Thread: Can living equines be humanely destroyed? Board: The Styx / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=003467

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Is there a provision for topics to be declared hereafter to be Dead Horses? I'm thinking as an example of Dispensationalism II: Daniel - just when you thought it was safe to read Revelation again...
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
Presumably not: the criterion is that it must first be flogged to death!
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Can we say that baptism is a Dead Horse? Maybe we could have a nomination process for DH subjects for the new boards?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
My vote: the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament (or not of the Old Testament depending on whom you ask).
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
My vote: the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament (or not of the Old Testament depending on whom you ask).

Far too obscure a subject to be a Dead Horse. Entrenched positions are one of the criteria for DH status, but not the only one.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Personal view. I think the categories are showing their age and need refreshing. I'd put Closed Communion back into mainstream since it's a rare topic. And replace homosexuality with LGBTI. The current Purg/DH demarcation can get very artificial. PSA gets done to death here but the only way of avoiding daft demarcation lines would be to make Atonement Theology a DH. Personally I could live with that.

I think all matters dispensational can be discussed under the DH biblical inerrancy, since it is an inerrant scheme. I understand mousethief's frustration, he always makes sense re the Deuteronocanonicals, but I think Marvin is right.

B62, DH Host

[ 19. February 2018, 11:05: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Fwiw, I think we need to look at the purpose of DH rather than get too hung up on whether particular subjects meet the criteria. AFAIU the point is to defuse some hard-fought subjects which would otherwise just be going in circles elsewhere.

Of course the problem is that some of us have been here long enough to see pretty much everything discussed to death. So distinguishing between the normal process of seeing things come around again and something that is annoying enough to be a DH is difficult.

That said, I can't see the harm in having more DH subjects. Or even in periodically revisiting how DH is being used and deciding that the fire has gone out from one set of circular arguments and instead a different set of questions are being done-to-death.

Another thought I had was whether we need somewhere for people to battle it out with long-winded and convoluted posts with biblical quotations. That's not quite Kerg, where the emphasis is on individual verses or chapters - but isn't Purg either, where we tend to get pretty bored of this kind of thing.

Maybe if shipmates could post (or this kind of post could be moved) to a ringfenced board, then they might realise that few others wanted to engage in that level and/or they'd get into long, happy technical discussions with combatants.

Maybe therefore I'm arguing that DH should be less about particular subjects and more about the way that they're being discussed - and that maybe some subjects might need to go there even if they don't meet the normal DH standards.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So distinguishing between the normal process of seeing things come around again and something that is annoying enough to be a DH is difficult.

Of course, the qualifying descriptor of a Dead Horse subject is more than "mr cheesy is bored of it". Specifically, they are subjects that:
  1. topics that tend to come up regularly on nearly all Christian bulletin boards
  2. tend to clutter up such boards in a manner that discourages debate on other topics
  3. which there will be no answer this side of the afterlife
  4. arguments which feature polarized, deeply entrenched positions, and where opposition is taken personally
  5. topics which cause huge headaches for the Hosts who must moderate them
Of which, IMO, points 2 and 4 are most significant, with 5 running close behind. And, all of them play a part.

quote:
That said, I can't see the harm in having more DH subjects. Or even in periodically revisiting how DH is being used and deciding that the fire has gone out from one set of circular arguments and instead a different set of questions are being done-to-death.
We do have such regular revisits of the subjects. A Styx thread such as this is at least an annual occurrence, and a chance to look again at the list of topics. We have occasionally given some of the nags a canter on the main boards for a trial period.

I'm in favour of such a refreshing of the subject list. Though, I suspect that in a lot of instances it would lead to a reduction in the number of subjects so listed (on the basis that they're now less likely to cause board-clutter or hostly headaches than 10 years ago) rather than add to them. I think I can speak for all of us on the bridge and say that we welcome suggestions of how we might proceed in relation to the Dead Horse subject list.

quote:

Another thought I had was whether we need somewhere for people to battle it out with long-winded and convoluted posts with biblical quotations.

Sounds like a Circus game. A "my proof-text out-proves your proof-text", or "proof texting trump".
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Can we say that baptism is a Dead Horse? Maybe we could have a nomination process for DH subjects for the new boards?
I would say that from recent experience it can't.

It is not so much a 'Dead Horse' as a 'Living Sacrifice' that will keep crawling off the credo-baptist altar and biting the fat arse of those who think they know everything there is to know about it already and whose jaded theological curiosity is restricted entirely to their own dogmatic bigotry and limited reading attention span.

