RE: Civility subsection suggestion
May 4, 2018 at 1:22 pm
(This post was last modified: May 4, 2018 at 1:32 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
(May 4, 2018 at 1:03 pm)Joods Wrote:(May 4, 2018 at 12:43 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So I went back and reread a few of my posts here where I explain my intention for this subsection.bold mine.
In case there is any misunderstanding, I wanted to clarify that when I said this:
"The premise is to encourage honest discussion of differing view points."
....What I meant was discussion between people with differing view points from each other. Example: theists and atheists discuss/debate with each other about religious related topics, liberals and conservatives discuss/debate with each other about politically related topics, etc.
I did not mean people with the same minority viewpoints would just get together and talk among themselves (example: only theists talking to theists, only conservatives talking to conservatives, only people of X minority opinion talking to people with that same opinion, etc). That can happen too of course, but isn't my purpose for proposing this idea. Discussion with people who have different opinions/beliefs from myself is the whole reason why I'm on AF, so yeah.
Since the term "safe space" and "snow flake" kept being thrown around a lot, I thought maybe I was not making myself clear enough in what I had in mind. Hopefully the above clarification helps dispel those accusations lol.
But this is exactly what has happened. There is now a debate going on that has specifically excluded atheists. On an Atheist forum no less.
Do you see why myself and others were so against this in the first place?
That is a discussion that Neo started up in the debate section and is completely independent from what I am proposing here. What I am proposing here is a new subforum where any interested party is welcome to participate. Which is precisely the opposite of the debate subforum where it is limited to only a select number of people chosen. This is exactly why I was saying the debate section is not what I'm looking for when you and others recommended I just use that instead lol. Because I want anyone to be able to pop in and participate if they want to.
(May 1, 2018 at 1:56 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: This would also be different from the debate section, as that section is for formal one on one debate, and not for simple discussion among various people who choose to pop in and participate.
(May 1, 2018 at 4:25 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: And no, what im suggesting here is not a debate forum.
(May 2, 2018 at 10:19 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Also, I didn't want anyone to be "excluded" from that section. My intention is for it to be an open section where anyone can pop in if they wish, so long as they were there for honest contribution to the discussion. This is why I'm saying the debate section is not the same thing as what I'm suggesting.
(May 2, 2018 at 8:41 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(May 2, 2018 at 8:26 pm)Joods Wrote: I didn't say you were complaining. However, it is redundant to start yet another sub-forum when we already have a sub-forum for the purpose that you are stating. You want to be able to have civil discussion without all of the fluff, take it to the debate section because that's precisely what you are asking for: A debate.
In this whole time of discussion, have you actually ventured in there to read the rules and what it's about yet? If not, I suggest you take a peek. It's not a rigid as you think and you can implement many of the things you are asking for in a sub-forum.
I guess my hangup with the debate section is that I have to establish ahead of time who I want to have on there, and no one else can freely jump in to join the discussion after the fact lol. I want everyone to have the chance to participate, if they would like.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh