Do you follow rules?

Post Reply New Topic

I see what you are saying.

I think it is due to my own internal...um...constructs. It is hard for me to put into words exactly what I mean because I have had this conversation before and I always end up being unsuccessful.

My internal "thing" goes kind of like this: I believe people deserve to be treated with respect. Period. I believe that there are certain...ummmm....."things" (sorry, cannot pull a better word) that are central to a person and their experience in their own personhood. Among these things fall race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc. I believe that because these things are central to a person's belief about themselves, they should be treated with respect and to fail to treat these things with respect is to fail to treat the person with respect. I believe that religious beliefs can be every bit as central to someone's identity as their sexual orientation. It is inconsistent to me that one can be "attacked" and the other is off-limits.

I also disagree with the use of the word "attack." "Attack" is a violent word. It seems to open the door to a "warfare" or "fighting" type behaviors where things like hurling insults and disregarding the rights of others to hold discrepant opinions is permissible. I do not find hurling insults acceptable, nor do I find it conducive to communication. I would wholeheartedly support a rule that said "Debating or disagreeing with an opinion, belief, or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not." In fact, I left one forum in which you were not allowed to disagree with someone, no matter how ludicrous their statement. The belief of that forum was that disagreeing with someone is "unsupportive" which I find to be utterly ridiculous since the "last straw" involved me disagreeing with someone who was making a decision based on factually incorrect information. So, yes, I once belonged to the Stepford Planet Forum. LOL! Let me tell you, it really, really sucked, especially when you are in the minority with your discrepant beliefs (that happened to be rooted in fact instead of what any given member might believe on a whim).

I see a humongous difference between saying "your belief is BS or hogwash or idiotic or whatever" and saying "I do not agree with xyz because..." The first really is an attack on the person. The second is not.

That being said, I am completely in favor of bans on debates of sexual orientation, gender identity, and race. But I think you can ban those topics and still expect respectful debates around others like politics and religion.

Edit to add: Or maybe that is just my rose-colored glasses-wearing, ideological INFP showing through.

I sense the the word "Attack" was used deliberately in the rules rather than "Debating / disagreeing" as it removes a certain woolliness associated with the word "disagreeing". At what point does debating and disagreeing become an attack? What one person may regard as simply disagreeing another may perceive as an attack - especially regarding strongly held belief systems. Again it would be unenforceable. Moderators would be required to make judgement calls all the time deciding if the debating of the belief was strong enough to constitute an attack of the belief. Could some well reasoned and decisive comments be considered an attack if they effectively left the other member lost for words or verbally outmatched; linguistically out debated.

I think the wording of that particular rule is perfect in all practical senses. It makes a clear demarcation between what is acceptable and what is not - and also in a way that moderators can enforce with little ambiguity.

Again, I see your point. (Except I am not sure what you mean by "woolliness" and I am not sure how outright condoning attacks is preferential to communicating that you expect respectful debates and disagreements; "attack" does not conjure up the image of "respect" for most people).

But I disagree that the rule is "perfect" in any sense. Though I concede that you have your right to that opinion and it is the rule of this forum, so I will accept it.

See how easy it is!

This actually makes sense, so now I'm feeling a little ambiguity here.

For example, I post this: "I love Jesus! He has helped me so much!" (Hypothetical; I'm an atheist.)
Someone replies: "Jesus is a fake."

Now, that person is not attacking me, but my belief. Yet, I would feel hurt because there is the underlying implication that I am stupid because I believe in a fake and allow fake things to control my life.

Another example:

Girlfriend: "Look I just bought this pretty new blue dress!"
Boyfriend: "Blue is a dumb colour."

That's attacking the colour, not the girl and not even the dress. But I'm sure the girl will feel as hurt as if the boy had said, "You're ugly," or something like that.

You haven't spent much time in PPR then? It can be a debating war-zone in there. Many topics are way too contentious to be done in a respectful manner. Throw in a hot thread - something like "Is abortion a sin" and you can expect a lot of very strong opinions to come out. The best you can hope for (or effectively moderate) is that the members don't resort to blatant personal attacks and insults. That we can police. We can't police "respect". Topics associated with religion and politics are sometimes very hot, there are just too many strong opinions. The best we can hope for is a good clean "cage fight" and do our best to stop the members from bringing in guns and knives.

Yes.

Exactly the thing that I have never been able to explain.

Thank you!

Edit to add: except in the second example, I think that most people would not take the statement that "blue is a dumb color" to be a personal attack.

There are somethings that can be intricately woven into a person's sense of self and who they are. I think religion fits there. Ethnicity. Sexual orientation.

There are other things that I think are "borderline" in that for some people they do, and some they don't, like politics, environmentalism, and stuff like that.

And some things that are not. Fashion, choice in music, etc. Yes, fashion and choice in music are ways that people express themselves, but I do not believe they hold them as being central to who they are as a person.

I think the first needs to be treated very carefully, because to "attack" without attacking the person is probably nearly impossible.

The second I think you need to look at on a case by case basis. I tend toward conservatism, but if someone vehemently disagrees and calls conservatives a bunch of freaking idiots, it really doesn't affect me. But it could affect someone else.

The last? I think it is areas like that in which less constraint can be practiced because anyone who would be offended on a deep level probably has sensitivities above what you would expect in the general population.

The answer to your dilemma is to post in the appropriate forum:
Members and moderators must take into account which forum the posts are being made in. So for example: Members who post in the Haven do so for help and support from other members. So someone replying "Jesus is fake" would not be permitted there and their post would be removed. However, if someone made the same post in PPR it would be perfectly acceptable. The reason is that PPR is the debating forum of the site - it is where people go to debate - the people who post there like to get their teeth into a good discussion and dissect what is being said and get to the bottom of issues. It is not for the faint-hearted. PPR is not for support like the Haven is.

So, in short if you want to thank Jesus because he has helped you - do so in the Haven. If you want to get into a hot debate about religion and discuss whether he even existed, then post in PPR.

Good answer. Accepted.

I think I have only been to the one thread that you started because I was interested to learn more about your perspective on the issue.

I love to debate. Or I should say I love rational debate. But as soon as the insults and strong emotions come out, I find it highly unrewarding, so I generally steer clear of things like that. Plus, I know myself well enough to know there are certain topics that I cannot debate because I get too emotionally involved. Luckily I have been burned enough times in life that I think I have kind of figured out when I need to bow out.

I suppose it depends on context. If it were a first date kind of situation or maybe a special anniversary date, and the girl wanted to look nice and have approval, that comment could be very damaging to her.
But it would be fine if they were kinda good friends and accept each other's honest opinions.

I follow rules which I feel are reasonable. I feel the rules here are reasonable so I follow them (except for the occasional swearing but there is a language filter to defeat potty mouths like me ). I follow *most* rules in life except, for example, laws which I feel are unjust or nonsensical. In another example, I will almost always follow the rules when I have a job because I don't want to get fired.

PPR has its own dynamic, different to the rest of the site. In PPR people express their opinions and state their mind about any topic - and they do so without any reserve. As we are Aspies/Auties we also tend to be blunt with our comments rather than observe all the normal social pleasantries. That said PPR is generally quite civilised and most members stick to debating the issues (often fiercely) even when emotions are running hot rather than making personal insults. People are allowed to dissect and tear each others most personal beliefs to shreds provided they don't call the members nasty names! It is quite refreshing in a way that the members have a forum they can freely express and debate their opinions with only a few site rules applying.

I agree and am appreciative that there is a place to do so.