[QUOTE=Mangetout]
In such a thread, the topic of discussion would presumably be whether pizza does, or does not, suck, wouldn’t it? - as opposed to what is a pizza?
[/QUOTE]
I could just as well argue that the topic is “Bad things about Pizza–please help me list them” if I were especially sensitive about wanting to read only posts supportive of my OP’s premises.
Indeed there are such threads; ‘bad science in the movies’ threads, for example.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Or at least include in the thread header: “Theists Only, please!” or “Only Xians need reply–thanks!!” Why presume that your view of the universe is shared by everyone? And then get all pissed off when someone pops up with a differing view? It’s just so arrogant of Xians to presume that their subjective vision of the world is somehow objectively true for everyone. If you don’t want to hear from everyone, or if you’re interested in the views of only members of your tribe, then please just state clearly who it is that you’re deliberately excluding from the discussion. I don’t see what’s so hard about this point.
[/QUOTE]
Nice try, but not good enough. If the title were, say, “The Resurrection - fact or fiction?” you’d have a case for weighing in heavily on the “fiction” side of the question, although it would still be assholish of you to assert “You’re all deluded, and should be made to wear badges attesting to the fact and insert a statement to that effect in your .sig.” But if the question is “Why did Jesus do/say/look like this, that or the other after the Resurrection?” it is plain from the terms of the question that the fact of the Resurrection is to be assumed for the sake of the argument, as well as the necessary antecedents to the Resurrection - the existence of God, the fact of the Incarnation and the Crucifixion. It’s not as if you are denied an outlet for your views that all of the above is a pile of hooey.
The plain fact of the matter is that you like shitting in religious threads. What I don’t get is this disingenuousness over having done so. It reminds me of something Screwtape said about the human impulse to speak so as to give offence while being full of injured and genuine innocence at offence being taken.
This is, of course, exactly the time for a CS thread on the subject of pizza toppings… and last time I looked, no-one had barged in to assert that pizza was the scrapings from Satan’s bell-end, and anyone who liked pizza should be sectioned. 
I don’t suppose it would do much good to tell you that I’m sincere, would it? I mean, I have no one but myself to attest to my sincerity, but I just admire your confidence in knowing that I’m being disingenuous, and the degree of sheer, malicious glee I get out of participating in religious threads. I wish I could be that confident in judging other people’s motivations–I’d really have it made then, wouldn’t I?
You may be sincere, but your mock 'Oh woe! - this is terribly offensive to Christians" comments in recent threads don’t exactly do much to reinforce that impression.
If it were an informative thread about religion, ISTM it would happen in GQ, not GD. Debates about religion happen in GD, and then migrate to the Pit, and are generally not informative - largely because some Dopers find it sincerely impossible not to shit in them.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Shodan]
If it were an informative thread about religion, ISTM it would happen in GQ, not GD. Debates about religion happen in GD, and then migrate to the Pit, and are generally not informative - largely because some Dopers find it sincerely impossible not to shit in them.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think the thread that spawned this pitting is appropriate for GD, though…I’m pretty sure there is not one straight theological answer for why Jesus’ wounds didn’t heal (that was the original topic, right?)
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
I don’t think the thread that spawned this pitting is appropriate for GD, though…I’m pretty sure there is not one straight theological answer for why Jesus’ wounds didn’t heal (that was the original topic, right?)
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see why that disqualifies it; there are any number of non-religious issues that are similarly not finally resolvable, yet still worthy of debate.
Is that the thread Poly is talking about? I don’t know, I haven’t read the thread. If p r r is shitting in it, I wouldn’t know, my eyes glaze over once I get the gist of his latest trollery.
But if this thread is wrong for GQ, and won’t work in GD, and has already been hijacked in the Pit, maybe rational religious debate is not possible with some Dopers. Accordingly, some Dopers can be disregarded when they go off on their usual tear.
Always pleasant to hear from you, though, Sarahfeena, as a voice of calm.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
I don’t see why that disqualifies it; there are any number of non-religious issues that are similarly not finally resolvable, yet still worthy of debate.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry…I’m slow this morning. I meant, not appropriate for GQ. I misread Shodan. Scratch the whole thing. :smack:
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Is that the thread Poly is talking about? I don’t know, I haven’t read the thread. If p r r is shitting in it, I wouldn’t know, my eyes glaze over once I get the gist of his latest trollery.
