Arguing in good faith

[ohio jones]

Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.

[barnhart]

Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.

My Momma always said it takes two to tango.

[Soloist]

Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.

My Momma always said it takes two to tango.

I had so many funny comments I wanted to post…


Yes?

Sir this is Mennonet not Wendy’s

We’re not fighting. Are you going to argue over it?

But daaad… he hit me first

[JohnH]

I'm confused. Did Bootstrap or mike start this thread?

Either way, I think it's a good discussion topic.

[temporal1]

not very mike-like.

[JohnH]

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.

Sorry, Boot - this wasn’t aimed at you since I’ve felt you’ve always been willing to dialogue privately. Other people haven’t. (They know who they are, and some have said so publicly.) I think that’s a poor choice on their part.

But not aimed at all at you, and if I have a problem with you I do feel we can often work it out directly.

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.

Thanks. I really appreciate the openness to do that.

[Bootstrap]

I'm confused. Did Bootstrap or mike start this thread?

not very mike-like.

Mike started this thread. It's easy to see that - just look at the first post, which is indeed mike-like.

Arguing in good faith makes room to actually discuss subjects and learn from each other, without beating each other up. I've been thinking about that famous Eleanor Roosevelt quote and spun it out into this list:

1. Discussing principles asks: What is right?
   Requires careful thought, moral reflection, and the willingness to consider competing values.
2. Discussing ideas and policies asks: What is true?
   Requires evidence, reasoning, and openness to being wrong.
3. Discussing events asks: What happened?
   Requires attention to facts and a willingness to sort through conflicting accounts.
4. Discussing people asks: Whom should we trust?
   Requires judgment about character, motives, and credibility.
5. Gossip asks: Whom should we dislike?
   Requires little knowledge of the actual issues and often thrives on partial information.
6. Factionalism asks: Whose side are you on?
   Requires even less engagement with the merits of an issue; loyalty becomes more important than truth.
7. Suppression asks: How do we keep certain questions or certain people from being heard?
   Requires no engagement with the issue at all. The goal is not to understand or persuade, but to prevent discussion.

At the top of the list, truth matters. We learn from one another, and our understanding and relationships grow. As we move down the list, discussion becomes less about understanding the issue and more about winning, dividing, or silencing. Less thought is required because there is no need to read and understand what the other person actually wrote. Of course, in most discussions, we operate on more than one level, but some of the levels near the bottom make it almost impossible to discuss anything as brothers and sisters - or even just to have an informed conversation.

Arguing in good faith is a way of protecting the discussion so that people can express themselves.

[barnhart]

Discussion that I think of as good ask questions like "Why do you think that way?" or "What do you think about this related topic?" or "Have you considered this other perspective?" or "This has been my experience."

[temporal1]

Discussion that I think of as good ask questions like "Why do you think that way?" or "What do you think about this related topic?" or "Have you considered this other perspective?" or "This has been my experience."

^^yes.

JH isn’t doing anything beyond what you’ve already done - in your first response to Amala.
can you appreciate that?

I don't see the similarity.
i expressed my views. I did not confront you with some version claiming to represent your views and ask you to justify yourself.

To me, discussion involves expressing views, and those views may differ. That difference is what the discussion revolves around.

I believe you when you say you don't see the similarity.
Do you have any curiosity about why others looking on might think that your response is similar to JohnH's response?

i hope this isn’t altogether lost.
(scooped up+moved with others from Charlie Kirk to briar patch)

this isn’t the only forum example, but ken_s presents a good example of how to argue/discuss in good faith.

“i believe you” .. are important words.

[ohio jones]

i hope this isn’t altogether lost.
(scooped up+moved with others from Charlie Kirk to briar patch)

When posts go to the BP, let's leave them there.