Question about latest forum rule
November 14, 2017 at 12:12 pm
(This post was last modified: November 14, 2017 at 1:29 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
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. I appreciate that people here have accepted me and treat me well. And I want to make it clear that I have respect for the staff here and this isn't meant to be criticism or challenge.
I'm just curious as to why this thread doesn't break the latest forum rule about no provocation and no unflattering generalizations about entire groups of people. I guess I don't understand the new rule very well and would like some clarification. (I didn't report it because the fact that it's been up for a while and was kudosed by some members of staff, tells me already that it isn't against the rules, so there's no point in reporting it. I just want to understand why it isn't.)
The rule says this:
Below are the claims being made about all theist people who were taught religion since being children: (which includes me and billions of other people in the world)
- They "are taught that the consequence to their actions are irrelevant because only a non-existent god ca truly judge them."
- "They are not taught to think through the morality of their actions but to accept the morality without question that some person wearing a pointy hat gives them."
- "They are conditioned to obey authority and to have faith rather than to ask why."
- "This means that they do not have to accept the responsibility of their actions because they were only following orders, which ultimately came from their god and are not to be questioned."
- They "grow up dependent upon a system that tells them how to act, think, believe and what to value or hate."
Below are the claims being made about all people who converted to theism in adulthood: (which also includes millions of people)
- "They were not properly raised to begin with."
- "They have essentially outsourced their morality."
- "They realise how difficult it is to make moral judgments because life is never black and white but always grey."
- "They're essentially letting someone else make those moral judgments for them instead"
- "Instead of taking responsibility for their actions, instead of suffering the doubt that is necessary to navigate a noisy and uncertain world, they're preferring to feel good about their own lives regardless of what it costs everyone else."
- "They are being self-centered. Their own sense of self-ease has a greater priority to them than the effect that they have on the world around them."
- They "would happily allow their government to sign away their freedom to dispel any kind of evil that they have been warned about."
- They "happily become more child-like as they accept the conditioning of their church to not question but to just have faith that it will all turn out well in the end."
Below are claims being made about all theist people:
- "They fantasise about all kinds of imaginative scenarios because they are not weighed down by plausibility, The hall mark of a child is when they don't think through how heir fantasies would work in practice. Yet this is what the religiously indoctrinated do all the time."
- "They literally want to continue holding onto a child-like innocence where everyone else makes the decisions for them"
.....So if I'm addressing each of the 3 points to the rule up top, this is how I personally see each of them:
"1. 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 you can see, the thread OP in question makes a lot of generalized statements about entire groups of people. Nowhere does it say "some" or even "most". These are all just unflattering blanket statements made about entire groups of people, which includes literally billions of people world wide. And I can tell you right now, as one of the people being spoken about, a lot of the claims made about what I was taught and what I think are not true at all.
"2. Be accurate. Check your sources before posting, ensure that you have the facts. If you are presenting someone else's opinion, use quotes and don't editorialize what they are saying unless you make it clear that this is your interpretation rather than what they have said specifically."
There is no source for all the blanket claims made in the OP. There is nothing to back up all that was said about us as being fact. The OP is presenting what we supposedly think/believe/do as fact without any sort of quote or proof or example, and doesn't specify that this is merely a personal interpretation of all of us rather than how we all really are.
"3. 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."
The OP itself doesn't invite any sort of discussion. It is provocative from the get go. The entire OP is just a rambling about all theist people and what all of us are like, our motivations, etc. It doesn't say "this is what it comes off as to me" or "can a theist please explain this to me" or "what do you guys all think of this".
.... I guess I fail to see what I'm missing here, because it seems to me, as I have demonstrated above, that the thread in question fits all the criteria for violating the new rule. But yet it doesn't. Can someone please explain what I'm getting wrong?
I'm just curious as to why this thread doesn't break the latest forum rule about no provocation and no unflattering generalizations about entire groups of people. I guess I don't understand the new rule very well and would like some clarification. (I didn't report it because the fact that it's been up for a while and was kudosed by some members of staff, tells me already that it isn't against the rules, so there's no point in reporting it. I just want to understand why it isn't.)
The rule says this:
Quote:1. 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.https://atheistforums.org/thread-51928.html
2. Be accurate. Check your sources before posting, ensure that you have the facts. If you are presenting someone else's opinion, use quotes and don't editorialize what they are saying unless you make it clear that this is your interpretation rather than what they have said specifically.
3. 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.
Below are the claims being made about all theist people who were taught religion since being children: (which includes me and billions of other people in the world)
- They "are taught that the consequence to their actions are irrelevant because only a non-existent god ca truly judge them."
- "They are not taught to think through the morality of their actions but to accept the morality without question that some person wearing a pointy hat gives them."
- "They are conditioned to obey authority and to have faith rather than to ask why."
- "This means that they do not have to accept the responsibility of their actions because they were only following orders, which ultimately came from their god and are not to be questioned."
- They "grow up dependent upon a system that tells them how to act, think, believe and what to value or hate."
Below are the claims being made about all people who converted to theism in adulthood: (which also includes millions of people)
- "They were not properly raised to begin with."
- "They have essentially outsourced their morality."
- "They realise how difficult it is to make moral judgments because life is never black and white but always grey."
- "They're essentially letting someone else make those moral judgments for them instead"
- "Instead of taking responsibility for their actions, instead of suffering the doubt that is necessary to navigate a noisy and uncertain world, they're preferring to feel good about their own lives regardless of what it costs everyone else."
- "They are being self-centered. Their own sense of self-ease has a greater priority to them than the effect that they have on the world around them."
- They "would happily allow their government to sign away their freedom to dispel any kind of evil that they have been warned about."
- They "happily become more child-like as they accept the conditioning of their church to not question but to just have faith that it will all turn out well in the end."
Below are claims being made about all theist people:
- "They fantasise about all kinds of imaginative scenarios because they are not weighed down by plausibility, The hall mark of a child is when they don't think through how heir fantasies would work in practice. Yet this is what the religiously indoctrinated do all the time."
- "They literally want to continue holding onto a child-like innocence where everyone else makes the decisions for them"
.....So if I'm addressing each of the 3 points to the rule up top, this is how I personally see each of them:
"1. 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 you can see, the thread OP in question makes a lot of generalized statements about entire groups of people. Nowhere does it say "some" or even "most". These are all just unflattering blanket statements made about entire groups of people, which includes literally billions of people world wide. And I can tell you right now, as one of the people being spoken about, a lot of the claims made about what I was taught and what I think are not true at all.
"2. Be accurate. Check your sources before posting, ensure that you have the facts. If you are presenting someone else's opinion, use quotes and don't editorialize what they are saying unless you make it clear that this is your interpretation rather than what they have said specifically."
There is no source for all the blanket claims made in the OP. There is nothing to back up all that was said about us as being fact. The OP is presenting what we supposedly think/believe/do as fact without any sort of quote or proof or example, and doesn't specify that this is merely a personal interpretation of all of us rather than how we all really are.
"3. 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."
The OP itself doesn't invite any sort of discussion. It is provocative from the get go. The entire OP is just a rambling about all theist people and what all of us are like, our motivations, etc. It doesn't say "this is what it comes off as to me" or "can a theist please explain this to me" or "what do you guys all think of this".
.... I guess I fail to see what I'm missing here, because it seems to me, as I have demonstrated above, that the thread in question fits all the criteria for violating the new rule. But yet it doesn't. Can someone please explain what I'm getting wrong?
"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
