If a GD Religion Thread Were Not Hijacked, What Would It Be Like?

The BBQ Pit
81

[QUOTE=stpauler]
Prove that the lobsters exist before getting into the meta discussions of whether or not to gas 'em.
[/QUOTE]

There’s no way to prove the lobsters exist. There’s no way to prove the lobsters don’t exist. There are approximately 9 bazillion threads dedicated to the question of whether the lobsters exist or not.

But if anyone tries to discuss any aspect of the lobsters, someone else will immediately attempt to jerk the thread around to yet another screed on how the lobsters don’t exist, or debate over whether they do. And it’s been done. It’s being done now. It will be done tomorrow. Repeatedly. And insisting that it be done in every single Nebraskan beach lobster thread is threadshitting, plain and simple.

I don’t buy the premise of astrology. If someone started a thread sincerely asking how to interpret an astrological chart, or asking how they should order their life in light of a reading, or reporting instances in which psychic predictions really came true, I’m not going to go into that thread and say “This is all a bunch of bullshit, you know.” No, not even if I really, truly, sincerely, honestly, earnestly, and completely believe it’s a bunch of bullshit. Because nobody asked me and whether its BS or not is not the subject under discussion.

And I don’t shit in threads.

82

[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
If some limits were not set, a determined zealot could insist that every debate begin with a discussion of why we should not simply abdicate our place on Earth with a program of universal euthanasia followed by an eternity of peace and Heavenly reward: interesting enough – once, maybe.
[/QUOTE]
:smiley: I believe I’ve suggested before that you should be a writer if you aren’t. You compose well. And certainly, I agree. But any myth to the contrary notwithstanding, I do not hijack any threads ever in that manner.

Now, more generally, and with regard to the topic of hijacking threads, including regious ones, often what appears to be a hijack is just a branch of the thread. And if users were to use the threaded view rather than the linear view, they’d see this:

===

Poster A: I think vordags are ordack.

Poster B: (To Poster A) Some are ordack. Some are pasgoy.

Poster C: When my vordags constibulate, I blor them.

Poster A: (To Poster B) I agree that some are pasgoy, but since pasgoy vordags are prone to toediggling, your point is moot.

Poster D: (To Poster C) It is mistake to blor vordags. Bloring vordags can result in maldicker.

Poster E: Heh heh. He said “maldicker”.

Poster F: (To Poster C) Cite, please? When has there ever been a constibulated vordag?

Poster G: (To Poster A) Pasgoy vordags only toediggle under the most rare and extreme circumstances.

Poster A: (To Poster G) Nonsense. I’ve had more than a dozen vordags, and they have all toediggled sooner or later.

Poster H: (To Poster D) What’s so bad about maldicker? Is it just because it’s popular among yeegs? I think this board could do without your bigotry.

Poster I: (To Poster H) Poster D didn’t even mention yeegs. Why must you assume the worst?

Poster J: (To Poster F) Talk Origins shows about twenty examples of constibulated vordags. They aren’t that rare.

Poster D: (To everyone) Thweeet! We are discussing whether pasgoy vordags toediggle. Will the people discussing constabulation please go elsewhere?

Poster H: (To poster D) Fuck you! The rest of us are discussing a different aspect of the OP. If you want to yap, go ahead. It’s not like you can’t type while we type or anything.

===

No one has hijacked the thread. But what happens is that people don’t follow all the branches. Just their own. And when they finally notice someone else’s branch, they bristle with indignation and scream “HIJACK!”

And the worst of it is that sometimes, one of the people in one of the branches will himself scream “hijack!” at his opponent if he is loosing that argument. It simply is not possible for a response to be a hijack unless it is altogether a complete non sequitur.

83

Not to throw in a potential hijack here, but we get similar problems in abortion threads. If the question is asked, “Should abortion be limited to cases of rape, incest and saving the mother’s life?” someone is sure to chime in at some point with the, “It doesn’t make any difference because it is not a human being,” comment. That leads inevitably into a derailment and debate about baby/fetus/embryo/clump of cells/parasite and is it human or not. That wasn’t the original question and is not relevant to the discussion.

