Civility subsection suggestion

[Shell B]

Just to be clear, CL: I don't think it's a bad suggestion. I'm just stating my opinion on it. Anything that garners 21 pages worth of posts so quickly certainly has people interested, so it's worth talking about.

[Ravenshire]

In a serious discussion, you show that a person is dishonest, deluded, or ignorant with facts.

You didn't answer the question. Typically in these sorts of discussion, the dishonest, deluded, or ignorant person will simply ignore such evidence and continue on in the same fashion. Should dishonest, deluded, or ignorant people be banned from such threads after evidence has been provided?

(emphasis is mine)

This is a great question because these things are far greater blocks to serious discussion than any amount of swearing or name calling ever will be.

[pocaracas]

You didn't answer the question.  Typically in these sorts of discussion, the dishonest, deluded, or ignorant person will simply ignore such evidence and continue on in the same fashion.  Should dishonest, deluded, or ignorant people be banned from such threads after evidence has been provided?

(emphasis is mine)

This is a great question because these things are far greater blocks to serious discussion than any amount of swearing or name calling ever will be.

Well... if we go by Dawkins, any believer is basically deluded, so that would disqualify any theist and render the subforum mostly useless.

I think some people are not dishonest on purpose and they need to be shown what they're doing in the hopes that they will become aware of it.
Ignorance can only be combated with information. If you shut the door on those people, they will remain ignorant and I think that the purpose of a discussion forum is also to inform people...

[Whateverist]

(emphasis is mine)

This is a great question because these things are far greater blocks to serious discussion than any amount of swearing or name calling ever will be.

Well... if we go by Dawkins, any believer is basically deluded, so that would disqualify any theist and render the subforum mostly useless.

I think some people are not dishonest on purpose and they need to be shown what they're doing in the hopes that they will become aware of it.
Ignorance can only be combated with information. If you shut the door on those people, they will remain ignorant and I think that the purpose of a discussion forum is also to inform people...

Well of course "believer" would have to be elaborated appropriately for this to be true.  Believing things which are ineffable doesn't make anyone deluded.  It is the insistence that the ineffable is supernatural which makes one deluded.

[Catholic_Lady]

You didn't answer the question. Typically in these sorts of discussion, the dishonest, deluded, or ignorant person will simply ignore such evidence and continue on in the same fashion. Should dishonest, deluded, or ignorant people be banned from such threads after evidence has been provided?

(emphasis is mine)

This is a great question because these things are far greater blocks to serious discussion than any amount of swearing or name calling ever will be.

Deluded and ignorant, no. Dishonest, probably... if the person's dishonesty in the discussion is obvious and disruptive.

[Jackalope]

We know what is meant by "civility".

This must be why we have so many differing opinions on where the civil/uncivil divide lies.

[Ravenshire]

(emphasis is mine)

This is a great question because these things are far greater blocks to serious discussion than any amount of swearing or name calling ever will be.

Deluded and ignorant, no. Dishonest, probably... if the person's dishonesty in the discussion is obvious and disruptive.

What of the willfully ignorant? The ones who deny such and such, are given evidence to the contrary and continue to deny it? Ignorance will crush discourse as fast as dishonesty, especially if they're unwilling to correct their ignorance. Evolution deniers who claim speciation has never happened despite being shown that it has, or claiming that experimental controls mean the scientists are controlling the outcome of the experiments. You can't have a rational, civil conversation with people like this, but the sub forum you're proposing will give them a pulpit to expound from.

[LastPoet]

The bible/koran/baghvagad gita is a magic book.

OR

you don't believe in the god I believe in, you will go to a place of eternal torture.


Meh, tired of that BS, needs moar dragons.

[Edwardo Piet]

You didn't answer the question.  Typically in these sorts of discussion, the dishonest, deluded, or ignorant person will simply ignore such evidence and continue on in the same fashion.  Should dishonest, deluded, or ignorant people be banned from such threads after evidence has been provided?

(emphasis is mine)

This is a great question because these things are far greater blocks to serious discussion than any amount of swearing or name calling ever will be.

Dishonesty is definitely a block to serious discussion. I don't think ignorance or delusion is though. If nobody was ignorant or deluded there would be no point in having a discussion in the first place because everyone's beliefs would be perfectly rational and everyone would be omniscient.

Delusion and ignorance is a reason to have discussions. Consciousness raising, education, learning, sincere correspondence and genuine discussions, etc.

Anyone can learn to be undeluded and less ignorant provided everyone has an open mind and is discussing honestly. It is dishonesty that is the real block to discussion because it's people who aren't willing to change their minds no matter what about truths that can't be absolutely known (I'm including intellectual dishonesty of course).

P.S. I would consider willful ignorance a form of intellectual dishonesty. Willful ignorance is totally different to mere ignorance.

---

Ignorance can only be combated with information. If you shut the door on those people, they will remain ignorant and I think that the purpose of a discussion forum is also to inform people...

QFT. Without ignorance there would be nothing left to learn. The only reason discussion is possible is because nobody is omniscient.

Without ignorance all we'd have left is mindless chit chat. And we don't want AF to be nothing but that, right? If that was the future of AF Tibs may as well hand the website over to Kit.

---

Well... if we go by Dawkins, any believer is basically deluded, so that would disqualify any theist and render the subforum mostly useless.

I think some people are not dishonest on purpose and they need to be shown what they're doing in the hopes that they will become aware of it.
Ignorance can only be combated with information. If you shut the door on those people, they will remain ignorant and I think that the purpose of a discussion forum is also to inform people...

Well of course "believer" would have to be elaborated appropriately for this to be true.  Believing things which are ineffable doesn't make anyone deluded.  It is the insistence that the ineffable is supernatural which makes one deluded.

Nah all false irrational beliefs are delusions but almost everyone, atheists included, has at least one... so there would be basically no one left lol.

[KittyAnn]

Ignorance can only be combated with information. If you shut the door on those people, they will remain ignorant and I think that the purpose of a discussion forum is also to inform people...

Exactly i agree with that, but remember that it works both ways...