Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Principle of Charity

Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 7:49:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In discussing tough philosophical topics like religion and theology, most objections I see on here are a result of a simple violation of charity. Objections that are most common are simply due to the fact that the person objecting shows evidence of not understanding the proposition that I'm putting forth, so that their objections are irrelevant. Of course then the burden is on me to clearly define my proposal in a way that the objector understands my proposal.

I often fail at this task, but it doesn't follow that the proposition I'm trying to define is therefore false or successfully rebutted. It just means that I've failed at clearly defining what I understand to be true. Or you've misunderstood what I understand to be true.

There are more serious factors involved, like if I think I understand a truth but really understand a falsehood. And this is why I think the principle of charity is paramount for all of our endeavors here, to understand truth, not to violate it with a violation of the principle of charity.

Here then is my policy, 2 violations of the principle result in a warning of discontinuing communication. A 3rd strike will immediately result in my followup on that warning after a reply simply with a link to this thread, as well as a rightful assumption of the violator's concession of all of my arguments.

You'l then be flagged as a troll, until proven otherwise. Now, are there any objections to this policy? ;-)
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 7:51:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 7:49:36 PM, Apeiron wrote:
In discussing tough philosophical topics like religion and theology, most objections I see on here are a result of a simple violation of charity. Objections that are most common are simply due to the fact that the person objecting shows evidence of not understanding the proposition that I'm putting forth, so that their objections are irrelevant. Of course then the burden is on me to clearly define my proposal in a way that the objector understands my proposal.

I often fail at this task, but it doesn't follow that the proposition I'm trying to define is therefore false or successfully rebutted. It just means that I've failed at clearly defining what I understand to be true. Or you've misunderstood what I understand to be true.

There are more serious factors involved, like if I think I understand a truth but really understand a falsehood. And this is why I think the principle of charity is paramount for all of our endeavors here, to understand truth, not to violate it with a violation of the principle of charity.

Here then is my policy, 2 violations of the principle result in a warning of discontinuing communication. A 3rd strike will immediately result in my followup on that warning after a reply simply with a link to this thread, as well as a rightful assumption of the violator's concession of all of my arguments.

You'l then be flagged as a troll, until proven otherwise. Now, are there any objections to this policy? ;-)


No objections here good sir.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 8:08:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 7:51:55 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 7:49:36 PM, Apeiron wrote:
In discussing tough philosophical topics like religion and theology, most objections I see on here are a result of a simple violation of charity. Objections that are most common are simply due to the fact that the person objecting shows evidence of not understanding the proposition that I'm putting forth, so that their objections are irrelevant. Of course then the burden is on me to clearly define my proposal in a way that the objector understands my proposal.

I often fail at this task, but it doesn't follow that the proposition I'm trying to define is therefore false or successfully rebutted. It just means that I've failed at clearly defining what I understand to be true. Or you've misunderstood what I understand to be true.

There are more serious factors involved, like if I think I understand a truth but really understand a falsehood. And this is why I think the principle of charity is paramount for all of our endeavors here, to understand truth, not to violate it with a violation of the principle of charity.

Here then is my policy, 2 violations of the principle result in a warning of discontinuing communication. A 3rd strike will immediately result in my followup on that warning after a reply simply with a link to this thread, as well as a rightful assumption of the violator's concession of all of my arguments.

You'l then be flagged as a troll, until proven otherwise. Now, are there any objections to this policy? ;-)


No objections here good sir.

Fair enough ;-)
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 8:53:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 8:47:30 PM, tkubok wrote:
How do we know that youre not gonna use this as an excuse to get out of a valid argument?

I'll make it quite explicit just where I think one has violated the principle of charity. If you haven't noticed, I give warnings.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 8:58:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 7:49:36 PM, Apeiron wrote:
In discussing tough philosophical topics like religion and theology, most objections I see on here are a result of a simple violation of charity. Objections that are most common are simply due to the fact that the person objecting shows evidence of not understanding the proposition that I'm putting forth, so that their objections are irrelevant. Of course then the burden is on me to clearly define my proposal in a way that the objector understands my proposal.

I often fail at this task, but it doesn't follow that the proposition I'm trying to define is therefore false or successfully rebutted. It just means that I've failed at clearly defining what I understand to be true. Or you've misunderstood what I understand to be true.

