quote:

---

Thus the principles of your Anglican church are insubstantial, and her substance is unprincipled. But we already knew that...

---

quote:

---

Cruelty masquerading as witty phrasing.

---

quote:

---

You are treating homosexuals as sexual deviants - which is completely wrong, cruel, unkind, discriminatory and homophobic behaviour.

---

quote:

---

By the way, jokes aside, while I suspect I don't agree with Kaplan Korday's politics in general (I am not a libertarian), and I don't know enough about his theology to know what to think about it, I do believe that one can believe the doctrine that only sexual intercourse within male-female marriage is permitted to Christians without being a horrible person. [Smile] (One can also believe otherwise and not be a horrible person.) I don't think he's been nasty in this thread to anyone at all.

---

quote:

---

I don't think it would be appropriate to comment on Kaplan Korday on this board. I am curious about your more general opinions. Is it possible to believe that inter-racial marriage is not permitted to Christians without being a horrible person? How do you define horrible?

---

Which is still bringing it back to whether someone is a horrible person for holding different beliefs, just without naming the guy I was specifically defending...

But then the Hostly ruling was thus:

quote:

---

Value judgements about whether any given poster is nasty or not do not belong on this board (or any other except Hell). Please don't raise such questions outside the Hell board as they cannot be discussed on any other boards.

---

(I, er, hope that it IS okay here in the Styx since, well, that's kind of part what the Styx is for...)

I mean... maybe the ruling was also in response to Kaplan Korday being told, "You are treating homosexuals as sexual deviants - which is completely wrong, cruel, unkind, discriminatory and homophobic behaviour." Which is specifically him being told, "You are doing X, and X is wrong," rather than "I think you are terribly mistaken." If it was in response to that as well, not just to my defending him (and/or, perhaps, to Palimpsest's response to my defense?), then OK, that makes sense to me.

But otherwise it feels like--and I use that word precisely because I know my feelings can get confused about what's meant/intended--Person A can say something nasty about Person B, but if Person C responds to the nastiness, then only Person C will be told to stop it, with Person A's behavior being acceptable. Surely that makes no sense, but that's the way both of these recent events seemed to me.


 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It is entirely appropriate to raise such issues here in the Styx. Especially if we can maintain a general discussion rather than a specific "Shipmate X is a nasty person for what they post". If anyone feels like calling a Shipmate a nasty person, they should only do so in Hell.

The question you ask is, by it's very nature, about an indistinct boundary.

Posting to criticise the doctrines, practices etc of a Christian tradition is a criticism of a set of beliefs and practices, not specifically any individual who is within that tradition. Although, it can come across as a personal attack in some contexts and dependent upon how the criticism is phrased. This is part and parcel of robust debate, and is usually placed under Commandment 5 - don't easily offend, but also don't be easily offended. Sometimes in robust debate it is difficult, if not impossible, to express your opinions without being seen as offensive by someone - especially when the subject of the discussion is a personal issue such as sexuality or the church one belongs to.

The second example is a similar case of robust discussion. It does look like things were moving towards a more specific discussion of whether individual, named Shipmates are nasty people because of the views they hold. That is, as Louise identified, beyond the scope of robust discussion into personal attacks that only belong in Hell. My only criticism of Louise's post is that it was insufficiently specific about where the debate was going off into personal attack, especially given the number of perfectly acceptable posts within that exchange. But, it's a relatively minor issue, though one that's certainly contributed to your confusion.

So in summary:

Robust discussion in Purgatory, DH or elsewhere on the Ship (except maybe AS) is what we're here for. While engaging in such robust discussion we ask Shipmates to try their best to avoid being offensive, at the same time asking Shipmates to avoid being offended by the views of others.

Moving from general discussion of an opinion to discussion of the character of the person who expressed that opinion is usually going to attract hostly attention.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
So if someone assails my personal character, it is still OK to defend myself? Just making sure, fretfully.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
You would have a range of options.

1) call them to Hell

2) wait for a host to post an official warning (could be done in conjunction with option 1, or options 3 and 4 below), or if you feel it's serious PM a host to get them to look at it as soon as possible.

3) try and respond to the criticism of your opinion in a way that addresses the opinions expressed without returning the personal attack.

4) ignore it.

Options 3 and 4 would demonstrate the "not easily offended" part of Commandment 5. But may also make the original offensive post appear less offensive which may affect any subsequent hostly intervention.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Ingo's comment was indeed rude, and it seemed to deserved a comment so as to draw its offenceness to attention. Thus I posted a mild response. It is the hosts' perogative and judgement to ignore or gloss over Ingo's comment and focus on the response. Regardless, the fact of a response at all would give the original offender something to notice; Ingo may or may not care about his offensiveness - I suspect not given observation over time - may even enjoy the trap his post created. I bit with the knowledge that I was pushing the limit and am fine with the host's caution. I would have preferred him also cautioned. But fairness is not mine to deliver.
 

---

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I bit with the knowledge that I was pushing the limit and am fine with the host's caution. I would have preferred him also cautioned. But fairness is not mine to deliver.

---

Being the one who cautioned you, let me respond to this.

As Alan has said, it can be notoriously difficult to police this blurred boundary. I'm hopeless at sport, but to me it often feels like refereeing a soccer game where the two extremes are stopping the game every thirty seconds or so for each infringement, and complete anarchy. Somewhere in the middle is the right balance to keep the flow of play and uphold the rules.

I read both IngoB's comments and your response. In this case, IngoB escaped warning (just) because his words were not a personal attack. Yours were directed personally at him, and used the word "cruelty": I decided that the implication that IngoB (and not just his debating style) was cruel was the right moment to step in.

I was also reasonably sure that you knew perfectly well what you were doing in crafting that comment - which as it turns out is the case.

We do our best to be fair, but let me reiterate a piece of legalese I'm forever translating in contracts: not invoking a particular clause in one case does not mean it has been waived or cannot be invoked later. The best way to avoid hostly warnings is to play well within the rules.

Posters who do so really do engage in robust debate, which is all the more interesting as a result, and gain respect and credibility for doing so.
 

---

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
As noted, I analysed this as a provocation by Ingo. Your reasoning is impeccable and the yellow card is not disputed. Had someone other than Ingo posted this -- well no one but he would have.
 

---

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
I appreciate everything being cleared up.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
IngoB isn't unusual in doing this - kids the world over quietly prod others with pencils to get them told off for shouting. It's subtle and sneaky and often goes unnoticed. The noisy kids get the flack - the quiet, bookish ones simply enjoy the disruption they've caused and bask in their 'rightness'.

My puppy does the same in puppy class.

She subtly wrinkles her little nose at the puppies either side of her, gets them yapping frantically, then sits like a little angel watching them get in trouble.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
OK, that's enough of that. If you want to attribute intent to the actions of named Shipmates or liken them to animals, you know where Hell is.

No more personal attacks here.

Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Had someone other than Ingo posted this -- well no one but he would have.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0