Arguing in good faith

[Soloist]

Case in point.

[JohnH]

Some parts of “arguing in good faith” are actually part of our official forum policy.

For example:

• “States what they actually believe” aligns with “Use I statements. Speak for yourself…”
• “Tries to understand the other person’s argument accurately” aligns with “Don’t decide what someone else is meaning to say…” and “Do not take another’s statement and distort it to an extreme.”
• “Avoids deliberately misleading, distracting, or manipulating others” is at least partly reflected in the rules against distortion and extreme sarcasm.

I think the spirit of this rule is also directly relevant to a lot of the conflict we see here:

• “Do not state that someone else is wrong or does not understand. State your own thoughts and opinions.”

If we’re not supposed to tell another member that they are wrong or don’t understand, it seems consistent that we also shouldn’t label people and insist that WE know better than THEY do what they think instead of engaging with what they’ve actually written.

A large amount of your complaints here could be resolved by simply dialoguing privately with someone you have a conflict with.

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.

[Bootstrap]

Any thoughts about what I wrote, JohnH?

[JohnH]

Any thoughts about what I wrote, JohnH?

I just shared my thoughts above.

[Bootstrap]

Some parts of “arguing in good faith” are actually part of our official forum policy.

For example:

• “States what they actually believe” aligns with “Use I statements. Speak for yourself…”
• “Tries to understand the other person’s argument accurately” aligns with “Don’t decide what someone else is meaning to say…” and “Do not take another’s statement and distort it to an extreme.”
• “Avoids deliberately misleading, distracting, or manipulating others” is at least partly reflected in the rules against distortion and extreme sarcasm.

I think the spirit of this rule is also directly relevant to a lot of the conflict we see here:

• “Do not state that someone else is wrong or does not understand. State your own thoughts and opinions.”

If we’re not supposed to tell another member that they are wrong or don’t understand, it seems consistent that we also shouldn’t label people and insist that WE know better than THEY do what they think instead of engaging with what they’ve actually written.

A large amount of your complaints here could be resolved by simply dialoguing privately with someone you have a conflict with.

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’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.

Your reply doesn’t take a position on that observation. Instead, it shifts the discussion to “my complaints” and to whether people should resolve disagreements privately, along with comments about the strength of my Christian life. That feels like turning a discussion about forum policy into a discussion about me, even though I hadn’t made the discussion personal.

If there’s a personal issue you’d like to discuss with me, perhaps it would be better to start with a private message, since that’s the approach you recommend.

[Bootstrap]

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.

An example of arguing in bad faith is complaining that the rules aren't being applied the way you think should be with an underlying agenda to silence your opponents.

That doesn’t address the point I made. I said that, in practice, the existing rules are not consistently enforced.

Instead of agreeing, disagreeing, or providing examples, you’ve attributed an “underlying agenda” to me. If you think my observation about enforcement is incorrect, I’d be interested in hearing why. Speculating about my motives doesn’t address the claim itself. And I don't think it is arguing in good faith.

This is what I mean when I say it is difficult to discuss subjects on MN.

[Bootstrap]

Maybe one aspect of arguing in good faith is to use generally accepted terminology, or to put it more bluntly, avoid private definitions.

What are you proposing here? Can you be more concrete?

[ohio jones]

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.

[Soloist]

Maybe one aspect of arguing in good faith is to use generally accepted terminology, or to put it more bluntly, avoid private definitions.

What are you proposing here? Can you be more concrete?

Well, if people don’t agree on the same definition… who is getting addressed if someone continues arguing?

[Bootstrap]

Maybe one aspect of arguing in good faith is to use generally accepted terminology, or to put it more bluntly, avoid private definitions.

What are you proposing here? Can you be more concrete?

Well, if people don’t agree on the same definition… who is getting addressed if someone continues arguing?

Often, figuring out what we mean by a word takes time, and figuring out where we are using a word differently takes time. In philosophy, they often deal with this by assigning numbers or labels to a word:

Good Faith (1)
Good Faith (2)

Or ....

Good Faith (Mike)
Good Faith (Soloist)

And then we discuss what each of us means by these terms, and perhaps see if we can agree on a definition that includes what is best from each of our definitions. In Bible studies, I have seen people do that with words like "love".