Similar hijacks occur in most contentious threads (politics, Global Warming, affirmative action) and usually have at least one person making a statement like, “You mouth-breathing moron! How can be so stupid as to not see that…”

If you are invited to a Bible study group by a friend, would you start insulting the intelligence of the participants and denouncing their faith? How about if you are invited to attend a party and someone talks about their church? Or two co-workers are talking about their plans for Easter Sunday. Should you jump in to say how stupid they are to believe in some myth? Hopefully the people on this thread would not behave this way in the real world. The anonymity of the thread does not give you license to be an asshole.

If a question is seriously asked, not a smart-ass, “Gee, aren’t I funny?” or troll-like (didn’t want to say that word too loudly) manner, then responses should be limited to the pertinent question. If you feel like expounding on your legitimate answer, then great. But stick to the subject at hand.

I enjoy seeing a disciplined debate. I love seeing the exchange of information and watching as people try to provide evidence to prove their points as well as expressing their opinions. But the people who get off on being shitheads are worse than trolls. If you have a smart-ass comment or joke you want to throw in to lighten the mood then go for it, but please return to the subject at hand. Otherwise, at a minimum, you are being a jerk. And isn’t one of the main rules (or commandments) here is to not be a jerk?

Back to the OP, I enjoy the religion threads that somehow manage to stick to the subject. It does fight ignorance the way this board intends. But I have resigned myself that we have too many Dawkinsian-level, radical atheists around here to believe it will ever happen. Their fervor to proselytize about what they believe is just as offensive as the fundamentalists of other belief systems. If I am asking to be convinced that I should convert, have your say and state your case. If I am not asking for it, then keep your opinions to yourself and shut your piehole.

84

See erie, what you say is true on its merits, but sometimes the cry of hijack and threadshitting is just a cheapass way to take some boring potshots at people and views they don’t like or want an easy, emotionalized leg up on. For instance, all this latest about “Dawkinsian-level, radical atheists” who are supposedly “proselytiz[ing] about what they believe.” Does that happen? Sure, sometimes. But as often as not, that accusation is just another lazy-ass way for mr. I’m above-it-all tosmugly dismiss people and things in cases and places where it doesn’t belong.

What I mean is: sometimes you’re the asshole.

85

[QUOTE=Apos]
See erie, what you say is true on its merits, but sometimes the cry of hijack and threadshitting is just a cheapass way to take some boring potshots at people and views they don’t like or want an easy, emotionalized leg up on. For instance, all this latest about “Dawkinsian-level, radical atheists” who are supposedly “proselytiz[ing] about what they believe.” Does that happen? Sure, sometimes. But as often as not, that accusation is just another lazy-ass way for mr. I’m above-it-all tosmugly dismiss people and things in cases and places where it doesn’t belong.

What I mean is: sometimes you’re the asshole.
[/QUOTE]
I agree that crying “Hijack!” is like someone in and argument saying, “Fuck you!” when they are losing the debate. They are either trying to create another hijack so the thread wanders on to a different tangent then to another until it is a humongous clusterfuck or else they are ready to take their marbles and go home.

If the OP was about a particular aspect of a religion, then the response should be limited to that particular aspect of the religion. The responses should not include comments about Invisible Pink Unicorns, Bearded Sky Pixies, Flying Spaghetti Monsters or Cthulu unless they are what the OP was about. If the thread is about why atheism is so great, you don’t want Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Baker and Pat Robertson jumping in to preach in about how the poster is going to go to Hell where they will spend eternity having to lick the sweat off Satan’s scrotum while listening to “Barney sings the Hits of Barry Manilow”.

