|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Isn't it time IngoB took up golf?
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I wish IngoB was interested in something less important and life changing than theology and belief in God.
He has a great mind, but he uses it to wrap people up in clever, heartless theology and then suck the faith out of them.
Like a huge red robed spider who prowls the ship to wrap people in the sticky threads of his favourite theological themes.
This thread in the Styx is an example - IngoB steps close to the line, again. Why? Because he loves the rigour of debate.
I just wish he was debating the merits of birdies and albatrosses or something equally unimportant.
Love of God and neighbour is too crucial a subject to be used as a tool to hone one's debating skills when there is no evidence of love of God and neighbour in tone/delivery/content or method of that debate.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Hear hear. IngoB, you often seem to treat debates on the Ship in a totally adversarial way, using phrases like (these are from three different threads) 'you are reduced to endlessly repeating sentimental rhetoric', 'your incoherence here', and 'an absurd case of the pot calling the kettle black'.
ISTM either you don't realise that most people respond negatively to such language and are unlikely to come round to your way of thinking, or convincing people of the rightness of your position isn't really your aim. If only you used more conciliatory and bridge-building language, maybe you'd go further towards changing your interlocutors' minds.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
In other words, he is far too good at Purg subjects to be ruthlessly debating in Purg. He can knock the stuffing out of someone who merely wants to present the heartfelt (or what he might consider the fluffy bunny) POV. Bah! Humbug, ye bears of little brain!
I know what you are saying. He does seem like a pretty cold fish much of the time. But I think he feels much safer leading with his strengths than revealing his softer core here on the ship. And he does have a more warm side. It has peeked out a few times. And just look at his picture in the gallery- you know he's a sweet daddy! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But he really doesn't do sweet here.
[ 27. November 2013, 07:58: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
He has a great mind, but he uses it to wrap people up in clever, heartless theology and then suck the faith out of them.
I agree that he can fight his corner, but there comes a point where his arguments break down and then he starts on the "you're a heretic" or "that's just not Christian" approach. A far more intelligent approach would be to say in those instances: "OK. Fair enough. You have a point there". (I speak as, historically on the Ship, one of the worst offenders! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ) But the trouble with being a member of an exclusivist organisation is that no concessions can really be made: "We are right and I am going to move heaven and earth to prove it!"
As for being heartless: I did actually introduce this thread as a reaction against the likes of IngoB along with daronmedway and Zach82.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Welease Woderwick
Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424
|
Posted
I can never decide whether he is a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.
--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details
What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?
Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I guess his posts serve a purpose. I mean, if I'd ever feel an inkling to swim the Tiber, I'd only need to read one of IngoB's multi-quote posts to keep my feet firmly planted on this side of it.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Like a huge red robed spider
An unsettling image, particularly to an arachnaphobe. A sp*der in a frock - better or worse?
Anyhows: I hold with those who favour an unmitigated IngoB, the better to ensure no one else does come to share his views.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
ISTM either you don't realise that most people respond negatively to such language and are unlikely to come round to your way of thinking, or convincing people of the rightness of your position isn't really your aim.
...what are these things called 'people' of which you speak?
There are only arguments.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
or convincing people of the rightness of your position isn't really your aim.
IngoB has previously answered calls like this one to say exactly that. I think he said something along the lines that he was here to debate and to test his ideas and justifications out. He certainly explicitly denied that he was here to win hearts and minds.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mary LA
Shipmate
# 17040
|
Posted
Leave IngoB alone. He turns theological shadow boxing into serious t'ai chi.
[ 27. November 2013, 09:27: Message edited by: Mary LA ]
--------------------
“I often wonder if we were all characters in one of God's dreams.”
― Muriel Spark
Posts: 499 | From: Africa | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
or convincing people of the rightness of your position isn't really your aim.
IngoB has previously answered calls like this one to say exactly that. I think he said something along the lines that he was here to debate and to test his ideas and justifications out. He certainly explicitly denied that he was here to win hearts and minds.
My question to him is still 'why?'.
The God he debates about does very much want to win hearts and minds (imo). Why not choose a less important subject if all you want to do is sharpen your intellectual knives?