Anything but a dead horse. Alive and kicking I would say.

And notice I have not mentioned any names here.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think I can speak for all of us on the bridge and say that we welcome suggestions of how we might proceed in relation to the Dead Horse subject list.

quote:

Another thought I had was whether we need somewhere for people to battle it out with long-winded and convoluted posts with biblical quotations.

Sounds like a Circus game. A "my proof-text out-proves your proof-text", or "proof texting trump".
Our shiny new Ship might provide such an opportunity. Open threads for the usual suspects (ie, the half-dozen at the top of the pile) and as others come along, very possibly in Purgatory and Kerygmania, examine whether these really are a DH, or can be left where they are, under close hostly observation.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
notice I have not mentioned any names here.

Yeah, I noticed. You managed to stay just inside the line of personal attack. Though I suspect that those you are referring to will know who you are talking about. If that's what you think about people who hold different opinions to you then it's no surprise that you're not succeeding at holding a constructive and interesting discussion.

It wouldn't surprise me if you don't experience another aspect of our community here, that is getting called to Hell.
 
Posted by kingsfold (# 1726) on :
 
quote:
posted by ReaderEmCofE:
It is not so much a 'Dead Horse' as a 'Living Sacrifice' that will keep crawling off the credo-baptist altar and biting the fat arse of those who think they know everything there is to know about it already and whose jaded theological curiosity is restricted entirely to their own dogmatic bigotry and limited reading attention span.

From that, using Alan's guide to what represents a deceased equine we have...

1. topics that tend to come up regularly on nearly all Christian bulletin boards CHECK
2.tend to clutter up such boards in a manner that discourages debate on other topics
3.which there will be no answer this side of the afterlife CHECK
4.arguments which feature polarized, deeply entrenched positions, and where opposition is taken personally CHECK
5.topics which cause huge headaches for the Hosts who must moderate them

3 out of 5 and counting, and as I'm not a host I'm not prepared to comment on the other 2...

Seems to me that if it looks like a deceased equine, canters like a deceased equine and smells like a deceased equine....
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Another thought I had was whether we need somewhere for people to battle it out with long-winded and convoluted posts with biblical quotations. That's not quite Kerg, where the emphasis is on individual verses or chapters - but isn't Purg either, where we tend to get pretty bored of this kind of thing.
Now there a nice helpful thought Mr Cheesy. Perhaps once two thread contributors seem to the only one's interested enough to continue debate, the discussion could be shunted into a siding or to use a more nautical analogy, be allowed to continue their debate in 'The Crows Nest' away from the rest of the sleeping or 'scrimshaw making' crew in the fo'c'sle.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
Another thought I had was whether we need somewhere for people to battle it out with long-winded and convoluted posts with biblical quotations. That's not quite Kerg, where the emphasis is on individual verses or chapters - but isn't Purg either, where we tend to get pretty bored of this kind of thing.
Now there a nice helpful thought Mr Cheesy. Perhaps once two thread contributors seem to the only one's interested enough to continue debate, the discussion could be shunted into a siding or to use a more nautical analogy, be allowed to continue their debate in 'The Crows Nest' away from the rest of the sleeping or 'scrimshaw making' crew in the fo'c'sle.
They could alternatively use Private Messages, so as not to distract their erstwhile Shipmates.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
Seems to me that if it looks like a deceased equine, canters like a deceased equine and smells like a deceased equine....
Deceased equines do not canter, though diseased ones still may be able to.

While they are still on their feet and galloping or even trotting, they are not floggable and should not be dropped over the side from the yard arm and consigned to Davy Jones' locker.

What might 'look like', 'smell like', or even appear immobile like 'a dead horse', may only appear so to those who have decided they want no more whatever to do with horses.

I sympathise. Like The Duke of Edinburgh once said of Princess Ann. "If it does not fart and eat hay she has no interest in it'. I guess the opposite may be true for some people. If it farts and eats hay they have already lost interest.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
Another thought I had was whether we need somewhere for people to battle it out with long-winded and convoluted posts with biblical quotations. That's not quite Kerg, where the emphasis is on individual verses or chapters - but isn't Purg either, where we tend to get pretty bored of this kind of thing.
Now there a nice helpful thought Mr Cheesy. Perhaps once two thread contributors seem to the only one's interested enough to continue debate, the discussion could be shunted into a siding or to use a more nautical analogy, be allowed to continue their debate in 'The Crows Nest' away from the rest of the sleeping or 'scrimshaw making' crew in the fo'c'sle.
This has been mooted and booted before. What’s wrong with PMs for 121 conversations?

