Ship of Fools: Apologetics

Thread: Apologetics Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027144

Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :

First, I'm going to admit - I'm past my prime.

It's fifteen-twenty years since I was seriously active on forums like this. I've spent the last decade dealing with a massive real life responsibility that has prevented me from indulging myself with fun like SOF.

But it is hugely disappointing to see that an issue from the 1990s remains an issue now: apologetics is a lost art.

Too many people jump into online debates with their opinions, and defend them by attacking opponents.

Where is the art of the apologetic? Where is the careful deconstruction of challenge? Where is the use of reference, rhetoric, logic and persuasion to defend a position?

After twenty years most people online still seem to use the same tactic: I'll attack arguments I don't accept - then I don't have to defend my position.

Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on :

Possibly apologetics takes place more in the realm of blogs than in that of fora. That's mostly what I encounter in blogs anyway.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
Possibly apologetics takes place more in the realm of blogs than in that of fora. That's mostly what I encounter in blogs anyway.

I agree. Apologetics would be extremely awkward in a multi-party conversation-like place such as a forum.
SOF is much more akin to an informal debate. One makes a point and counters or affirmations will be issued.
In essence, the motive is the same, the form adapted to the situation. Not sure what the problem is.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I would agree. I try to engage in reasoned and thought out discussion on my blog. On forum, or social media, is a far more complex interaction process, where basic responses and exploration of points raised is more appropriate.

My response question is, why should we need apologetics? There are very few occasions where a clearly worked out and argued exploration is the right answer, rather than an engagement with a question raised, or an issue mentioned.

Maybe the real answer is that engagement, not argument, is the way to do things?

Posted by Gareth (# 2494) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Maybe the real answer is that engagement, not argument, is the way to do things?

I completely agree.

I'm not just referring to discussions here on the Ship.

A discussion on a newspaper site is typical of the problem: the winner of the debate is not the one who defends his own territory, but the one who lays waste to his opponent's.

That, as far as I am concenred, is a very poor excuse for a discussion.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Well, professional politicians have found it works better, haven't they? Why wouldn't the amateurs follow suit?

We reward the professionals for going and attacking the other guy instead of explaining their own policies.

EDIT: I suspect one of the reasons it's so successful is simply that destruction is easier than construction. The effort to build an argument is much greater than the effort to knock out one step of the argument and thus invalidate the whole argument. Or claim to have done so.

[ 26. May 2014, 22:16: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

IMHO, this is a very good topic for good, civil, rational discussion—completely unlike the kind you'd find in a newspaper comments section (why DO I read those), about three quarters of the Internet, and here in Hell. I think it's time to turn on the A/C a bit and take things to Purgatory.

*whip-POW!*

—Ariston, Hellhost

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0