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
IngoB... certainly explicitly denied that he was here to win hearts and minds.
My question to him is still 'why?'.
The God he debates about does very much want to win hearts and minds (imo). Why not choose a less important subject if all you want to do is sharpen your intellectual knives?
Absolutely, Boogie. The things of God are too important for adversarial-style intellectual debating that all too often ends up just hurting and offending people.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
If you have your faith sucked out of you because someone is a capable debater, then your faith isn’t well rooted. It says more about the OP than IngoB.
I cannot believe IngoB is being chastised for being a clever, subtle and sophisticated debater. Why on Earth is that bad? I can only wish that more of you were of his calibre!
I do wonder if some of you would be better off setting up your own dumbed-down forums and only allowing people on them who agree with your views, just so that any “debate” is “nice”, and nobody disagrees with anything!
Some people have logical and rational minds and are capable of pursuing complex and detailed lines of argument. Other people are not. That is to be celebrated – especially as the latter are a good source of cheap labour for the world’s menial jobs.
I may not agree with all of his views and opinions, but I do respect him, and his admirable debating skills. I enjoy reading his posts in the main. They are well written and tend to treat the other ship members as educated adults deserving of respect, which is something that I always struggle with.
If he shows the occasional sign of exasperation at some of the weaker-minded morons amongst you then that is fine by me. As the old adage amongst teachers goes “you can’t educate pork”.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Subtle?
*checks dictionary*
In fact, my biggest frustration with Ingo's debating approach is precisely that he's not subtle. Firstly in that he tries to bang people over the head with his arguments by sheer force of volume. Secondly, that if anyone tries to point out any kind of subtle distinctions that are not the distinctions he himself has raised, he waves them away as unimportant.
Also, deano, which menial job did you have in mind for yourself? Because if you think you qualify around here as one of the intelligent folk, there'll be a long queue of people ready to inform you that you are no Ingo. You are responsible for some of the most facile and stupid 'arguments' to be seen in both Hell and Purgatory - the kind that stupid people make when they think they're the opposite of stupid. My least favourite kind of stupid person.
[ 27. November 2013, 10:38: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
If you have your faith sucked out of you because someone is a capable debater, then your faith isn’t well rooted. It says more about the OP than IngoB.
Yes, fair point. My own faith is as shaky as a Jack Russell standing on a jelly in an earthquake.
But I am not asking for 'nice'.
I am asking why he delights in ripping apart his 'opponents', when the subject is a God of love, patience, kindness and self control. He even uses debate on God's Spirit - the very source of loving kindness - to rip into people (not topics, people) Surely Grand Theft Auto would be a better game?
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I may not agree with all of his views and opinions, but I do respect him, and his admirable debating skills. I enjoy reading his posts in the main. They are well written and tend to treat the other ship members as educated adults deserving of respect, which is something that I always struggle with.
If he shows the occasional sign of exasperation at some of the weaker-minded morons amongst you then that is fine by me. As the old adage amongst teachers goes “you can’t educate pork”.
I don't think IngoB's posts here do treat people as educated adults deserving of respect. Rather, they seem to treat people as opponents to vanquish. Which is understandable (perhaps acceptable, though I don't like it) in some contexts, like political debates - ooh, it's nearly time for Prime Minister's Questions! - but on a messageboard like this I think this approach is way out of line.
It's interesting that you quote a teachers' adage. IngoB is no one's teacher here; we're just a bunch of people discussing issues around Christianity, all meeting on an equal footing. Authority has to be earned, and ISTM that happens more through kind, gentle wisdom than it does through bludgeoning, remorseless logic.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Host Hat gently on
Boogie,
Did you actually tell Ingo in some way that you had called him to Hell, as is proper Ship etiquette?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano
Some people have logical and rational minds and are capable of pursuing complex and detailed lines of argument. Other people are not. That is to be celebrated – especially as the latter are a good source of cheap labour for the world’s menial jobs.
Well, judging by that last sentence, I can see that you are quite clearly a piss-thick pathetic immoral little loser.