But if this thread is wrong for GQ, and won’t work in GD, and has already been hijacked in the Pit, maybe rational religious debate is not possible with some Dopers. Accordingly, some Dopers can be disregarded when they go off on their usual tear.
Always pleasant to hear from you, though, Sarahfeena, as a voice of calm.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
Gee, thanks, Shodan. I try. Your second paragraph here is what I was trying to say…the thread is not appropriate for GQ. It IS appropriate for GD, but apparently cannot be debated with any reasonable seriousness towards the topic. I do admire those who were valiantly trying to work around the hijacks, but I don’t think it’s worth the effort, myself.
Ah, fair enough then, I agree with that.
Isn’t it still the case that such questions can be asked in General Questions if what is desired is an answer? (It certainly used to be.)
Usually the hypothetical question threads of the sort you mention are not really specific questions with answers. The “question” is a rhetorical device used to motivate discussion (or stir the possum) about some practice/ belief/ superstition. The Tuckerfan question that others assume was the proximate cause of this Pitting could easily have been posed as a GQ if answers about the doctrine of different Christian denominations was what was wanted. As it was, it was an invitation to witness. It’s precious to suggest otherwise.
And lo, people did witness. That’s all.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
I don’t suppose it would do much good to tell you that I’m sincere, would it? I mean, I have no one but myself to attest to my sincerity, but I just admire your confidence in knowing that I’m being disingenuous, and the degree of sheer, malicious glee I get out of participating in religious threads. I wish I could be that confident in judging other people’s motivations–I’d really have it made then, wouldn’t I?
[/QUOTE]
Not being telepathic, I naturally don’t know what’s going on in your head - but as to judging other people’s motivations, or at least forming opinions of them that are informed by their words and deeds, don’t we all do that all of the time?
Ow.
I am very sympathetic toward the OP, but you just can’t expect the same debate in the town square that you get in the seminary break room.
The thing is, it’s kind of important, in the answering of some questions, to be able to argue with the unspoken assumptions of the question. I actually started a Pit thread of my own on this issue, once, and I’d hate to see a board where one could direct the course and outcome of a discussion merely by wording the title carefully enough. That leads us away from pointless bickering, true, but also out of the realm of healthy discussion and toward (sometimes) equally pointless cheerleading, which is antithetical to fighting ignorance and to freedom of speech and information.
At the same time, there are some questions whose premises are, if not grounded in basic mathematics, at least well-known and widely accepted enough that the attacks on those premises are likely to be equally well-known and trodden into the argumentative ground. Metaphysics and religion are likely to fall into this category: it is known that certain facts not universally accepted form the basis of discussion, and it has been shown that a very few contrarians can bring what might be (in some less emotionally fraught arena) an energetic and entertaining discussion to a screeching, unenlightening, and done-before, deathly-dull halt.
Sometimes, in advancing understanding, it’s important to question, indeed, do one’s very best to demolish, the factual and theoretical ground underlying a question or assertion. The SDMB, taken as a whole, generally does a great job of that. Sometimes, I admit, understanding some hypothetical questions may require a suspension of disbelief, or at least a waiver of the more basic challenges. The SDMB is lousy at that. And it’s true that a man who has to re-invent the wheel every twenty minutes for some new critic will never build a DeLorean. But I’m not at all certain that the much-admired Mangetout’s analogy is all that appropriate either. If someone thought they had good reason to believe that pizza was poisonous, pernicious and seditious rather than toothsome, nutritious and delicious (and there are serious thinkers who feel about religion very like that), they might consider it their duty to spread their gospel as freely, as often, and in the same places as they see their ideological opponents spreading theirs.
I think the solution, when the SDMB community eventually arrives at it, will look something like this: (1) Threads will not be isolated from argument issuing from any point of view – it just invites cliquish logrolling and denies the fight against ignorance. (2) Moderators will take a harsher view toward repetitive posts – once an objection has been brought up and answered, and brought up and answered again, and then again, however well or however inadequately, it may be decided that the purpose of fighting ignorance has been fulfilled, interested bystanders have enough to develop their own opinion, and that further posts without added content are out of order, and the discussion may continue – or perhaps not, in some cases. (3) Posters will simply develop their own ways around this. I don’t like it, but pestiferous posters may find themselves simply ignored or given only cursory attention by other major participants in a thread, who will proceed as if the old, oft-debated, challenges simply aren’t there. The reason I don’t like this is that it’s just as attractive a tactic against reasonable argument, for those who don’t want to hear any dissent.