I find the majority of objections' fallacies to be, when wholly examined and understood, mere misunderstandings and irrelevancies as you described. Not sure why this is, but it's something I've noticed, that my counter-rebuttals to rebuttals are more often than not basically "That's irrelevant" instead of "That commits such and such fallacy".
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 9:16:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 8:58:35 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/1/2013 7:49:36 PM, Apeiron wrote:
In discussing tough philosophical topics like religion and theology, most objections I see on here are a result of a simple violation of charity. Objections that are most common are simply due to the fact that the person objecting shows evidence of not understanding the proposition that I'm putting forth, so that their objections are irrelevant. Of course then the burden is on me to clearly define my proposal in a way that the objector understands my proposal.

I often fail at this task, but it doesn't follow that the proposition I'm trying to define is therefore false or successfully rebutted. It just means that I've failed at clearly defining what I understand to be true. Or you've misunderstood what I understand to be true.

I find the majority of objections' fallacies to be, when wholly examined and understood, mere misunderstandings and irrelevancies as you described. Not sure why this is, but it's something I've noticed, that my counter-rebuttals to rebuttals are more often than not basically "That's irrelevant" instead of "That commits such and such fallacy".

Yes, the bulk of arguments on here stem from misunderstandings. Myself included of course.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 9:50:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 9:16:01 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/1/2013 8:58:35 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/1/2013 7:49:36 PM, Apeiron wrote:
In discussing tough philosophical topics like religion and theology, most objections I see on here are a result of a simple violation of charity. Objections that are most common are simply due to the fact that the person objecting shows evidence of not understanding the proposition that I'm putting forth, so that their objections are irrelevant. Of course then the burden is on me to clearly define my proposal in a way that the objector understands my proposal.

I often fail at this task, but it doesn't follow that the proposition I'm trying to define is therefore false or successfully rebutted. It just means that I've failed at clearly defining what I understand to be true. Or you've misunderstood what I understand to be true.

I find the majority of objections' fallacies to be, when wholly examined and understood, mere misunderstandings and irrelevancies as you described. Not sure why this is, but it's something I've noticed, that my counter-rebuttals to rebuttals are more often than not basically "That's irrelevant" instead of "That commits such and such fallacy".

Yes, the bulk of arguments on here stem from misunderstandings. Myself included of course.

This is the burden one undertakes, when using such an ambiguous method if discussion like text. To have a decent discussion requires at least vocal ques and tones. And body language helps a bunch.

It's like hearing half a conversation, but you think you heard everything.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 10:01:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 9:50:29 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 3/1/2013 9:16:01 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/1/2013 8:58:35 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/1/2013 7:49:36 PM, Apeiron wrote:
In discussing tough philosophical topics like religion and theology, most objections I see on here are a result of a simple violation of charity. Objections that are most common are simply due to the fact that the person objecting shows evidence of not understanding the proposition that I'm putting forth, so that their objections are irrelevant. Of course then the burden is on me to clearly define my proposal in a way that the objector understands my proposal.

I often fail at this task, but it doesn't follow that the proposition I'm trying to define is therefore false or successfully rebutted. It just means that I've failed at clearly defining what I understand to be true. Or you've misunderstood what I understand to be true.

I find the majority of objections' fallacies to be, when wholly examined and understood, mere misunderstandings and irrelevancies as you described. Not sure why this is, but it's something I've noticed, that my counter-rebuttals to rebuttals are more often than not basically "That's irrelevant" instead of "That commits such and such fallacy".

Yes, the bulk of arguments on here stem from misunderstandings. Myself included of course.

This is the burden one undertakes, when using such an ambiguous method if discussion like text. To have a decent discussion requires at least vocal ques and tones. And body language helps a bunch.

It's like hearing half a conversation, but you think you heard everything.

Exegesis mang, propositional content and exegesis.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 10:16:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 8:53:48 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/1/2013 8:47:30 PM, tkubok wrote:
How do we know that youre not gonna use this as an excuse to get out of a valid argument?

I'll make it quite explicit just where I think one has violated the principle of charity. If you haven't noticed, I give warnings.