I sincerely hope and pray (yes, seriously!) that your circumstances change so that you are forced to spend the rest of your life doing one of those "menial jobs" as cheap labour, that you so despise. That is all you deserve, although unemployment would probably be preferable.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Host Hat gently on
Boogie,
Did you actually tell Ingo in some way that you had called him to Hell, as is proper Ship etiquette?
Thanks, orfeo. I've spotted this thread and I am composing a response.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
If you have your faith sucked out of you because someone is a capable debater, then your faith isn’t well rooted. It says more about the OP than IngoB.
Oh fuck off with that weak faith argument. Shit people say matters. It's called human interaction and learning.
I for one never realised Roman Catholics could be as bad as protestant fundamentalists.
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I cannot believe IngoB is being chastised for being a clever, subtle and sophisticated debater. Why on Earth is that bad? I can only wish that more of you were of his calibre!
Screw the gospel then and bring on greek philosophers.
The problem lies not in the debating: but rather the style and intent.
Perhaps Boogie's objections lie in scripture.
quote:
If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast,* but do not have love, I gain nothing.
quote:
Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves.
Bingo likes debating ideas and I can totally sympathise with that. I'm a salvation by ideas person myself.
I guess its that tension between kindness and rightness.
Like other fundies, Ingo probably thinks he's being kind in revealing the truth.
And the tension comes up again in a forum like this. It's quite non-personal in a way and easy to isolate ideas rather than people.
I suspect Ingo would deal quite differently with people in real life when debating than he does here.
That has both pros and cons.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Host Hat gently on
Boogie,
Did you actually tell Ingo in some way that you had called him to Hell, as is proper Ship etiquette?
Ooops, sorry - forgot this!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
I can never decide whether he is a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.
Or the sound of piss going into the pot
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
I can never decide whether he is a sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal.
Or the sound of piss going into the pot
or missing?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
or convincing people of the rightness of your position isn't really your aim.
IngoB has previously answered calls like this one to say exactly that. I think he said something along the lines that he was here to debate and to test his ideas and justifications out. He certainly explicitly denied that he was here to win hearts and minds.
My question to him is still 'why?'.
The God he debates about does very much want to win hearts and minds (imo). Why not choose a less important subject if all you want to do is sharpen your intellectual knives?
He helps me so much and so often.
I guess if he's actively harming someone, then you might call for a cost-benefit analysis (in the context of which, the fact that he helps me probably doesn't count for much).
But people who find him unhelpful can scroll past, can't they?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Love of God and neighbour is too crucial a subject to be used as a tool to hone one's debating skills when there is no evidence of love of God and neighbour in tone/delivery/content or method of that debate.
Are you saying that Ingo lacks love of God and neighbour, or that you'd rather he prefaced every point he makes with some saccharin glob of apologetic mitigation lest he upset some sensitive flower who's not actually obliged to read or take part anyway? Maybe what deano said above in his third paragraph applies.
▲
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Aside from the fact that I wouldn't wish golf on anybody (I mean, come on, we have debates in Purgatory about the eternal fires of hell, but golf? No, that's going too far.), I find IngoB a very helpful contributor here.
IngoB gives us the teaching of the Catholic Church straight. No frills, no compromises, no knowing winks that allow us to think "Well yes, but in practice it's not like that". IngoB shows us exactly what a person would be signing up to were they to become a Roman Catholic.
It would be easy for some of us to think we should be Roman Catholics. Some of us like the liturgy. Some may like the culture. To some it may simply be a case of thinking "the grass is greener". IngoB's contibutions help strip us of all such illusions. He reminds me that whereas I'm a slightly discontented Anglican, I'd be a bloody miserable Catholic once the honeymoon periood was over.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Are you saying that Ingo lacks love of God and neighbour, or that you'd rather he prefaced every point he makes with some saccharin glob of apologetic mitigation lest he upset some sensitive flower who's not actually obliged to read or take part anyway?
No saccharin glob of apologetic mitigation needed, just a way of phrasing that communicates respect for other posters and a working assumption that they're discussing in good faith.
