Phoenix32890 wrote:Craven- Nope. I think that you didn't "get" my drift at all.
From what you say that sounds very possible. This is one more way discussions can veer. More on this later.
Quote:One is that there are certain types of posts that do not call for disagreement- the author has asked people to discuss a certain topic. For instance, let's say an author writes a thread, saying that he is going to Paris, and would like to learn about exhibits in the Louvre.
Some member jumps into the thread, argues that the Louvre is not what it is cracked up to be, and he would do better going to staying in New York, and going to the Metropolitan Museum, because it is much better.
The member may have a valid argument, but is this what the thread was supposed to accomplish? If the thread were about the comparisons of the exhibits in the two museums, THEN the arguing member would then certainly have the right to state his case.
I hear ya. Heck when I want a nice serious discussion on how wimmin are evil there's usually a lot of frivolity and offtopic ranting about how mins are evil.
I don't think I have had any threads go both the way I expect and wanted though.
Thing is, you referenced politics and religion, which are far less prone to obvious non-debate threads.
You also did it right after a significant amount of complaints about atheists and agnostics using the religion forum at all. Several members have posted publically and/or complained to moderators about atheist using the religion forum altogether. Their reasoning is that it should be a place for Christian vews with atheists restricted from participation.
These persons also tend to take any disagreement with their religion as an attack. Many of the "he's attacking me for my beliefs" complaints were about people who simply held those beliefs in low esteem, without ever attacking the poster.
So I guess, like Sozobe, it depends on the examples. Your above example about the Louvre is a bit different from say this one:
Person A says all heathens are sinners and will burn in hell.
Person B expresses strident disagreement with this opinion.
Person A says that the opinion is right, after all their God says so and adds that homosexuals and women who bare their midrifts are also going to hell.
Person B expresses the opinion that the God carries no weight and again voices strident disagreement with the expressed opinions.
Person A decides the lack of veneration for their god is disrepectful and that this lack of respect for their god is an "attack" on them for their beliefs.
Now in this example, the poster may well have wanted an easy discussion devoid of disagreement about how heathens, homosexuals and women in skimpy outfits are going to burn in hell.
This member might find it perfectly reasonable to state what are to others very controversial and even offensive statements and expect no disagreement.
They might just want to "share" an opinion without "having their beliefs attacked".
And that's a very different scenario. In that case the member's thesis is a gauntlet for others and any disagreement they meet with might simply be called an "attack" on their "beliefs".
And in this case I think the desire for a discussion devoid of dissent is futile.
If a KKK member decided to start a "civil" discussion on how blacks should be slaves I bet this will be met with disagreement. And if the poster thinks that the disagreement is an inappropriate "attack on their beliefs" I think it is a horse of a different color.
So yeah, I agree with your example of the Louvre. But what kind of discussion on
religion are you referencing? Can you give an example?
I ask because I frequently see people naively wanting "just to discuss" something provocative (e.g. that Bush is a great man, that republicans are evil, that atheists will burn in hell...) and regardless of civility their take dissent as "an attack on them for their beliefs".
I think that in the topics you mentioned there is a greater likelihood of an individual wishing for inordinate agreement with what is a hot button topic that they are dogmatic about.
I've seen a few light-hearted religious threads and they are usually never turned into debate at all.
The threads about Christian music for e.g. Lots of atheists and agnostics were also simply discussing what gospel music they like.
But when it comes to a "just a discussion" about how anyone who believes in evolution is "blind" and will never allow themselves to see the light it's different.
So without examples it's hard to agree, especially given the multitude of recent demands to bar atheists and agnostics from the religious forum altogether. I don't think I've ever seen a religious discussion like the Louvre example you gave. Can you point me to some?
