Replies

As you can see denials are replete but it is important to set in place whether you consider the behavior I have pointed out as acceptable or not. Now two people have apologized, one honorably, to the failures of comportment that I pointed out. Is is acceptable to belittle other people by comparing them to others and not directly stating that to the person being compared? Note that the comparison is of no value in a debate. The comparison itself is a red herring and was placed in public and not a private message. Is it acceptable to use the words drunk and insane in describing beliefs of the opponent? Is it justified to say someone is complying or not complying merely due to signing or not signing the agreement? And if someone is charged with not complying, and only not complying with no substantiation, is that in itself a violation of the agreement?

The original complaint was that religious beliefs were hurt in calling God drunk/belittling. But, reviewing the history, it is clear that the "small d" designer was referred to in the ID context.

It harms the ID side far more to take that joke to mean that the Christian God is a drunk. After all, nearly every adherent of ID makes it clear that the designer can be any god or aliens, and does not deal with the identity of the designer. I've concluded that the complaint, that religious beliefs were insulted, is not valid.

What I thought to be a "boulder" is now a pebble. I believe A-G said something to the effect that "Dumbski" and "Darwood" weren't considered belittling since they didn't refer to the poster--I took that to mean that the belittling cause is more of a personal attack on the poster. Since no one's religious beliefs were violated, and no one was personally attacked, I judge this to be a "gray" area within the agreement.

This is why we needed all the nitpicking & all those provisions and all that--because no one agrees on what "is" means. So, we need to define what belittling means and in what circumstances it applies to, and what personal attacks mean.

Thank y'all so much for your posts!

Nakatu X, your understand is correct in my view and below I only seek to clarify the underlying reasoning. Virginia-American, your example about quality control is quite interesting! You might find the following useful in determining when words and phrases are problematic.

AndrewC, thank you so much for all your excellent questions! But before getting to the individual answers, I do want to mention that the principle of the agreement is quite simple:

we shall treat others on these threads as we wish to be treated ourselves.

This is the heart of what the willing agree to do. The guidelines section helps clarify different situations and technicalities.

Therefore, before a willing party can determine whether or not he has complied with a particular guideline to the letter, the question that he must first ask himself is whether he would want to be treated that way if the situation were reversed. The poster in this case would ask himself whether, if he were of the Creation/Intelligent Design camp, he would find the statement belittling.

Many words used to ridicule or demean another person would not make it past that first test.

But assuming it passes the first test, the next test deals with the what the guideline itself says. In this case, the guideline says:

We will not use obscene or belittling words to describe another complying poster or whatever that poster believes

In this case, a complying poster of the Creation/Intelligent Design camp would logically believe that the designer is intelligent; many of them would say the designer is God; many of them, our Judeo/Christian God. Using a word like “drunk” to describe the designer would reasonable be taken as belittling to complying posters.

In this case the complaint did not come from a complying poster so the second test did not apply. But the first principle did apply and it is ultimately a personal decision – would I want to be treated this way if the situation were reversed?

Now to your questions:

Is is acceptable to belittle other people by comparing them to others and not directly stating that to the person being compared?

Except for the first principle, that is not addressed in the current agreement in the way that you worded it. The only “must ping” provision is under the Assurances clause when the complaint has to do with a complying poster. So, without further specific information about the incident, I’m hesitant to comment other than if you believe this to be a deficiency in the agreement, the next mediator will want to know when it comes up for review in a few weeks.

Is it acceptable to use the words drunk and insane in describing beliefs of the opponent?

If the opponent is a complying poster, it would be barred under the guidelines (the second test.) If the person using such words would be offended were they used in describing his beliefs, then it would be barred under the first principle of the agreement (the first test.)

Is it justified to say someone is complying or not complying merely due to signing or not signing the agreement?

In my view, signing the agreement shows an intent to comply and thus anyone who signed ought to be assumed compliant unless strictly proven otherwise. A person who has not signed the agreement has shown no such intent to comply. Compliance is a non-issue with a non-signer until and unless the poster behaves in a disruptive manner which might lead to a flame war. If that happens, we have agreed to a very strict procedure to ask politely that the person comply. If the disruption continues, we have agreed to advise one another not to engage the disruptive poster in order to keep the peace. And if someone is charged with not complying, and only not complying with no substantiation, is that in itself a violation of the agreement?

Unsubstantiated allegations are meaningless and should always be ignored. They serve no purpose but to incite a flame war.

Complying posters are expected to include evidence along with any accusation they make on the very same post. Even so, an allegation is still only an allegation. In many cases where such allegations have been made, the person accused has answered in such a way that a misunderstanding was resolved or an apology made.

There are no courts or judges in this voluntary agreement to decide the issues of fact and to apply the agreement. That is in the mind of the willing posters themselves.

The worst thing that happens IMHO is when a poster is shunned by many other posters, but that is what happens when an issue cannot be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

The actual shunning itself is the only “measure” of who was right and who was wrong. Thus, the adjudicators are all of the posters on Free Republic (whether among the willing or not.)