By which I mean 'you are reduced to endlessly repeating sentimental rhetoric' could be rephrased as 'I think those are sentimental platitudes that don't really address the point'.
And 'your incoherence here' could become 'that argument doesn't make sense to me'.
Finally, instead of 'an absurd case of the pot calling the kettle black', how about 'But you're doing exactly what you've accused me of doing'.
ISTM they would still get the point across, but without the patronising antagonism.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Erroneous Monk, and passer too,
The 'well you don't have to watch' line of argument is overused. It's often a wonderful exercise in blame-shifting.
Much in the same way that, as was observed on Stephen Fry's TV show about language, public figures say "if anyone was offended by what I said, I apologise". Thereby shifting the cause onto the offended person who subjectively chose to be offended, and avoiding any suggestion that the offender might have been objectively offensive.
The community at large is perfectly entitled to say 'your behaviour is a problem'. In certain respects a person is entitled to respond 'well I don't have to change my behaviour', but it only goes so far. Can you imagine if the whole of society ran on the 'well you don't have to watch' line of argument? There'd be no criminal laws for starters.
[ 27. November 2013, 12:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Can you imagine if the whole of society ran on the 'well you don't have to watch' line of argument? There'd be no criminal laws for starters.
I think there's quite a lot of open water between saying that if you don't like someone's mode of argument on the internet you can scroll past and "no criminal law."
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Can you imagine if the whole of society ran on the 'well you don't have to watch' line of argument? There'd be no criminal laws for starters.
I think there's quite a lot of open water between saying that if you don't like someone's mode of argument on the internet you can scroll past and "no criminal law."
There is, but I'm explaining to you why I don't find 'you can scroll past' a very satisfactory answer. Why exactly is the onus on other people to scroll past? Why, in fact, do we have moderators at all - couldn't the people running the Ship say 'if you see anything you don't like here, just scroll past it'?
The fact that we have any kind of regulation of content here at all means that 'it's the reader's problem' is not a complete answer.
Add to that some vague, soppy not-suitable-for-Hell notion that this might just be something approaching a community. Yeah, we can keep telling people to scroll past. Do it enough and they'll decide they'd prefer to go somewhere else where they're doing a little more reading and engaging and a little less scrolling.
I'll be honest with you. There are Shipmates I largely scroll past. Even here in Hell where I have obligations about reading, there are some people whose posts I read carefully and with interest, and some people whose posts I scan over and check for known types of issues without really taking in much of the content of the post. If it ever gets to the stage where the people I want to scroll past represent a really significant proportion of the material on the site, then I'll be out of here.
If you want to keep the Ship as a thriving and interesting community, then Shipmates that induce large numbers of other Shipmates to scroll past are a problem. I'm not saying that Ingo falls in that category. I'm saying that if individual Shipmates have a problem with a particular Shipmate and want to express that, then it's not a meaningful long-term approach to shut the complainants down in a way that indicates it's all the reader's problem and not the poster's. Not if we want the readers to stay - and many of the readers are themselves posters.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Why, in fact, do we have moderators at all - couldn't the people running the Ship say 'if you see anything you don't like here, just scroll past it'?
The fact that we have any kind of regulation of content here at all means that 'it's the reader's problem' is not a complete answer.
This I agree with. But doesn't it lead us to the conclusion that there is commandment-breaking behaviour, which rightly leads to host and admin action, and there is behaviour that we should, if we don't like it, scroll past.
Are you proposing that we add "over-vigorous under-emotional argument" to the list of prohibited behaviour?
Or that this is a second-level of behaviour - non-actionable under the commandments, but still something people shouldn't be expected to scroll past? What else might fall into that category?
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
IngoB was debating a New Atheist. New Atheists are supposedly all about reason. I say supposedly because generally they don't know a damn thing about philosophy or religion relying instead on a grab bag of logical fallacies mixed with emotional rhetoric bordering on demagoguery. The New Atheist will then attempt to cover the weakness in their arguments by delivering the boilerplate in an arrogant and condescending tone.
IngoB responds to those type arguments with pure reason, which the New Atheists claim they are all about in the first place, and he is the bad guy?!