I like the extreme atheists, the same way I like fundamentalist Christians or extreme Muslims or Kabbalahists. They are entertaining. If I wanted to know more about them and what they think and believe, I will ask them. If I am not interested, I will not ask. That’s why I don’t like the LDS and Jehovah’s Witnesses I’ve met because they insist on putting their two cents in where it is not wanted or appreciated. Christian apologists who preach to me about saving my soul are as annoying as atheists saying I’m retarded for questioning what might have started this whole fucked up universe going in the first place.

I have a friend who belongs to a fundamentalist church. She believes everything the preacher says about creationism, end times and the rapture. It was how she was raised and she finds comfort and acceptance with this congregation. She has offered for me to come to her church but I have politely said no. She was not offended and never offered again. I refuse to discuss the churches teachings with her because it is what she believes. If she mentions something about it, I will tell her that I don’t agree with her but I don’t want to discuss it. On the few occasions she has pressed me for my reasons, I have provided them in a calm and polite manner. I don’t talk down to her or insult her. Then I will leave it alone.

And as for me being an asshole: Of course I am! Just ask anyone, especially my wife when I leave the seat up. Everyone is at one time or another. I’m sure Mr. Rogers had times when he was a real prick to King Friday and pissed off the Speedy Delivery guy.

86

[QUOTE=erie774]
If the thread is about why atheism is so great, you don’t want Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Baker and Pat Robertson jumping in to preach in about how the poster is going to go to Hell where they will spend eternity having to lick the sweat off Satan’s scrotum while listening to “Barney sings the Hits of Barry Manilow”.
[/QUOTE]

If they could be that witty about it, I really wouldn’t mind.

But part of the problem is that what is going on isn’t witty, its nothing theists around here haven’t heard a dozen or more times before (unless they are new). Its tired. And, unlike most tired in-jokes, it belittles other Dopers.

87

Something just oiccurred to me - sorry if someone has already said it; probably what would make the hijacks less of an issue would be if those that recognise them as hijacks (which is more or less the same set of people who are annoyed/inconvenienced/offended by them), simply didn’t engage them. If you’re talking about how you like pepperoni pizza and I’m talking about how much I enjoy a succulent spinach and goat cheese pizza, in a thread titled ‘pizza lovers: what’s your favourite topping?’ why do we feel at all compelled to even acknowledge a post consisting of ‘pizza fucking sucks’ ?
On many other topics (not all of them), hijacks - such as punfests, or the occasional “I don’t understand why you guys even like Barry Manilow” are simply shrugged off or completely ignored.

88

[QUOTE=erie774]
I agree that crying “Hijack!” is like someone in and argument saying, “Fuck you!” when they are losing the debate. They are either trying to create another hijack so the thread wanders on to a different tangent then to another until it is a humongous clusterfuck or else they are ready to take their marbles and go home.
[/QUOTE]

Ok, well, I’m just saying that screaming that someone is a fundamentalist this, or a fundamentalist that is also often a way of trying to shut down a discussion, and while it can be true, merely the fact that you can scream it is not.

And while it would indeed be rude if someone got up in your face telling you to believe or not believe this out of the blue, I have very little patience for those who quickly claim that this is happening in Great Debates in the midst of a fairly freewheeling discussion over the plausibility of various ideas as to why a reanimated corpse or spiritual body or what have you might choose to leave certain wounds and not others on its person.

Now, yeah, I agree that people can be one note threadshitters. But I also think that others are far too eager to seize on that accusation, often for posturing political reason (ah, how persecuted I am by all these people abusing me with their opinions! What a world what a world!)

89

Mostly, I just don’t like being lumped in with Der Trihs, maybe.

