Question about latest forum rule

[Catholic_Lady]

So if its not about generalizations, what is this supposed to mean then?:

"Avoid false equivocation. Making generalized statements about a person or groups of people almost never goes well. Rather than making blanket statements like "all X are Y", make an argument for why "X has some attributes of Y" and present it for discussion."

---

As for provocation, it is described here:


"Add some discussion to your post. Rather than just posting a link and your opinion, try to encourage discussion. Ask whether people agree or disagree, pose questions, ask for clarification from people rather than assuming something. In short, be open about discussing a subject rather than being provocative from the get go."

My bold.

The OP post itself does nothing of what was bolded. So by this definition, it was "provocative from the get go."

What am I misunderstanding here?

And I added bold of my own.

But the thread post in question didn't say "some theists have some attributes of _______". It literally said "theists weren't raised properly". "Theists were taught that consequences are irrelevant."

---

So I've been very hesitant to ask about this because I don't want to come off as whiny or complaining. I get that this is an atheist forum, this is yall's place, and I'm a guest here.

As I understand it, Atheist Forums is meant to be a forum about atheism and not just a forum for atheists.  And unless I am mistaken, theists are every bit as much full members of AF as atheists, agnostics, and anti-theists, etc. Theists are not party-crashing second-class members that are tolerated at best or here for the sport of atheist members.

I'm going to have to side with Neo on this one (with a slight qualification), even though I still think you, C_L are cuter in every way. In fact, this is Tib's site and all of us are here at all due to his skills, efforts and generosity. Hopefully we're more nearly self sufficient in terms of not costing him out of pocket now, but it is still true.

I think this is or does try to be a place where everyone willing to discuss ideas can meet. The only difference its being an atheist site should make is that the standard of what counts as civil will be far different from what one can expect at any Christian site. Many Christian members, Neo included, have mentioned this as being an attraction at least in some regards. (So I only disagree with Neo that it is a site about atheism. It isn't always, hell half of Cath-y's threads are poop based.) Still, I see the site and its team as trying adjust the civility thermostat so as to make conversation possible for all stake holders without so crimping variation personal expression as to lose anyone on that account. It isn't a trivial problem to solve and I applaud them for the earnestness with which they address it even when it fails. Non trivial problems are very resistant to smooth solutions.

The OP  of "Theism is childish" is a good example of the blanket insults and false characterizations theists endure as contributors.

It certainly is a good case for discussing the issues. Especially since Mathilda is an exemplary member in terms of the seriousness with which she addresses interesting questions. (I'm not at all sure where she stands on poop.) I wonder how much the title of that thread influenced the degree to which it has rubbed some of you the wrong way. On a personal note, I too perceive the Christian faith as infantilizing as it is practiced in most (but not all) of the denominations of which I'm aware. At one Christian site I visited, one fellow described closing his eyes and letting go of the handles while riding his bicycle and thereby feeling validated in his belief. There is something about the idea of "turning it all over to God" which smells like self abnegation to me. Other Christians report feeling literally like an infant in relation to God. I feel Mathilda has brought up something that deserves discussion. I'm not sure exactly how it needs to be couched to have that discussion. Ideas? Or do our theist members feel it should not be discussed at all?

For me, it wasnt the title. The title is within the rules as far as i can tell. To me it was the entire content of the actual post. All the claims that were made about all theist people across the board, without the invitation to discussion by asking us to clarify, or by specifying that this was a personal interpretation. I don't understand why it wasn't against the rules.