StarGateWars Forums

Posted: **Sun May 30, 2010 1:28 pm**

Juliette wrote:Per June 1st 2010, the debate section will no longer host debates on subjects under the category religion.
For a more specific outline, contact Juliette.
Enjoy the final 28 hours.

as the topic implies, WTH?

Posted: **Sun May 30, 2010 1:29 pm**

Hitchkok wrote:
Juliette wrote:Per June 1st 2010, the debate section will no longer host debates on subjects under the category religion.
For a more specific outline, contact Juliette.
Enjoy the final 28 hours.

as the topic implies, WTH?

I bet you didn't do that before coming and posting here!

Posted: **Sun May 30, 2010 1:46 pm**

I for my case, asked her and got a reply.

---

Anyway, debate section will probably become slighty less active than it is currently.
We will see how this goes...probably less controversy, and less modding needed.

Gonna be hard not to post religious-related content, because interesting debates often finish by bringing religious arguments.

Posted: **Sun May 30, 2010 1:56 pm**

Clarkey wrote:
Hitchkok wrote:
Juliette wrote:Per June 1st 2010, the debate section will no longer host debates on subjects under the category religion.
For a more specific outline, contact Juliette.
Enjoy the final 28 hours.

as the topic implies, WTH?
I bet you didn't do that before coming and posting here!

had her post been somewhat less cryptic, and somewhat more reasoned (as beffiting a post in the debate section), i would have.
anyway, it is not a personal issue, but a public one. therefore i see no reason to keep it private.
oh, and "yes, i am black" responded the kettle to the teapot, "what is it to you?"

Posted: **Sun May 30, 2010 2:02 pm**

I would love to see this in action since society and religion are so closely linked.

What you guys want to talk about now? BOXERS vs BREIFS?

Posted: **Sun May 30, 2010 2:22 pm**

A better solution might be to have a disclaimer on the debate section; similar to the one which the GC currently has. That way people with strong views who are likely to be offended will have an idea of what they're getting in for. Curtailing intelligent debate to placate a small minority isn't a good thing.

Posted: **Sun May 30, 2010 3:58 pm**

those religious debates are boring unless there is at least one person playing the role of an prior of the ori...

Posted: **Sun May 30, 2010 4:00 pm**

Zeratul wrote:those religious debates are boring unless there is at least one person playing the role of an prior of the ori...

Boring does not justify abolishment

Posted: **Sun May 30, 2010 4:23 pm**

we didnt try to justify... we dont have anywhere near enough knowledge to judge that case...

Posted: **Sun May 30, 2010 5:01 pm**

There is no need for such a rule, it's pointless and flies in the face of "intelligent discussion."

Posted: **Sun May 30, 2010 5:41 pm**

Juliette wrote:Per June 1st 2010, the debate section will no longer host debates on subjects under the category religion.
For a more specific outline, contact Juliette.
Enjoy the final 28 hours.

In other words, welcome to China/North Korea

Mordack wrote:A better solution might be to have a disclaimer on the debate section; similar to the one which the GC currently has. That way people with strong views who are likely to be offended will have an idea of what they're getting in for. Curtailing intelligent debate to placate a small minority isn't a good thing.

This ^

Thriller wrote:What you guys want to talk about now? BOXERS vs BREIFS?

I loled

All in all, most debates are on the basis of religion/belief/ideas/philosophies,

One can say they use boxers religiously and refute the fact there is such thing as briefs.

Posted: **Mon May 31, 2010 12:15 am**

Hitchkok wrote:had her post been somewhat less cryptic, and somewhat more reasoned (as beffiting a post in the debate section), i would have.
anyway, it is not a personal issue, but a public one. therefore i see no reason to keep it private.

Fair enough.

Mordack wrote:A better solution might be to have a disclaimer on the debate section; similar to the one which the GC currently has. That way people with strong views who are likely to be offended will have an idea of what they're getting in for. Curtailing intelligent debate to placate a small minority isn't a good thing.

Curtailing intelligent debate? Have you looked at the section of late? If anything curtailed intelligent debate, it is the increasing presence of 'religious' arguments. The dogmatic mannerisms of the section's population preclude actual debate. Unless you would consider repeating your arguments ad nauseam "because they're right" intelligent debate, but that would surprise me.
As for placating a minority.. I have yet to see a smaller subset of forum members placated by any other measure.

Debate is a game/type of conversation of give and take. The debating groups have forgotten this, and have retreated into their Holy Fortresses (for calling them 'houses' would be an understatement) of Dogma and Fallacy.

Zeratul wrote:those religious debates are boring unless there is at least one person playing the role of an prior of the ori...

And that is in part the very core of the issue. People are too invested in their own mindset, too convinced that they should convince others that their frame of reference is the only frame of reference with the potential of revealing the Ultimate Truth.
If only people would play the role of 'Prior of the Ori' or carry any other argument that is not their own.
The debates involving religion are unproductive. In fact, they are a hindrance to actual intelligent debate, defying the very definition of debate by their sheer unwillingness to allow for other opinions. People cannot dissociate with their argument, and are as a consequence unable to accept other arguments occupying 'the same space'.

Dr. House wrote:There is no need for such a rule, it's pointless and flies in the face of "intelligent discussion."

Really? The population of the debate section has shown not to be able to handle the category of subjects, instead of debate, the threads have become pulpits for repetitive arguments. Not 'boring', no.. non-debate. And non-debate does not belong in the debate section. Does it?

It is not a matter of 'boring'. It is self-degradation. If you want a free stage to spew self-centered non-arguments, regardless of your audience who have come to the section with as stubborn a thought as your own.. that can be arranged. Self-degradation is fine, if you must. But do not defile 'Debate' by degrading it along with yourself.
Debate is not a clashing of multiple Immovable, Unchangeable Bulwarks of Dogma. Debate is an exchange of ideas. Give and take, to the enrichment of us all.

We have been sliding down this slope, and it is about time that ended. Unless you have mind-shattering arguments why this gradual devaluation should be allowed to continue? As Thriller knows, I am open to other thoughts.

Posted: **Mon May 31, 2010 12:21 am**

perhaps those religious fanatics that arent priors of the ori should get another subsection to debate in? one designed for religious debate, and then keep the rule you wanted in the intelligent section? Would that placate them?

Posted: **Mon May 31, 2010 12:25 am**

VERY WELL put Juliette. The very effort and strive one has to argument something with both ideas and facts should be to enrich the culture and way of thinking of all not this vile spectacle or self righteousness. A directive of civilized men is not to criticize or comment on the beliefs of others but in extreme conditions the beliefs themselves. We have greatly succumbed from what was intelligent design of thought and what perplexes me is that you would continue on that path.

Posted: **Mon May 31, 2010 12:31 am**

Zeratul wrote:perhaps those religious fanatics that arent priors of the ori should get another subsection to debate in? one designed for religious debate, and then keep the rule you wanted in the intelligent section? Would that placate them?

I could see that work, yes. I have told Thriller this in our private conversation, a completely uncensored (except to stay on topic, the bare minimum) "Pulpit forum" added to the Debate section would be a good option in my opinion.
My wish is not to ban debate on the subjects pertaining to religion, but to find a workable solution to the current issue. Sloth on my part, and on the part of all debaters, has led us to this situation.

We need to have a word, Z.

StarGateWars Forums

WTH?

WTH?

Re: WTH?

Re: WTH?

Re: WTH?

Re: WTH?

Re: WTH?

Re: WTH?

Re: WTH?

Re: WTH?

Re: WTH?

Re: WTH?

Re: WTH?

Re: WTH?

Re: WTH?

Re: WTH?