Arguing in good faith

[ken_sylvania]

I’m a little puzzled by this response because my post wasn’t about you or any other member. It was simply an observation that several elements of the moderator’s definition of arguing in good faith already appear in the forum policy.

You sure enough fooled me. I thought it seemed like your post was about forum members.

In theory, some of the things that lead to arguing in good faith are already part of the policy, and violating these things has consequences. In practice, these rules are not consistently enforced.

Who would the rules be enforced by or against if not forum members?

[temporal1]

OP:

A phrase that has intrigued me in relation to discussion/argument is "in good faith." I wasn't sure how that is actually defined, so I searched it on ChatGPT and here's what it said.

To argue in good faith means to participate in a discussion with the genuine goal of understanding the issue, evaluating evidence, and honestly communicating your own position.

Someone arguing in good faith typically:

States what they actually believe.
Tries to understand the other person's argument accurately.
Uses evidence and reasoning honestly.
Admits mistakes when shown to be wrong.
Is willing to change their mind if the evidence warrants it.
Avoids deliberately misleading, distracting, or manipulating others.

A key issue is whether a person trying to discover truth, or simply trying to identify points of disagreement, in a discussion, or whether they are just trying to win a debate by any means. Discussions and arguments are quite a bit more pleasant and beneficial when the former is the case.

^^more emphasis on discussion might help.

In practice, these rules are not consistently enforced.

Forum members are not children and can follow the rules without being told or corrected every single time.
Where some fail to do so, maybe you could set a good example.

They are not rules to be enforced (or "Decrees for to Keep" as EPMC&RA would put it), but guidelines to be respected.

If someone observes a particularly egregious transgression of the Board Guidelines, feel free to report it. The moderators may not have seen it yet, or did not notice that it could be perceived to be outside the lines. We may or may not agree, and may or may not take action, but don't complain about enforcement or lack thereof if the post in question hasn't been reported.

Evidently, other members have as hard time as i, remembering this valuable REPEATED mod advice: Report it.

To repeat, i’m thankful for the subjective nature of this public private forum.
i have no problem accepting decisions i don’t understand or don’t agree with in the moment. Literally, i enjoy it.
The subjective nature of this forum encourages me to look for new ways of thinking, i ask myself, “what have i missed?”

Very often TIME brings unexpected understanding, i look for it and hope for it. i recommend it.
TIME can be days, weeks, months, years. (To remind the instant gratification world.)

“Winning” in the moment is HIGHLY-HIGHLY over-rated.

Give it up. Let it go. Rest in God’s peace, not earthly squabbles.

Good, healthy discussion, even banter, can be helpful, useful, invigorating. Be ready to exit.
Not “to the mattresses”.

[Szdfan]

Interestingly when I have proposed that to certain people, they have responded with "No, I prefer to just talk about this publicly. I won't discuss it privately with you at all." Such conduct makes me question just how strong someone's Christian life actually is, when they prefer public rancor and disagreement to treating someone like a Christian brother worth speaking to and resolving differences and arguments, which to me is a Christian virtue.

I prefer to discuss these things publicly because then we’re both accountable for what we’ve written and other people can decide for themselves whether we’re representing each other fairly.

[ohio jones]

^^more emphasis on discussion might help.

This is not MennoDiscuss.

[Szdfan]

^^more emphasis on discussion might help.

This is not MennoDiscuss.

Some of my cousins referred to it as “MennoDisgust,” which might be accurate.

[temporal1]

^^more emphasis on discussion might help.

This is not MennoDiscuss.

True dat.

i frequently think of my (i guess, ingrained) habit of trying to figure out the intended meaning of any piece, on forum or off, so often subject lines/headlines are misleading, sometimes not connected, at all. it frequently happens in social media.

In this case, the OP content repeatedly uses the word, discussion, but. it’s fairly ignored in responses.

also, the word, argue, has different meanings/ranges. it doesn’t always refer to caustic disagreement. it often doesn’t.

i agree it’s helpful to establish which meaning(s) are intended in discussions.

my takeaway from mike’s OP is, he was most interested in understanding applying “good faith” in discussions/arguments, as he wrote in his OP. i’d be happy for more from him on it.

[Bootstrap]

I don't really understand the point you are making. I said that I wasn't writing a post about any particular forum members. Which is true.

You point out that forum members are the people who discuss here. True, of course. But what does that have to do with targeting specific members?

I’m a little puzzled by this response because my post wasn’t about you or any other member. It was simply an observation that several elements of the moderator’s definition of arguing in good faith already appear in the forum policy.

You sure enough fooled me. I thought it seemed like your post was about forum members.

In theory, some of the things that lead to arguing in good faith are already part of the policy, and violating these things has consequences. In practice, these rules are not consistently enforced.

Who would the rules be enforced by or against if not forum members?

[ken_sylvania]

I don't really understand the point you are making. I said that I wasn't writing a post about any particular forum members. Which is true.

You point out that forum members are the people who discuss here. True, of course. But what does that have to do with targeting specific members?

I’m a little puzzled by this response because my post wasn’t about you or any other member. It was simply an observation that several elements of the moderator’s definition of arguing in good faith already appear in the forum policy.

You sure enough fooled me. I thought it seemed like your post was about forum members.

In theory, some of the things that lead to arguing in good faith are already part of the policy, and violating these things has consequences. In practice, these rules are not consistently enforced.

Who would the rules be enforced by or against if not forum members?

Your post complains about uneven enforcement of the "rules" that you mentioned. In saying that, you are saying that forum members are posting things in violation of the "rules" and not being punished for it.

So you were very clearly writing a post about forum members - saying that forum members post things that violate the guidelines you were discussing. You didn't name any names about who is posting this way, but it's rather absurd to say that your post wasn't about any of the forum members when only forum members are able to post and your complaint was clearly about things posted by forum members.

[ken_sylvania]

I don't really understand the point you are making. I said that I wasn't writing a post about any particular forum members. Which is true.

You said it wasn't about John or any other forum members. Who do you think was violating the guidelines if it wasn't John or another forum member? A guest?

[Bootstrap]

I don't really understand the point you are making. I said that I wasn't writing a post about any particular forum members. Which is true.

You said it wasn't about John or any other forum members. Who do you think was violating the guidelines if it wasn't John or another forum member? A guest?

That’s not what my post was about.

If you want to turn this into a personal dispute by identifying specific people, that’s your choice. My post wasn’t about any particular forum member. Please don’t speculate about my motives or attribute positions to me that I haven’t taken.