It's not just New Atheists. Liberal Christians claim to reject fundamentalism because they don't want to leave their brains at the door. Apparently, some of them are more than willing to leave their brains at the door when it allows them to believe what they want to believe and not be challenged. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Why, in fact, do we have moderators at all - couldn't the people running the Ship say 'if you see anything you don't like here, just scroll past it'?
The fact that we have any kind of regulation of content here at all means that 'it's the reader's problem' is not a complete answer.
This I agree with. But doesn't it lead us to the conclusion that there is commandment-breaking behaviour, which rightly leads to host and admin action, and there is behaviour that we should, if we don't like it, scroll past.
Are you proposing that we add "over-vigorous under-emotional argument" to the list of prohibited behaviour?
Or that this is a second-level of behaviour - non-actionable under the commandments, but still something people shouldn't be expected to scroll past? What else might fall into that category?
What I'm proposing is that there might be reasons for not engaging in behaviour besides "if I do this I will get in trouble with hosts or admins". I would hope that another reason for not in engaging in behaviour is "if I do this I will upset other Shipmates".
But that reason requires caring about how other Shipmates feel and taking the view that upsetting them is something that, all other things being equal, is better avoided.
I write rules for a living, but it's precisely because of that that I'm aware how misconceived it is to treat everything as being dictated by enforceable rules.
[ 27. November 2013, 13:10: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Adeodatus:
It would be easy for some of us to think we should be Roman Catholics. Some of us like the liturgy. Some may like the culture. To some it may simply be a case of thinking "the grass is greener". IngoB's contibutions help strip us of all such illusions. He reminds me that whereas I'm a slightly discontented Anglican, I'd be a bloody miserable Catholic once the honeymoon periood was over.
Exactly...I feel the same way.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Why, in fact, do we have moderators at all - couldn't the people running the Ship say 'if you see anything you don't like here, just scroll past it'?
The fact that we have any kind of regulation of content here at all means that 'it's the reader's problem' is not a complete answer.
This I agree with. But doesn't it lead us to the conclusion that there is commandment-breaking behaviour, which rightly leads to host and admin action, and there is behaviour that we should, if we don't like it, scroll past.
Are you proposing that we add "over-vigorous under-emotional argument" to the list of prohibited behaviour?
Or that this is a second-level of behaviour - non-actionable under the commandments, but still something people shouldn't be expected to scroll past? What else might fall into that category?
What I'm proposing is that there might be reasons for not engaging in behaviour besides "if I do this I will get in trouble with hosts or admins". I would hope that another reason for not in engaging in behaviour is "if I do this I will upset other Shipmates".
But that reason requires caring about how other Shipmates feel and taking the view that upsetting them is something that, all other things being equal, is better avoided.
Which I guess brings me right back to where I came in, which is that I find IngoB and his methodical arguments helpful. I think he tries to temper his style based on who he is arguing with - ie he chooses opponents whom he thinks are big enough and ugly enough (as my mother would say) to deal with it.
It's not an approach I would take because I would feel very bad about misjudging it and hurting someone's feelings. And if he's done that, I hope he'll apologise.
But the long and short of it is: I don't play golf. So I'll definitely be a loser if IngoB takes Boogie's advice.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
IngoB can be a real turd at times, especially when he starts arguing about Protestantism, but at least he can make interesting, well argued posts. Like IngoB, I had thought that Purgatory existed for serious discussion.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Like IngoB, I had thought that Purgatory existed for serious discussion.
It is. None of this is about having to not be serious, it's about having to be respectful.
Personally, I think South Coast Kevin already did an excellent job on this thread of showing how the same serious idea can be conveyed in 2 different ways, one respectful and one not.
EDIT: In Ingo's case, he quite definitely has a habit of framing his remarks as 'you' and 'your'. He might think he's attacking an argument, but by addressing his remarks in this way he is constantly personalising it, making it feel like an attack on the person rather than on the argument the person presented. It's his choice of word that creates this, not anything about the content of his argument or his ideas.