But thats the point. You can give warnings for arbitrary things.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 10:20:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 10:01:16 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/1/2013 9:50:29 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 3/1/2013 9:16:01 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/1/2013 8:58:35 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/1/2013 7:49:36 PM, Apeiron wrote:
In discussing tough philosophical topics like religion and theology, most objections I see on here are a result of a simple violation of charity. Objections that are most common are simply due to the fact that the person objecting shows evidence of not understanding the proposition that I'm putting forth, so that their objections are irrelevant. Of course then the burden is on me to clearly define my proposal in a way that the objector understands my proposal.

I often fail at this task, but it doesn't follow that the proposition I'm trying to define is therefore false or successfully rebutted. It just means that I've failed at clearly defining what I understand to be true. Or you've misunderstood what I understand to be true.

I find the majority of objections' fallacies to be, when wholly examined and understood, mere misunderstandings and irrelevancies as you described. Not sure why this is, but it's something I've noticed, that my counter-rebuttals to rebuttals are more often than not basically "That's irrelevant" instead of "That commits such and such fallacy".

Yes, the bulk of arguments on here stem from misunderstandings. Myself included of course.

This is the burden one undertakes, when using such an ambiguous method if discussion like text. To have a decent discussion requires at least vocal ques and tones. And body language helps a bunch.

It's like hearing half a conversation, but you think you heard everything.

Exegesis mang, propositional content and exegesis.

Yeah, but it just ain't the same.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 10:22:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 10:16:20 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/1/2013 8:53:48 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/1/2013 8:47:30 PM, tkubok wrote:
How do we know that youre not gonna use this as an excuse to get out of a valid argument?

I'll make it quite explicit just where I think one has violated the principle of charity. If you haven't noticed, I give warnings.

But thats the point. You can give warnings for arbitrary things.

How about some citations?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 10:22:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 10:20:37 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 3/1/2013 10:01:16 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/1/2013 9:50:29 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 3/1/2013 9:16:01 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/1/2013 8:58:35 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/1/2013 7:49:36 PM, Apeiron wrote:
In discussing tough philosophical topics like religion and theology, most objections I see on here are a result of a simple violation of charity. Objections that are most common are simply due to the fact that the person objecting shows evidence of not understanding the proposition that I'm putting forth, so that their objections are irrelevant. Of course then the burden is on me to clearly define my proposal in a way that the objector understands my proposal.

I often fail at this task, but it doesn't follow that the proposition I'm trying to define is therefore false or successfully rebutted. It just means that I've failed at clearly defining what I understand to be true. Or you've misunderstood what I understand to be true.

I find the majority of objections' fallacies to be, when wholly examined and understood, mere misunderstandings and irrelevancies as you described. Not sure why this is, but it's something I've noticed, that my counter-rebuttals to rebuttals are more often than not basically "That's irrelevant" instead of "That commits such and such fallacy".

Yes, the bulk of arguments on here stem from misunderstandings. Myself included of course.

This is the burden one undertakes, when using such an ambiguous method if discussion like text. To have a decent discussion requires at least vocal ques and tones. And body language helps a bunch.

It's like hearing half a conversation, but you think you heard everything.

Exegesis mang, propositional content and exegesis.

Yeah, but it just ain't the same.

Aww, haha, you want personal connection. :)
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 10:29:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 9:16:01 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/1/2013 8:58:35 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/1/2013 7:49:36 PM, Apeiron wrote:
In discussing tough philosophical topics like religion and theology, most objections I see on here are a result of a simple violation of charity. Objections that are most common are simply due to the fact that the person objecting shows evidence of not understanding the proposition that I'm putting forth, so that their objections are irrelevant. Of course then the burden is on me to clearly define my proposal in a way that the objector understands my proposal.

I often fail at this task, but it doesn't follow that the proposition I'm trying to define is therefore false or successfully rebutted. It just means that I've failed at clearly defining what I understand to be true. Or you've misunderstood what I understand to be true.

I find the majority of objections' fallacies to be, when wholly examined and understood, mere misunderstandings and irrelevancies as you described. Not sure why this is, but it's something I've noticed, that my counter-rebuttals to rebuttals are more often than not basically "That's irrelevant" instead of "That commits such and such fallacy".

Yes, the bulk of arguments on here stem from misunderstandings. Myself included of course.