90

[QUOTE=stpauler]
Let’s pretend for a moment that I started out a thread like that. Should we or should we not cropdust these beach lobsters? I’ll insist that we stay on topic because my belief that these beach lobsters not only exist in Nebraska but have also grown to a problematic amount. I’m basing all of this on what many might consider to be a false assumption but I’m going to insist that no one question the existence or not of these lobsters. This is the position that Polycarp is advocating, in my opinion.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I would be willing to entertain charges of “hijack” if anyone made it a point to continue to interrupt the thread to insist that you were delusional. I would permit a couple of questioning posts asking for a citation that such a creature existed, but once your delusion was firmly established, I would have no problem insisting that everyone stick to your topic. (It would be a pretty short thread.) Of course, if you were not getting enough support for your position and began to post ever more incredible claims in order to attract attention, I would probably let the “hijackers” have their way with you.

However, that situation is not directly equated to the topic of spiritual belief. In the case of spiritual belief, the believing is real and established, even if the object of the belief is a delusion. The vast majority of discussions regarding belief can be understood, (by those with a basic understanding of language and presentation), to begin with the statement “predicated on the belief that…”

Just as interrupting a discussion of whether a particular meat is better when broiled or barbecued to rant that eating meat is barbaric is both rude and, ultimately, the actions of a jerk, so is interrupting a thread on the particulars of a certain belief to deny the whole system of belief rude and, ultimately, the actions of a jerk.
Just as interrupting a discussion of whether a particular comedy is better than another comedy to rant that comedy demeans life and intelligent persons only watch tragedy is both rude and, ultimately, the actions of a jerk, so is interrupting a thread on the particulars of a certain belief to deny the whole system of belief rude and, ultimately, the actions of a jerk.
Just as interrupting a discussion of whether a particular grieving practice is more appropriate than a different grieving practice to rant that dead is dead and we should never waste our time grieving over a decaying corpse is both rude and, ultimately, the actions of a jerk, so is interrupting a thread on the particulars of a certain belief to deny the whole system of belief rude and, ultimately, the actions of a jerk.

A single “I cant believe you people actually debate or believe this stuff” is a little bit rude, but probably acceptable as a single throwaway comment. Parking in a thread to repeat one’s own personal mantra of unbelief (or posting a sufficiently long and complex condemnation that it cannot be considered a simple throwaway line, luring the unwary into participating in a hijack), is rude, pointless, unnecessary, and the actions of a jerk.

91

[QUOTE=Liberal… sometimes, one of the people in one of the branches will himself scream “hijack!” at his opponent if he is loosing that argument. It simply is not possible for a response to be a hijack unless it is altogether a complete non sequitur.[/QUOTE]

Previous post meant merely as illustration, not as an accusation of hijacking, old or recent, on your part. But, if you’re going to try to win arguments by pretending constibulation and constabulation are the same thing, well, we have nothing to say to each other.

“Nothing to say to each other” – that’s an interesting phrase. It’s almost never literally true; that is, used to describe people who have no words or common experiences to serve as grounds for communication. What it usually refers to is people whose personal viewpoints with respect to a particular topic are so out of joint that discussion between them devolves into acrimony without any argument deeper or more specific than “your question or thesis is meaningless because your perceptions about the world are fundamentally wrong.”

There are various dogmas, religious, political, philosophical and just idiosyncratic, whose adherents are motivated to spread the word and let no competing worldview, presented even in its smallest aspect, go unchallenged. They are happy to tell you why a properly organized and healthy mind wouldn’t care about blah because blah blah and oh my God there’s nothing to which their blah doesn’t apply! And this can get tiresome and irritating and very much in the way of understanding.

On the other hand, there are also those who would much prefer to skip the larger questions so they can have a specific, technical discussion about (for example) exactly how morally and intellectually inferior Group X is. These people have a well-developed point of view (however abhorrent) and body of literature (however hollow) to support their discussion, and how great would it be if their debate were not disturbed by hijacks denying the very assumptions behind their basic philosophy?

Then there are those threads which are avowedly about a more-or-less controversial topic but whose participants wish to bypass the conventional battlefields to get to particular subtopics with which they are concerned. These threads might be about pet care, tattooing, alternative medicine, self-inflicted pain, and a host of other subjects where the question “How to…” might be shouldered aside by the question “Should you…”

The thing is, I can see the differences between these examples, but I have no ability to articulate them clearly. I know there are instances where I think knowledge and understanding is best served by letting the OP define the discussion, and others where the OP is an inadequate framework to promote such, and still others where I think the OP is rigged to promote rather than fight ignorance. My tolerance of hijacking goes up and down based on that. So the solution is, just let me decide. No? No, I suppose not.

