Ship of Fools: Defining Deadhorsery

Thread: Defining Deadhorsery 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=027585

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

More than once now, contributions which I have made in Purgatory regarding homosexuality and Christianity have been immediately relegated to DH.

As it happens , this is not an issue in which I am particularly interested, or in which I play any role outside the Ship, but I do get pissed off when, without any historical or theological justification, homosexual practice is automatically assumed to be normative from a Christian point of view, and very pissed off when opponents of this position, such as myself, are smeared as “homophobes”.

If the controversy over the morality and theology of homosexual practice is indeed DH, then why is one side of the debate tolerated but not the other?

Why not redirect overt or covert religious defences of homosexual practice to DH as well?

In Christendom at large, it could be argued that arguments opposing homosexual practice are commonplace and therefore boring and therefore sidlineable, but that is certainly not the position on the Ship, where support for homosexual practice is the established norm, and those who oppose it are the mavericks and dissidents.

Policy clarification, please.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

It seems to me that the tone of your post provides all the justification needed for having this kind of debate in Dead Horses. One of the Dead Horses guidelines says it is for

quote:
arguments which feature polarized, deeply entrenched positions, and where opposition is taken personally

Experience shows that the temperature of debate on this issue rises rapidly, and that this heat is not helpful on a relatively fast-moving and widely-read board like Purgatory. Sending the thread to Dead Horses is partly an attempt to lower the temperature somewhat and prevent the thread from going to Hell, where the level of debate will plummet. It is absolutely not an attempt to say that Ship opinion is uniform, that the Ship has a one-sided policy on the issue, or that the debate itself is not important.

[ 28. June 2014, 10:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

The rule for DH topics is: 'If you want to discuss any aspect of those subjects, post your thread here. ' so if you think people are discussing DH subjects and the thread is not being moved to the correct board, then you need to link to examples of such discussions here, so hosts can see if stuff is being missed.

If it's just throwaway remarks then hosts are unlikely to move an entire thread for that, unless what's been said looks like it will cause a derail. Just looking at your post above, I can see language that would be likely to start a fight, so if that's your norm, it's not surprising hosts would consider moving it.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Sorry for double post - I've now found the thread I think sparked this and I think I'm correct in saying the Purgatory host warning was as much to Justinian as it was to you. Also apart from one word in a list by Leo which wouldn't be enough to move a thread, the DH derail doesn't seem to start until you start talking about 'homosexual practice' which elicits Justinian's reply about homophobia. You can't have it both ways. If you want to use terminology like 'homosexual practice' which those on the other side of the debate find loaded, you can't complain when other posters want to talk to you in terms of 'homophobia' which you find loaded, and then the matter becomes a DH derail which a Purg host will stop.

[ 28. June 2014, 12:52: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If the controversy over the morality and theology of homosexual practice is indeed DH, then why is one side of the debate tolerated but not the other?

Why not redirect overt or covert religious defences of homosexual practice to DH as well?

As far as I'm aware, all discussion of homosexuality goes to DH.

If there is any perceived asymmetry, I imagine it would be due to the fact that it is possible to write as if homosexuality isn't a spiritual problem or moral issue at all, and gay people are just human beings with failings and aspirations like everyone else, without necessarily meaning to invite disagreement from the other side, whereas it's much more difficult to post something suggesting that the most important thing in someone else's life is an offense to God without at least being aware that this might be just a little bit controversial.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

It's been said by other Hosts. The thread is about the possible death of evangelicalism. In accordance with our normal guideline, the sub topic of any aspect of homosexuality gets redirected to DH. Those are the Standing Orders to Hosts. Nothing to do with pro or anti views on homosexual behaviour.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Kaplan Corday, I think there is a new thread in Hell that you might enjoy. [Cool]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Kaplan Corday, I think there is a new thread in Hell that you might enjoy.

Thank you, but I tend to avoid the mindless abuse in Hell on principle.

If you're into that sort of thing, by all means enjoy yourself.

Go nuts.

Knock yourself out.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

You are probably wiser than I. To each their own.

Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Thank you, but I tend to avoid the mindless abuse in Hell on principle.

Entirely your privilege to do so, of course, but I've always found the abuse in Hell to be surprisingly and wholly mindful. Usually beats out Purg for getting at the true underlying issues on many topics, IMO. It's always the first board I check for any meaningful discourse.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

KC, if you want to ACTUALLY engage in the OP you have posted, you should try reading what people are saying, even if it is in Hell. You might discern the problem.

If all you want to do is to be self-righteous, then you will lose your case.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
KC, if you want to ACTUALLY engage in the OP you have posted, you should try reading what people are saying, even if it is in Hell. You might discern the problem.

If all you want to do is to be self-righteous, then you will lose your case.

You might have noticed thatI am ACTUALLY currently engaged in a long exchange of posts in DH.