Your position seems to be quite arrogant. When you think someone else is being uncharitable, you "warn" them and cease communication? How can you be so certain it is not you who is being uncharitable? You essentially accused me of this a bit ago, yet, when, I have tried to say what I understand your position to be, you response is, essentially to say "nuh-uh", rather than explain how my understanding is different than what you meant. It seems quite Matthew 7:5-worthy to me.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 5:03:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think you already made a thread about how you were going to ignore people. Was there any particular reason you felt compelled to make another?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 12:14:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 5:03:48 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
I think you already made a thread about how you were going to ignore people. Was there any particular reason you felt compelled to make another?

Cite it?

I made this thread obviously to refer folks here after they're received a third warning. I don't know what else I can do after that.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 12:26:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 10:22:52 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/1/2013 10:20:37 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 3/1/2013 10:01:16 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/1/2013 9:50:29 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 3/1/2013 9:16:01 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/1/2013 8:58:35 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/1/2013 7:49:36 PM, Apeiron wrote:
In discussing tough philosophical topics like religion and theology, most objections I see on here are a result of a simple violation of charity. Objections that are most common are simply due to the fact that the person objecting shows evidence of not understanding the proposition that I'm putting forth, so that their objections are irrelevant. Of course then the burden is on me to clearly define my proposal in a way that the objector understands my proposal.

I often fail at this task, but it doesn't follow that the proposition I'm trying to define is therefore false or successfully rebutted. It just means that I've failed at clearly defining what I understand to be true. Or you've misunderstood what I understand to be true.

I find the majority of objections' fallacies to be, when wholly examined and understood, mere misunderstandings and irrelevancies as you described. Not sure why this is, but it's something I've noticed, that my counter-rebuttals to rebuttals are more often than not basically "That's irrelevant" instead of "That commits such and such fallacy".

Yes, the bulk of arguments on here stem from misunderstandings. Myself included of course.

This is the burden one undertakes, when using such an ambiguous method if discussion like text. To have a decent discussion requires at least vocal ques and tones. And body language helps a bunch.

It's like hearing half a conversation, but you think you heard everything.

Exegesis mang, propositional content and exegesis.

Yeah, but it just ain't the same.

Aww, haha, you want personal connection. :)

Can I have a hug?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 12:34:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 12:26:16 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 3/1/2013 10:22:52 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/1/2013 10:20:37 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 3/1/2013 10:01:16 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/1/2013 9:50:29 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 3/1/2013 9:16:01 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/1/2013 8:58:35 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 3/1/2013 7:49:36 PM, Apeiron wrote:
In discussing tough philosophical topics like religion and theology, most objections I see on here are a result of a simple violation of charity. Objections that are most common are simply due to the fact that the person objecting shows evidence of not understanding the proposition that I'm putting forth, so that their objections are irrelevant. Of course then the burden is on me to clearly define my proposal in a way that the objector understands my proposal.

I often fail at this task, but it doesn't follow that the proposition I'm trying to define is therefore false or successfully rebutted. It just means that I've failed at clearly defining what I understand to be true. Or you've misunderstood what I understand to be true.

I find the majority of objections' fallacies to be, when wholly examined and understood, mere misunderstandings and irrelevancies as you described. Not sure why this is, but it's something I've noticed, that my counter-rebuttals to rebuttals are more often than not basically "That's irrelevant" instead of "That commits such and such fallacy".

Yes, the bulk of arguments on here stem from misunderstandings. Myself included of course.

This is the burden one undertakes, when using such an ambiguous method if discussion like text. To have a decent discussion requires at least vocal ques and tones. And body language helps a bunch.

It's like hearing half a conversation, but you think you heard everything.

Exegesis mang, propositional content and exegesis.

Yeah, but it just ain't the same.

Aww, haha, you want personal connection. :)

Can I have a hug?

why not
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 9:06:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 7:49:36 PM, Apeiron wrote:
In discussing tough philosophical topics like religion and theology, most objections I see on here are a result of a simple violation of charity. Objections that are most common are simply due to the fact that the person objecting shows evidence of not understanding the proposition that I'm putting forth, so that their objections are irrelevant. Of course then the burden is on me to clearly define my proposal in a way that the objector understands my proposal.

