- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
I was thinking about Critias' "follow Jesus' commands!" thread that was recently closed. I would have posted this there but it was, well, closed. So I'm posting this here.
If there's anybody who should be blamed I'll start with myself. I should have thought this through carefully, and came up with this list for my own conduct far earlier, but I didn't. And I haven't been completely following these guidelines myself (having thought them up yesterday
1. Avoid hurtful generalizations.
I know that it is a habit for us to say "most TEs" or "many creationists" but often this does no good at all. In the first place a theory should be judged on its independent merits, not on the behaviour of the people who support it. Just because Dawkins is a militant atheist and an evolutionist, doesn't mean all us evolutionists are also militant atheists. In the end, the real effect of such a generalization is that the person on the opposite side feels as if I'm talking about him/her, even if I genuinely may not be.
My personal guideline (which I will follow) is to not make such generalizations about people unless:
a) the thread is a thread about how a certain group behaves (e.g. "is it true that evolutionists' favourite drink is primordial soup?"
b) the behaviour described has been shown by a poster on the same thread specifically to me. E.g. if somebody calls me a "compromiser" on a thread, and the issue is unresolved, then I have every right to say "Creationists often call evolutionists compromisers, as shown by so-and-so" until the issue is resolved.
2. Resolve to forgive and forget.
In that thread which was closed we saw a whole list of links to places where the poster had been ill-treated. Yes it has happened. Are we to forgive? Definitely. Are we to forget? That's up to you. I will try to.
My personal guideline is that once somebody has apologized for a particular action, I will not bring it up again in discussion with that person, unless s/he is a persistent repeat offender.
3. "I" statements, not "you" statements.
Not egoism! This is basic conflict management: describe the effects of an action instead of trying to ascribe possible motives. For example, instead of saying "Your calling me a hypocrite just shows what a chip you have on your shoulder." we could instead say "I feel offended when you call me a hypocrite because I don't think I deserve such an accusation." When people make "you" statements it is often an assumption or accusation about the person's motives and character ("You're terrible", "You said that out of spite", etc.) but when saying what "I" went through I am authoritative.
My personal guideline: less you, more I statements.
4. Substantiation.
This should be for everybody. When you make an important quote be prepared to have the full text quoted on hand. This will help when people say "you're taking that out of context". Ditto with articles, facts and figures, etc.
If you remember anybody doing anything in particular that made Origins more like discussion and less like destruction
If there's anybody who should be blamed I'll start with myself. I should have thought this through carefully, and came up with this list for my own conduct far earlier, but I didn't. And I haven't been completely following these guidelines myself (having thought them up yesterday
1. Avoid hurtful generalizations.
I know that it is a habit for us to say "most TEs" or "many creationists" but often this does no good at all. In the first place a theory should be judged on its independent merits, not on the behaviour of the people who support it. Just because Dawkins is a militant atheist and an evolutionist, doesn't mean all us evolutionists are also militant atheists. In the end, the real effect of such a generalization is that the person on the opposite side feels as if I'm talking about him/her, even if I genuinely may not be.
My personal guideline (which I will follow) is to not make such generalizations about people unless:
a) the thread is a thread about how a certain group behaves (e.g. "is it true that evolutionists' favourite drink is primordial soup?"
b) the behaviour described has been shown by a poster on the same thread specifically to me. E.g. if somebody calls me a "compromiser" on a thread, and the issue is unresolved, then I have every right to say "Creationists often call evolutionists compromisers, as shown by so-and-so" until the issue is resolved.
2. Resolve to forgive and forget.
In that thread which was closed we saw a whole list of links to places where the poster had been ill-treated. Yes it has happened. Are we to forgive? Definitely. Are we to forget? That's up to you. I will try to.
My personal guideline is that once somebody has apologized for a particular action, I will not bring it up again in discussion with that person, unless s/he is a persistent repeat offender.
3. "I" statements, not "you" statements.
Not egoism! This is basic conflict management: describe the effects of an action instead of trying to ascribe possible motives. For example, instead of saying "Your calling me a hypocrite just shows what a chip you have on your shoulder." we could instead say "I feel offended when you call me a hypocrite because I don't think I deserve such an accusation." When people make "you" statements it is often an assumption or accusation about the person's motives and character ("You're terrible", "You said that out of spite", etc.) but when saying what "I" went through I am authoritative.
My personal guideline: less you, more I statements.
4. Substantiation.
This should be for everybody. When you make an important quote be prepared to have the full text quoted on hand. This will help when people say "you're taking that out of context". Ditto with articles, facts and figures, etc.
If you remember anybody doing anything in particular that made Origins more like discussion and less like destruction