I think IngoB made the suggestion of a whole board for 121 discussions. Did we try it then boot it, I forget?
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
There's a difference - a huge difference - between topics that come up regularly (we can take credo- vs paedo-baptism as our example) and topics which spill out across the boards.

While we have threads on baptism, discussions on baptism tend not to turn up in threads on Brexit, Trump, the nature of prayer, or the various shades of evangelicalism. While baptism continues to corral itself, it's not a Dead Horse.

A better example of something that might be dragged to the knackers' yard is the relationship between Church and State. For a while, it very much had the potential to run across multiple threads all at the same time. 'Wise guidance' from H&As was able to bring the situation back towards manageable, and the subject avoided the glue factory. For now.

If you don't want to discuss baptism, you can avoid threads with baptism in the title. Creationism, inerrancy, and 'the gay agenda' are in DH for exactly the same reason - so that people who don't want to read about them can avoid them.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

I think IngoB made the suggestion of a whole board for 121 discussions. Did we try it then boot it, I forget?

He did. I think he was mooting it as an eighth day topic at one point, but didn't have any takers.

One of his reasons for it was to defend against the "popular dogpile" where IngoB would stand and defend his particular brand of Catholic dogma against snipers from all directions.

And whilst I got his point, I wasn't convinced that his suggestion of a curated duel between him and a champion of an opposing viewpoint would improve the discussion.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
[Alan Cresswell] If that's what you think about people who hold different opinions to you then it's no surprise that you're not succeeding at holding a constructive and interesting discussion.
You speak as though there are no constructive or interesting discussions in Hell. Surprising that Hell threads seem always to be dominant in the Daily Threads section then, or is it that opinions are allowed there without them being wrongly labelled, "about people", rather than just being passionately held 'opinions' about subjects, such as doctrine, creeds, litergy, rubrics or any other subject?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Aye, we did have a duelling board for a while. We let Ingo define how he thought it should work, and then tried it out according to his recipe. IIRC, Ruth volunteered to host it [Overused]

The intention was to allow people to resolve differences, which he considered impossible in Hell (a point on which he may have been right, but Hell isn't designed to resolve differences). It failed to do anything that he claimed it would do, and was dropped. The experiment did lead to the creation of the 8D board for experimentation.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Perhaps an appropriate thread for DH would be for n00bs who just know how the Ship should be navigated, in order to give those bothering to read it the benefit of their wisdom.

[Roll Eyes]

IJ
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
quote:
[Alan Cresswell] If that's what you think about people who hold different opinions to you then it's no surprise that you're not succeeding at holding a constructive and interesting discussion.
You speak as though there are no constructive or interesting discussions in Hell. Surprising that Hell threads seem always to be dominant in the Daily Threads section then, or is it that opinions are allowed there without them being wrongly labelled, "about people", rather than just being passionately held 'opinions' about subjects, such as doctrine, creeds, litergy, rubrics or any other subject?
No. Personal insults never add to discussion, however cleverly they are couched.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
My vote: the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament (or not of the Old Testament depending on whom you ask).

Far too obscure a subject to be a Dead Horse. Entrenched positions are one of the criteria for DH status, but not the only one.
Fair enough.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
Yes Bishops Finger, your wisdom is duly noted and obeisance accorded by this nubie. [Overused] [Killing me]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Did I mention names?

IJ
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
Just doing obeisance, as any nubie should. That's all.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
You speak as though there are no constructive or interesting discussions in Hell. Surprising that Hell threads seem always to be dominant in the Daily Threads section then, or is it that opinions are allowed there without them being wrongly labelled, "about people", rather than just being passionately held 'opinions' about subjects, such as doctrine, creeds, litergy, rubrics or any other subject?

You're allowed to be passionate about your chosen subject anywhere on the Ship, be it a particular style of baptism, gun control, or knitting.

What you're not allowed to do (outside of Hell) is tell the person who disagrees with you they're a dick for disagreeing with you. Attack the argument, not the person. If you can't do that, that's when you take it (or are taken) to Hell.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
[Hosting]

Knock off the personal insults, or anything that might be construed as such. You'll know if you've messed up by your sudden inability to post anything any more - because there will be no more warnings.

-RooK
Styx Host

[/Hosting]
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
[Boogie] No. Personal insults never add to discussion, however cleverly they are couched.
I agree, a pearl of wisdom indeed. I invite anyone to read through all my posts and quote back at me every personal insult, clever or otherwise, that I have posted. Any takers?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
[Boogie] No. Personal insults never add to discussion, however cleverly they are couched.