I often fail at this task, but it doesn't follow that the proposition I'm trying to define is therefore false or successfully rebutted. It just means that I've failed at clearly defining what I understand to be true. Or you've misunderstood what I understand to be true.

There are more serious factors involved, like if I think I understand a truth but really understand a falsehood. And this is why I think the principle of charity is paramount for all of our endeavors here, to understand truth, not to violate it with a violation of the principle of charity.

Here then is my policy, 2 violations of the principle result in a warning of discontinuing communication. A 3rd strike will immediately result in my followup on that warning after a reply simply with a link to this thread, as well as a rightful assumption of the violator's concession of all of my arguments.

You'l then be flagged as a troll, until proven otherwise. Now, are there any objections to this policy? ;-)

Given that a principle of charity is that others make true statements, do you think your base dismissal of people as liars a bit odd given your rather petulant stance in response to whether or not other people adhere to the principle of charity when dealing with you?
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2013 10:31:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 7:49:36 PM, Apeiron wrote:
In discussing tough philosophical topics like religion and theology, most objections I see on here are a result of a simple violation of charity. Objections that are most common are simply due to the fact that the person objecting shows evidence of not understanding the proposition that I'm putting forth, so that their objections are irrelevant. Of course then the burden is on me to clearly define my proposal in a way that the objector understands my proposal.

I often fail at this task, but it doesn't follow that the proposition I'm trying to define is therefore false or successfully rebutted. It just means that I've failed at clearly defining what I understand to be true. Or you've misunderstood what I understand to be true.

There are more serious factors involved, like if I think I understand a truth but really understand a falsehood. And this is why I think the principle of charity is paramount for all of our endeavors here, to understand truth, not to violate it with a violation of the principle of charity.

Here then is my policy, 2 violations of the principle result in a warning of discontinuing communication. A 3rd strike will immediately result in my followup on that warning after a reply simply with a link to this thread, as well as a rightful assumption of the violator's concession of all of my arguments.

You'l then be flagged as a troll, until proven otherwise. Now, are there any objections to this policy? ;-)

It seems you use this POC when you are beat in an argument and don't want to respond. Also, communication is your responsibly too. If you do not give a clear argument that is your fault. You can not just blame the reader.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 5:20:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 10:31:46 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 3/1/2013 7:49:36 PM, Apeiron wrote:
In discussing tough philosophical topics like religion and theology, most objections I see on here are a result of a simple violation of charity. Objections that are most common are simply due to the fact that the person objecting shows evidence of not understanding the proposition that I'm putting forth, so that their objections are irrelevant. Of course then the burden is on me to clearly define my proposal in a way that the objector understands my proposal.

I often fail at this task, but it doesn't follow that the proposition I'm trying to define is therefore false or successfully rebutted. It just means that I've failed at clearly defining what I understand to be true. Or you've misunderstood what I understand to be true.

There are more serious factors involved, like if I think I understand a truth but really understand a falsehood. And this is why I think the principle of charity is paramount for all of our endeavors here, to understand truth, not to violate it with a violation of the principle of charity.

Here then is my policy, 2 violations of the principle result in a warning of discontinuing communication. A 3rd strike will immediately result in my followup on that warning after a reply simply with a link to this thread, as well as a rightful assumption of the violator's concession of all of my arguments.

You'l then be flagged as a troll, until proven otherwise. Now, are there any objections to this policy? ;-)

It seems you use this POC when you are beat in an argument and don't want to respond. Also, communication is your responsibly too. If you do not give a clear argument that is your fault. You can not just blame the reader.

I told him this weeks, ago, and his response was to accuse me of violating the POC.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 12:09:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 9:06:21 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 3/1/2013 7:49:36 PM, Apeiron wrote:
In discussing tough philosophical topics like religion and theology, most objections I see on here are a result of a simple violation of charity. Objections that are most common are simply due to the fact that the person objecting shows evidence of not understanding the proposition that I'm putting forth, so that their objections are irrelevant. Of course then the burden is on me to clearly define my proposal in a way that the objector understands my proposal.

I often fail at this task, but it doesn't follow that the proposition I'm trying to define is therefore false or successfully rebutted. It just means that I've failed at clearly defining what I understand to be true. Or you've misunderstood what I understand to be true.