It's really no different in principle to the therapy that's performed with people suffering from depression or other conditions, or even just people who tend to be down on themselves, to say/think "that was a stupid thing to do" rather than "(I did that thing therefore) I am stupid". If Ingo framed more of his dialogue as "I think that argument is wrong" instead of "you are wrong", he could say exactly the same content in a far more palatable way. And with less chance of ending up with a Hostly warning in Purgatory, too.
[ 27. November 2013, 13:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
To be fair, IngoB recently admitted (in the course of a discussion) ...
quote:
I am not God ...
...which will be a relief to many of us.
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
No saccharin glob of apologetic mitigation needed, just a way of phrasing that communicates respect for other posters and a working assumption that they're discussing in good faith.
That assumes he believes other posters are discussing in good faith. Some I believe are and some I believe aren't. Sometimes it depends on the issue.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Like IngoB, I had thought that Purgatory existed for serious discussion.
It is. None of this is about having to not be serious, it's about having to be respectful.
Personally, I think South Coast Kevin already did an excellent job on this thread of showing how the same serious idea can be conveyed in 2 different ways, one respectful and one not.
EDIT: In Ingo's case, he quite definitely has a habit of framing his remarks as 'you' and 'your'. He might think he's attacking an argument, but by addressing his remarks in this way he is constantly personalising it, making it feel like an attack on the person rather than on the argument the person presented. It's his choice of word that creates this, not anything about the content of his argument or his ideas.
It's really no different in principle to the therapy that's performed with people suffering from depression or other conditions, or even just people who tend to be down on themselves, to say/think "that was a stupid thing to do" rather than "(I did that thing therefore) I am stupid". If Ingo framed more of his dialogue as "I think that argument is wrong" instead of "you are wrong", he could say exactly the same content in a far more palatable way. And with less chance of ending up with a Hostly warning in Purgatory, too.
As one that tends to think along the lines of "I did that thing, therefore I am stupid," I think people who are offended by that are being silly. Serious debate, so far as I am concerned, is supposed to involve the possibility of hearing the phrase "You are wrong."
Don't get me wrong, IngoB seems to assume that the only reason people would disagree with him is because they are stupid or vicious people. His conscious ignorance of Protestantism is a real pain in the ass. But the accusation that "He has a great mind, but he uses it to wrap people up in clever, heartless theology and then suck the faith out of them" is a bit much. Serious debate is supposed to involve stripping it all down to premises and arguments and weighing them both critically. I don't think IngoB needs to fill in the spaces with winking emoticons and self-esteem boosting assurances.
[ 27. November 2013, 13:53: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I tend to avoid Hell these days but find myself - again - in broad agreement with EE. This is getting just too much ...
More seriously, I do like reading IngoB's posts, partly because they reaffirm my constant stereotyping of late-Thomist medieval Scholasticism ... just as Zach82's posts confirm my stereotyping of particular kinds of Calvinist ...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Or Deano's posts confirm my stereotyping of particular types of middle-class twat.
As for the use of 'you' - have you noticed how Deano resorts to a collective 'you' when dismissing the views of Shippies who don't share his blinkered, anally-retentive view of the world?
I also notice how he posted in the thread about redundancies and laying people off as if he was the only person here aboard Ship who has ever had to do such a thing and make those kinds of decisions.
'I ran my own company, you peasants ...'
If anyone deserves a Hell-call at the moment it's not IngoB but Deano.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
As one that tends to think along the lines of "I did that thing, therefore I am stupid," I think people who are offended by that are being silly. Serious debate, so far as I am concerned, is supposed to involve the possibility of hearing the phrase "You are wrong."
But we have to deal with the world as it is, not how we'd like it to be. And ISTM most people find 'you are wrong about XYZ' far harder to take on board in a constructive way than 'I think XYZ, which you just said, is wrong'. If I'm right with this, then people who do actually want to convince others of their viewpoint are better off using the latter style of communication, however silly it might seem.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Serious debate is supposed to involve stripping it all down to premises and arguments and weighing them both critically. I don't think IngoB needs to fill in the spaces with winking emoticons and self-esteem boosting assurances.
