply that a creationist or creationists are wrong about anything, on this forum? (The de facto answer is, almost never.)
I'd tell you what kind of a question this raises in my mind but your not allowed to ask those kind of questions anymore.
We have to judge posts on content instead of intent, since the former can be more objectively assessed than the latter.
Perhaps we should appoint a committee composed of TEs who will review all Creationist posts for truthfulness and accuracy. Then if they meet with your approval you guys can graciously allow us to post or maybe censor the parts you disapprove of.
Appreciate all your help, it's so wonderful to have evolutionists who review our posts.