In response to your challenge, I have looked at the thread in Hell, and found the exactly the same confused thinking as in DH, ie misuse of homophobia, false equation of opposition to homosexuality with racism, etc.

What "problem"? That I don't agree with the people I disagree with?

What is "self-righteous" about avoiding mere schoolyard name-calling when a robust substantive exchange can be conducted in Purgatory or DH?

Lose my case?

What on earth does that mean?

Are you seriously suggesting that I might persuade someone on the Ship to change their mind?

My "case", or rather the "case" of historic, credal, orthodox Christianity as regards this issue, was "lost" long ago.

I continue to state it because I happen to believe it is true, and I don't give a flying fuck about whether my "case" is ultimately won or lost.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Thank you, but I tend to avoid the mindless abuse in Hell on principle.
Entirely your privilege to do so, of course, but I've always found the abuse in Hell to be surprisingly and wholly mindful. Usually beats out Purg for getting at the true underlying issues on many topics, IMO. It's always the first board I check for any meaningful discourse.

I feel like the Hellhosts should put this little review on a plaque somewhere near the entrance.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mertseger:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Thank you, but I tend to avoid the mindless abuse in Hell on principle.
Entirely your privilege to do so, of course, but I've always found the abuse in Hell to be surprisingly and wholly mindful. Usually beats out Purg for getting at the true underlying issues on many topics, IMO. It's always the first board I check for any meaningful discourse.

Agreed. There are times when the ability to address the person as well as the issue draws the conversation forward. Abuse isn't requisite. Although it is often cathartic.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

...which implies that the rest of the boards are all conducted in the style of some kind of ghastly mediaeval pavane. Angels on a pinhead, anybody?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Is this the place to propose that going by the experience of the last few months we could do with a couple more Dead Horses:

Hell - its existence, nature, who goes there, etc.
Divine Genocide - historicity, morality etc.

These seem to fit the bill in that they get thrashed to death, no-one gets anything other than angry with the other side over them, and no-one ever moves an inch.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I'd add a third - penal substitutionary atonement

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

PSA gets my vote as well. It's a perennial all-heat-no-light battleground.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by passer:
...which implies that the rest of the boards are all conducted in the style of some kind of ghastly mediaeval pavane. Angels on a pinhead, anybody?

It all depends on the relative value you place on being nice to people compared to getting a point across. We differ in that.

To someone who really likes getting to the heart of something and is perfectly prepared to ruffle some feathers while doing it, the rest of the boards may very well feel like a pavane (*mental note: check whether pavanes are in fact mediaeval*). Whereas to someone who highly values civility in exchanges and doesn't think it's worth being rude to make a stronger point, Hell might be intolerably uncivil.

I've witnessed newbies who are appalled that a 'Christian website' allows Hell to exist, and newbies who are appalled at how many style-cramping rules we have in Hell.

To me, the very brilliance of the Ship is that it has created different spaces for different kinds of people. It gives us a greater range of people we might appeal to, compared to the average message board (even if the range is still not sufficient for absolutely everyone). It also enables different types of people in the Ship to naturally separate a bit, reducing the number of "you're behaving in the wrong way for the Ship" conversations. Around here the conversation is far more likely to be "you can behave that way over there".

[ 02. July 2014, 15:03: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

My emphasis was intended to be on the word "implies", and was intended to be slightly ironic. I have no argument with your description of how the boards work, especially in your final paragraph, else I'd not have hung around (albeit mostly on the periphery) for so long!

Also, re:

quote:
*mental note: check whether pavanes are in fact mediaeval*

it's more of a renaissance thing I suspect. Mea maxima culpa [Frown]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Meh. It wasn't meant as a criticism, more a piece of musical curiosity that entered my head. The first pavane I think of was written by Maurice Ravel in 1899 and I couldn't think whether I had recordings of any of the 'original' kind.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The first pavane I think of was written by Maurice Ravel in 1899 ...

Would that be Pavane for a Dead Horse?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

If the horse was owned by a girl who named her pony "Princess", then yes. [Big Grin]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

[Killing me]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by passer:
...which implies that the rest of the boards are all conducted in the style of some kind of ghastly mediaeval pavane.

More like a tarantella at times, but most of the time something like a barn dance in the village hall, with competent dancers taking it seriously, others just participating for fun, gatecrashers coming and going, fights being dealt with by security, drunks trying to play the band's instruments, couples' spats (with or without tears), someone trying to spike the punch, and a steady stream of girls going to the toilets together.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Kaplan, that gem just got put in the Quotes File.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

If the controversy over the morality and theology of homosexual practice is indeed DH, then why is one side of the debate tolerated but not the other?

Why not redirect overt or covert religious defences of homosexual practice to DH as well?