Has anyone suggested 'winking emoticons and self-esteem boosting assurances'? Rather, I and others have suggested trying to communicate respect for the other person, and trying to address the argument instead of attacking the person.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Zach82: quote:
Serious debate is supposed to involve stripping it all down to premises and arguments and weighing them both critically. I don't think IngoB needs to fill in the spaces with winking emoticons and self-esteem boosting assurances.
I consider you the IngoB of the Prots, upright and unbending in righteousness (and rightness).
Damn, damn, damn! I so wanted include an emoticon there. Must be strong...
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Serious debate, so far as I am concerned, is supposed to involve the possibility of hearing the phrase "You are wrong."
...
Serious debate is supposed to involve stripping it all down to premises and arguments and weighing them both critically.
Can you not see the difference between these propositions?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Serious debate, so far as I am concerned, is supposed to involve the possibility of hearing the phrase "You are wrong."
...
Serious debate is supposed to involve stripping it all down to premises and arguments and weighing them both critically.
Can you not see the difference between these propositions?
I do see the difference. I was making two propositions. Not unrelated ones, but two nonetheless.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Today I have three views on IngoB;
- tl:dr
- Not enough "funny"
- Gives the Roman Catholic View in spades which is both helpful and unhelpful
- So right I want to be wrong
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
The thing is Zach, there are different ways of communicating, and some work better than others - I don't really see that this has much to do with winking emoticons and so on (they can just mask a lack of ability to communicate).
I learnt quite early on in communicating that I could phrase things in ways that either helped or hindered the conversation. For example, saying "when you did X it was unhelpful/hurtful" rather than "you always do X and it pisses me off". With the former, it enhanced communication, and was less likely to result in arguments.
This is just an extension of that principle. Some of the ways we communicate gets other people's backs up. Some don't.
What I struggle to understand is, if you can phrase things in a way that is helpful to everyone (including yourself), why the heck wouldn't you at least try? There are many positives, and the only negative I can think of is that it takes a little bit of effort. It doesn't take any more words - just different ones. And Ingo doesn't seem to have a problem with being thorough with his posts, does he?
I don't have much of a problem with Ingo personally; maybe my skin's thicker than some. But the criticism seems valid. The choice isn't between robust or non-robust debate, simply between helpful and non-helpful communication.
(edit loads of crossposts)
[ 27. November 2013, 14:12: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I tend to avoid Hell these days but find myself - again - in broad agreement with EE. This is getting just too much ...
More seriously, I do like reading IngoB's posts, partly because they reaffirm my constant stereotyping of late-Thomist medieval Scholasticism ... just as Zach82's posts confirm my stereotyping of particular kinds of Calvinist ...
It's weird that my posts confirm your "stereotyping of particular kinds of Calvinist" even when my argument is exactly the opposite of your characterization.
Which should be a moment of self-reflection for you, but I know well enough that you only do self-reflection just enough to continue getting away with being a trolling twat to Calvinists.
[ 27. November 2013, 14:17: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Serious debate, so far as I am concerned, is supposed to involve the possibility of hearing the phrase "You are wrong."
...
Serious debate is supposed to involve stripping it all down to premises and arguments and weighing them both critically.
Can you not see the difference between these propositions?
I do see the difference. I was making two propositions. Not unrelated ones, but two nonetheless.
Well then, I would say I agree with the second proposition but disagree with the first. In my view, finding wrongness in relation to an argument is the goal of serious debate, not finding wrongness in relation to a person.
Because if a person is in possession of a wrong argument, they can discard it in favour of the argument that was found to be right. But all that a wrong person can do is lose.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Well then, I would say I agree with the second proposition but disagree with the first. In my view, finding wrongness in relation to an argument is the goal of serious debate, not finding wrongness in relation to a person.
Because if a person is in possession of a wrong argument, they can discard it in favour of the argument that was found to be right. But all that a wrong person can do is lose.
I take "you are wrong" at face value. I don't usually leap from "You are wrong" to "You are an inherently disordered person that cannot be right." Granted, IngoB can and does argue that way from time to time, but not usually.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