I agree, a pearl of wisdom indeed. I invite anyone to read through all my posts and quote back at me every personal insult, clever or otherwise, that I have posted. Any takers?

On this very thread. Names or no names, I know exactly who you are talking about. OK it stays just this side of the commandments, but that doesn’t make it any less insulting and most certainly didn’t add to this discussion.

quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
...those who think they know everything there is to know about it already and whose jaded theological curiosity is restricted entirely to their own dogmatic bigotry and limited reading attention span.



[ 19. February 2018, 15:29: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
Personal?

And I was talking about the debate on Re-Baptism that was closed.

[ 19. February 2018, 15:32: Message edited by: RdrEmCofE ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
Personal?

Yes - as in insulting people.
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
quote:
[Mr Cheesy] In fact, I think your "biblical" approach is utter bollocks and you wouldn't know constructive discussion if it but you around the face.

It isn't about "passion", it is about being a total dick when you blindly attempt to educate others.

Ahh. You mean like this!
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Ah so you can recognize it in others.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Which thread does that quote come from?

IJ
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Well, that's one suspension. Check back in 2 weeks RdrEmCofE.

I trust that the rest of you will be more circumspect.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

I'm in favour of such a refreshing of the subject list. Though, I suspect that in a lot of instances it would lead to a reduction in the number of subjects so listed (on the basis that they're now less likely to cause board-clutter or hostly headaches than 10 years ago) rather than add to them.

A formal proposal then.

Take Closed Communion off the list. Louise or John can correct me but I cannot find any thread specifically on that topic in the current short list of live threads, and I cannot remember the last time the topic was discussed.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I'd be for the Rapture going on.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It is the poster child for "no resolution this side of the afterlife".
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'd be for the Rapture going on.

We all eagerly await our Rapture to the New Ship [Big Grin]
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'd be for the Rapture going on.

Have you got a date for it going on?

ETA Woo, simultaneous (almost) post.

[ 19. February 2018, 18:51: Message edited by: balaam ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Naturally. You just have to read all of this followed by this. Let the reader understand.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'd be for the Rapture going on.

Natch, hence this thread. Perhaps expanded to all speculation about the End Times.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I was going to put End Times but I think that's a bit too broad.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Especially as we seem to be living in (or moving towards) the said End Times....

[Help]

IJ
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
[Help] indeed.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
What's the current chance of Rapture?

Anyone know?

Anyone there ?

FFS, am I Left Behind on my own ?

Hmm...can't quite see that, somehow.

IJ
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
What's the current chance of Rapture?

Anyone know?

Yes. Zero. HTH.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
I do miss the "Current chance of rapture: %" numbers on the homepage. I hope Simon will bring that back in the new dispensation.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I couldn't find it either - hence my question above.

Yes, please let's have it back!

IJ
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
I do miss the "Current chance of rapture: %" numbers on the homepage. I hope Simon will bring that back in the new dispensation.

I’d like to know how the calculation is made [Razz]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It was a feed from a different website, which AFAIK no longer exists. Hence it's absence here.

The first person to suggest that the "chances of Rapture" site was Raptured gets a :groan:
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Who knows, who knows?

I think we should have a new poll on the New Ship date [Smile]
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Who knows, who knows?

I think we should have a new poll on the New Ship date [Smile]

It's scheduled for the day after the Rapture.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
Thanks, Alan. (Couldn't we just make something up to keep the feature?)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
You're assuming the other site wasn't just making something up in the first place.
 
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :
 
I think it would be relatively easy to create one. First pick up some random numbers that are easy to feed into a web app, then program them into a calculating process that turns out values between 0 and 1. Make sure that most of the time it gives a low score (i.e. less 1%) and about twice a year gives a scores somewhere in the region of 10% (statisticians know of probability distributions that can behave like this).

Voila a rapture calculator.

Jengie
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You're assuming the other site wasn't just making something up in the first place.

Actually, that thought had occurred.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
I think it would be relatively easy to create one. First pick up some random numbers that are easy to feed into a web app, then program them into a calculating process that turns out values between 0 and 1. Make sure that most of the time it gives a low score (i.e. less 1%) and about twice a year gives a scores somewhere in the region of 10% (statisticians know of probability distributions that can behave like this).

Voila a rapture calculator.


I'd favour something more [*cough*] scientific. We could collect from scripture all the things that are supposed to be features of impending end times, then for each of these have an external data source that feeds into our overall likelihood calculator.

It'd still be wrong, but it'd be more precisely wrong.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0