There are more serious factors involved, like if I think I understand a truth but really understand a falsehood. And this is why I think the principle of charity is paramount for all of our endeavors here, to understand truth, not to violate it with a violation of the principle of charity.

Here then is my policy, 2 violations of the principle result in a warning of discontinuing communication. A 3rd strike will immediately result in my followup on that warning after a reply simply with a link to this thread, as well as a rightful assumption of the violator's concession of all of my arguments.

You'l then be flagged as a troll, until proven otherwise. Now, are there any objections to this policy? ;-)

Given that a principle of charity is that others make true statements, do you think your base dismissal of people as liars a bit odd given your rather petulant stance in response to whether or not other people adhere to the principle of charity when dealing with you?

That's not the principle of charity, it's not that your opponent in debate makes true statements, but rather that you focus on completely understanding your opponent's view, regardless whether or not it's true, BEFORE you give it a thoughtful response.

And this isn't a childish response. It seems to me that any meaningful discourse on here will take into account this principle, and so since my purpose on DDO is to actually have meaningful discourses... I have no other choice than to be pretty strict on this policy.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 12:11:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/25/2013 10:31:46 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 3/1/2013 7:49:36 PM, Apeiron wrote:
In discussing tough philosophical topics like religion and theology, most objections I see on here are a result of a simple violation of charity. Objections that are most common are simply due to the fact that the person objecting shows evidence of not understanding the proposition that I'm putting forth, so that their objections are irrelevant. Of course then the burden is on me to clearly define my proposal in a way that the objector understands my proposal.

I often fail at this task, but it doesn't follow that the proposition I'm trying to define is therefore false or successfully rebutted. It just means that I've failed at clearly defining what I understand to be true. Or you've misunderstood what I understand to be true.

There are more serious factors involved, like if I think I understand a truth but really understand a falsehood. And this is why I think the principle of charity is paramount for all of our endeavors here, to understand truth, not to violate it with a violation of the principle of charity.

Here then is my policy, 2 violations of the principle result in a warning of discontinuing communication. A 3rd strike will immediately result in my followup on that warning after a reply simply with a link to this thread, as well as a rightful assumption of the violator's concession of all of my arguments.

You'l then be flagged as a troll, until proven otherwise. Now, are there any objections to this policy? ;-)

It seems you use this POC when you are beat in an argument and don't want to respond. Also, communication is your responsibly too. If you do not give a clear argument that is your fault. You can not just blame the reader.

I anticipated this excuse from those flagged as a troll in my original post, it's the reason I give 3 warnings coupled with clear examples of why a violation has taken place- in addition to my reason WHY it is in fact a violation. I could of course be wrong, but I have to sift out the trolls somehow.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2013 12:13:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 5:20:04 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/25/2013 10:31:46 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 3/1/2013 7:49:36 PM, Apeiron wrote:
In discussing tough philosophical topics like religion and theology, most objections I see on here are a result of a simple violation of charity. Objections that are most common are simply due to the fact that the person objecting shows evidence of not understanding the proposition that I'm putting forth, so that their objections are irrelevant. Of course then the burden is on me to clearly define my proposal in a way that the objector understands my proposal.

I often fail at this task, but it doesn't follow that the proposition I'm trying to define is therefore false or successfully rebutted. It just means that I've failed at clearly defining what I understand to be true. Or you've misunderstood what I understand to be true.

There are more serious factors involved, like if I think I understand a truth but really understand a falsehood. And this is why I think the principle of charity is paramount for all of our endeavors here, to understand truth, not to violate it with a violation of the principle of charity.

Here then is my policy, 2 violations of the principle result in a warning of discontinuing communication. A 3rd strike will immediately result in my followup on that warning after a reply simply with a link to this thread, as well as a rightful assumption of the violator's concession of all of my arguments.

You'l then be flagged as a troll, until proven otherwise. Now, are there any objections to this policy? ;-)

It seems you use this POC when you are beat in an argument and don't want to respond. Also, communication is your responsibly too. If you do not give a clear argument that is your fault. You can not just blame the reader.

I told him this weeks, ago, and his response was to accuse me of violating the POC.

Your violation was given three warnings and clear examples of your violation together with my reason for why I saw it as a violation. Thus you were flagged as a troll for a time... my time is precious, and I can't spend it on folks who are most likely trolling me.