A practising Christian person, who is in a same sex relationship, posting about that relationship in the way we all refer to our lives, families, other halves etc is not having a debate and certainly not mounting a "covert religious defence of homosexual practice" any more than I am attacking them (or mounting "a covert defence of traditional marriage") by posting about my relationship with a person of the opposite sex.

The fact that you see someone talking about relationships or emotional issues as triggering a debate, and needing to defend a position, just because it's framed in the context of a same-sex relationship seems to me to be potentially quite hurtful to a person who is attracted to or in a relationship with someone of the same sex.

Am I misunderstanding?

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[...] I've witnessed newbies who are appalled that a 'Christian website' allows Hell to exist, and newbies who are appalled at how many style-cramping rules we have in Hell. [...]

As a newbie (to posting, anyhow, including the nine circles), I find it a thoroughly orthodox slice of wickedness. Christianity is, after all, the religion that gave us the Doom painting.

[Devil]

As for DH, Erroneous Monk surely makes a compelling point: people don't want to debate their lives & loves at every opportunity, especially not if it gets heated. Shunting the culture wars off to a quarantine zone is pragmatism at its best.

If I understand right, Kaplan Corday doesn't even disagree, so long as the shunting is done on an equal-opportunity basis?

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

Do most people spend their type of specific sections or do they access threads via the TAT?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

The fact that you see someone talking about relationships or emotional issues as triggering a debate, and needing to defend a position, just because it's framed in the context of a same-sex relationship seems to me to be potentially quite hurtful to a person who is attracted to or in a relationship with someone of the same sex.

Am I misunderstanding?

Yes, I think so.

I have no interest in picking a quarrel over every reference to homosexuality on the Ship (or elsewhere), or in attacking people personally on the Ship over their homosexuality or homosexual relationships, and I don't think I have ever done that.

Nor do I object to people attempting to present reasoned theological defences of homosexual practice.

What I do respond to are irrational, dishonest and spiteful attacks ("homophobia", analogies with racism)on evangelicals, and members of other Christian traditions, who uphold the orthodox Christian position on homosexuality.

We are assured by Hosts upthread that both the attacks and the defences are impartially directed to DH.

[ 04. July 2014, 05:14: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
We are assured by Hosts upthread that both the attacks and the defences are impartially directed to DH.

That will continue to be the case. Any discussion of homosexuality belong in Dead Horses.

That includes statements like:

quote:

What I do respond to are irrational, dishonest and spiteful attacks ("homophobia", analogies with racism)on evangelicals, and members of other Christian traditions, who uphold the orthodox Christian position on homosexuality.

Though, particularly if you feel like naming names, Hell may also be appropriate.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
What I do respond to are irrational, dishonest and spiteful attacks ("homophobia", analogies with racism)on evangelicals, and members of other Christian traditions, who uphold the orthodox Christian position on homosexuality.

Whether such comments are irrational, dishonest or spiteful is a matter of opinion. What you seem to be suggesting is that viewpoints identifiable with orthodox Christian positions should be let off lightly and not really held to account. Some Christians on the Ship may be prepared to allow you that, although it is clear that many are not.

Now Justinian is I believe an atheist. So am I, and certainly do not see this defence as grounds for a free pass. As far as I am concerned bigotry is something that quacks and waddles. And if your orthodox Christian position is quacking and waddling it will have the label of bigotry hung around its neck whether you like it or not, and regardless of the length of its religious pedigree. The object of the bigotry - whether it is race, or gender, or sexuality - or the best name to be applied to the phenomenon are both secondary issues.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
What you seem to be suggesting is that viewpoints identifiable with orthodox Christian positions should be let off lightly and not really held to account.

I have never suggested any such thing.

On a forum such as the Ship, it is perfectly legitimate to attack the orthodox Christian position from an atheist, liberal Christian, or any other viewpoint, and I have never claimed otherwise.

quote:
As far as I am concerned bigotry is something that quacks and waddles.

You are ducking the issue, Daffy.

Disagreement is not the same as bigotry.

I disagree with homosexual practice, but have never attacked homosexuals personally, and have clearly expressed my support for their rights in a pluralist society.

The real bigotry on the Ship in this area comes from those who dishonestly accuse anyone who disagrees with homosexuality as "homophobic", and irrationally equates that disagreement with racism.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

The point is that the historically orthodox position is homophobic - indeed it's deeply suspicious of human sexuality generally, seeing it as a dangerous beast to be controlled with the bit and bridle of marriage. Therefore, anyone taking it is being homophobic.

That's the way it looks to me, and the way it always will look to me

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Folks, you're rather wavering off the Styx point, which is that the decision to refer matters to Dead Horses has to do with the subject matter, not which 'side' of the debate is involved. It's not a decision based on merits of one position or another.

If you want to have a discussion about the merits of a theological position, I suggest you can go do that in Dead Horses.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0