Posted on 07/30/2003 8:45:15 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
We are negotiating an agreement between the parties on the science threads. Your comments and suggestions are appreciated: Draft Agreement Effective August 1, 2003 and binding only those Free Republic posters who voluntarily agree to the terms, we the parties to this agreement resolve as follows:
We will not seek to have a thread removed or a poster banned or conspire, scheme or bait any poster to cause humiliation or embarrassment or to encourage a poster to leave Free Republic. We will not use profane, belittling or mean words to describe another poster or whatever that poster believes. We will not discriminate against any poster or group of people on or off the forum, living or dead, on the basis of religious belief, sexual orientation, gender, age or scientific beliefs.
When we are wrong, we will apologize. The terms of the agreement will continue even if any one or more of them are found untenable. All remaining parties to the agreement agree to be bound even if one or more parties disavow their agreement. Supplemental Agreement for Fundamentalist Christian Freepers:
Comments/Suggestions so far…
ALS, Alamo-Girl, ConservababeJen suggest this change to the first provision:
So far agreed: Alamo-Girl, ALS, conservababeJen, Newland, betty boop So far agreed in principle, but having reservations: Aric2000 So far refused: Doctor Stochastic, As of this morning…
PatrickHenry proposed the following as conduct which would, specifically, not be considered Christian bashing:
The remaining suggestions from this morning are difficult to summarize, so I ask that you each repost your comments below.
We will not call Christians inferior (etc.) or make them feel unwelcome
We will not make fun of one’s gender or age and
We will not attribute sexual orientation to anyone.
If we describe a belief as silly, we will show why we believe that to be true.
We will not question another poster’s motives without specific evidence.
2. opposition to "creation science" or to "intelligent design theory";
3. advocacy of the theory evolution;
4. posting any evolution-oriented thread;
5. advocacy of (or merely explaining) the scientific method;
6. or any similar activities.
That was exactly Hamilton's objection to the BoR, IIRC.
AGREEMENT OF THE WILLING
Effective August 1, 2003 and binding only those Free Republic posters who voluntarily agree to the terms, we the parties to this agreement resolve as follows:
I. We will make no accusations concerning anything that may have been said or done prior to the effective date of this agreement, but reserve the right to address and defend ourselves if an accusation/insinuation is made towards us directly or indirectly, involving a prior date. This provision will not apply to factual statements or predictions made on previous threads which are relevant to the current discussion, and which are subject to new evidence.
II. We will not seek to have a science or religion thread removed or a complying poster banned; or conspire, scheme or bait any complying poster to cause humiliation or embarrassment or to encourage a complying poster to leave Free Republic. Nor will we deliberately provoke another to engage in improper conduct. A "complying poster" is one who is compliance with this agreement.
III. We will not use obscene, belittling or mean words to describe another poster or whatever that poster believes; however, merely factual or logical criticism and rebuttal shall never be considered "obscene, belittling, or mean."
IV. We will not insult any poster or group of people on or off the forum, living or dead, on the basis of religious belief, sexual orientation, gender, age or scientific beliefs.
Further, we will not claim that the other person holds a commonly-reviled belief just because they hold a different belief than ours concerning the scientific subject under discussion. We may argue that a person who believes in one thing should logically also believe another thing, but a person's assertion that he believes or disbelieves anything should not need to be questioned. None of us has a window into the other's mind. In particular, but without limiting the applicability of the foregoing:
B. We will not engage in fundamentalist bashing, or suggest that religious fundamentalists are intellectually inferior. However, the following conduct is specifically not to be considered fundamentalist bashing, Christian bashing, or anti-Christian or anti-religious behavior:
B. If we describe a belief as silly, we will show why we believe that to be true.
C. We will not question another poster’s motives without specific evidence.
VII. When we are wrong, we will acknowledge that fact and if so led by our conscience, apologize.
VIII. We will use our best effort to remember in a new thread, the factual arguments which were made in previous threads. Repetition of previously-rebutted statements of fact can become abusive, especially when the statement has been decisively rebutted and is being posted again with no new evidentiary support. We will not engage in such aggressive amnesia. This is for the purpose of preventing repetition of bogus or unsupported factual claims; and is not intended to interfere with statements of opinions or matters of faith.
Any person joining in this agreement may withdraw at their own discretion without explanation. All remaining parties to the agreement agree to be bound even if one or more parties withdraw.
Separate Agreement for Fundamentalist Christian Freepers:
Concurrent with the AGREEMENT OF THE WILLING, and binding only those Free Republic Fundamentalist Christian posters who voluntarily agree, we the parties to this separate agreement resolve as follows:
We additionally agree to forgive all trespasses prior to the effective date and thereby join in agreement praying for civility among all the participants and blessings for each and every one. Mark 11:24-25.
In particular, but without limiting the applicability of the foregoing:to
For example:It's just that it's all starting to sound so legalistic, I fear that people will pay it as much attention as they do their credit cards' Terms and Conditions statements.
3. advocacy of the theory evolution;should be:
3. advocacy of the theory of evolution;
6. arguing that creation science is more apologetics than true science;Rationale: Mainstream science works to build the most parsimonious theories that fit the observed facts and the fundamental regularity of nature, and creation science works to build the most parsimonious theories that fit the observed facts, the fundamental regularity of nature, and religious dogma.
(I'm still leery of itemized lists of exceptions, for the same reason as Hamilton's objection to the Bill of Rights. But I haven't thought of any better paragraph. So I might as well get in my special-interest exception while I can! :-)
That's right, Hamilton! Once I heard that about Hamilton, I couldn't think of him as a totally bad guy any more.
I understand. But without examples, the casual reader may be left with no concept of what's being said. With a list, the reader may think that it's a complete, all-inclusive list, so that if something isn't listed, it's not included (which would be strict construction, something not always desirable). Thus my legalistic language: "In particular, but without limiting the applicability of the foregoing..."
That could be simplified to your "for example" but then you would still encounter people who say it's a complete list. You could also say: "inter alia," (among others). Very classy, but also subject to the strict construction misinterpretation.
To make it less legalistic than it now is, yet to keep the idea that the list is not complete, and thus (gasp!) we intend liberal construction, I susgest: "... including, but not limited to ...", which may be the simplest way to do the job.
Any person joining in this agreement may withdraw at their own discretion without explanation. All remaining parties to the agreement agree to be bound even if one or more parties withdraw.
That should be: "... may withdraw at their his own discretion ..." (Picky, picky.)
Yep. Running gag for two years, since my gall-bladder went bye-bye.
I'm thinking about posting the final just about noon CST so that Freepers can sign up before the effective date (midnight.) Or do y'all think I should extend the effective date to allow more time for negotiation and blowing off steam?
I think you might give it a few more days. At least over the weekend, and into next week. There are probably those who haven't even seen what we're up to yet. I've seen virtually no input from the creationist side. I have no idea if they'll go along or sit it out. Perhaps you've been hearing from them via freepmail.
And I'd like to use my ping list (nearly 100 names) to call everyone's attention to the next draft. That will get some further feedback. But now we have a draft that at least some of the regular evolution crowd is comfortable with. Unless I think of something new, or some great new feedback comes in, I could sign on right now. But there's no reason to rush. This may be only the start of the next round of revisions, but I rather doubt that. I think it's nearly complete, but it should be given a good airing before asking everyone to sign on.
Just my opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.