I don’t want the religion threads to fall into the same generic, by-the-numbers mud-hole every single time someone has a thoughtful and specific and sophisticated question to ask about their (or someone’s) faith. Nor do I want to see a special forum in which any sort of thread is permitted and no negative responses shall sully the OP’s worldview. Still less do I want religion threads, or any threads, to be immune from the kind of critical analysis exemplified by examining the assumptions behind the thread title.
Perhaps the SDMB is the kind of public forum, like some street corners, where passersby may distract and detract from what the originator feels is a productive discussion. Perhaps the originator would be happier in a more restrictive forum, or develop better tactics to contend with the loud noises interfering with what he feels is the productive part of the debate.
I am not in favor of the quaintly-named threadshitting; but if the opprobrium of the SDMB community can’t police this problem, I don’t think we can create a rule that will work to the benefit of both the individual posters and the board as a whole.
[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
But I’m not at all certain that the much-admired Mangetout’s analogy is all that appropriate either. If someone thought they had good reason to believe that pizza was poisonous, pernicious and seditious rather than toothsome, nutritious and delicious (and there are serious thinkers who feel about religion very like that), they might consider it their duty to spread their gospel as freely, as often, and in the same places as they see their ideological opponents spreading theirs.
[/QUOTE]
Fair point, which I hadn’t properly considered (and I think I’ve seen, probably done, exactly this sort of thing in other, non-religious threads).
Good luck with arguing that. I’ve tried to argue it for years. Almost without exception, when I’ve been accused of hijacking a thread, it is because I questioned the base assumptions about public property and schools, Constitutional rights, Congressional elections, and any number of other topics that lend themselves to politics. But goddammit, if the left gets to say we should pay public school teachers more, and the right gets to say we should teach morality in public schools, then I get to say that public schools should be eliminated. Just because my opinion is unpopular does not mean it’s off-topic.
[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
I don’t suppose it would do much good to tell you that I’m sincere, would it? I mean, I have no one but myself to attest to my sincerity, but I just admire your confidence in knowing that I’m being disingenuous, and the degree of sheer, malicious glee I get out of participating in religious threads. I wish I could be that confident in judging other people’s motivations–I’d really have it made then, wouldn’t I?
[/QUOTE]
“I may be wrong in my belief, but if I am I am better off than if the atheist is wrong.”
If you really are sincere, fine. I just do not want to be in your shoes later; and I **am **sincere. I will say a prayer for you, and hope that in the end you will come to the truth.
Really. I will.
The posh sanctimony in this thread is nearly suffocating.
I mean, perhaps Polycarp wants to clarify if this is the thread he is talking about, or at least one them, so we can stop this endless backhanded bullshit about not naming names:
If it is, I’d like to know if I’m being called out again, or if this is just a Der Trihs hatefest. If I’m included in the grumbling, then can I just point out the sheer absurdity of Sapo attacking me for supposedly hijacking the thread (which was, basically: why did he still have holes in his feet: ouch!) when HIS response to the OP was: “Because he knew he wouldn’t be walking on water anymore.” Oh, ha ha! What a serious response, entitling him to lecture us all on the due respect for Tuckerfan’s deep theological question!
What was MY first foray into the thread? Was it “ha ha: Jesus blows!” No. It was to point out that if the reason was to simply reproduce the circumstances of his death, then we’re talking about only CERTAIN wounds associated with death appearing, and somehow ignoring all the rest. Is that REALLY so out of line? No. Now, was Der Trihs’ foray into the thread a hijack? Probably. But you know what? People responded to him. And so people responded to them. And things continued on apace. And the reality is that the posturing breakdowns and hysteria over that were far more disruptive than anything else.
I mean really, what fuck is the problem? The OP basically answered its own question in the very first post, or at least as valid an answer as any other. So other people went on to discuss other things. Don’t like it? Then chill out. YOU AREN’T MANDATED BY LAW TO READ IT.
Actually, I think you guys convinced me; I’m going to do an about-face and say that, absent a plea from the original poster in the form ‘please can we keep this on topic for a while’, hijacks are probably harmless, and sometimes just lots of fun. It’s only an internet forum. None of this actually matters.