The thing is, Liberal, even in your example, the resolution involves separate groups of posters all talking past each other at largely cross-purposes. That may avoid open conflict, but I can’t believe it’s the best people can do.

And Liberal, belatedly, I’m glad to see you back.

92

[QUOTE=Liberal]
… one of the people in one of the branches will himself scream “hijack!” at his opponent if he is loosing that argument. It simply is not possible for a response to be a hijack unless it is altogether a complete non sequitur.
[/QUOTE]

Previous post meant merely as illustration, not as an accusation of hijacking, old or recent, on your part. But, if you’re going to try to win arguments by pretending constibulation and constabulation are the same thing, well, we have nothing to say to each other.

“Nothing to say to each other” – that’s an interesting phrase. It’s almost never literally true; that is, used to describe people who have no words or common experiences to serve as grounds for communication. What it usually refers to is people whose personal viewpoints with respect to a particular topic are so out of joint that discussion between them devolves into acrimony without any argument deeper or more specific than “your question or thesis is meaningless because your perceptions about the world are fundamentally wrong.”

There are various dogmas, religious, political, philosophical and just idiosyncratic, whose adherents are motivated to spread the word and let no competing worldview, presented even in its smallest aspect, go unchallenged. They are happy to tell you why a properly organized and healthy mind wouldn’t care about blah because blah blah and oh my God there’s nothing to which their blah doesn’t apply! And this can get tiresome and irritating and very much in the way of understanding.

On the other hand, there are also those who would much prefer to skip the larger questions so they can have a specific, technical discussion about (for example) exactly how morally and intellectually inferior Group X is. These people have a well-developed point of view (however abhorrent) and body of literature (however hollow) to support their discussion, and how great would it be if their debate were not disturbed by hijacks denying the very assumptions behind their basic philosophy?

Then there are those threads which are avowedly about a more-or-less controversial topic but whose participants wish to bypass the conventional battlefields to get to particular subtopics with which they are concerned. These threads might be about pet care, tattooing, alternative medicine, self-inflicted pain, and a host of other subjects where the question “How to…” might be shouldered aside by the question “Should you…”

The thing is, I can see the differences between these examples, but I have no ability to articulate them clearly. I know there are instances where I think knowledge and understanding is best served by letting the OP define the discussion, and others where the OP is an inadequate framework to promote such, and still others where I think the OP is rigged to promote rather than fight ignorance. My tolerance of hijacking goes up and down based on that. So the solution is, just let me decide. No? No, I suppose not.

The thing is, Liberal, even in your example, the resolution involves separate groups of posters all talking past each other at largely cross-purposes. That may avoid open conflict, but I can’t believe it’s the best people can do.

And Liberal, belatedly, I’m glad to see you back.

93

God will not allow The King of Soup’s posts to appear, unless he is quoted:
[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
<Full quote removed now that coding error is fixed --Giraffe>
[/QUOTE]

94

[QUOTE=Squink]
God will not allow The King of Soup’s posts to appear, unless he is quoted:
[/QUOTE]

Ah, but this raises a question! We do not have direct, objective evidence of what The King of Soup said – his post appears blank. All we have is Squink’s testimony as to what he said. Can this be relied on? Does The King of Soup actually exist? Certainly there is no location where a Doper can go and document the objective existence of someone identified as The King of Soup. (We pass over the fact that Administrators and Moderators can identify him by an IP trace, as, owing to Der Trihs’s researches, we know that they are solely in it for power and money – or at least coffee mugs.) In what way does The King of Soup differ from the Invisible Post Unicorn?

95

[QUOTE=erie774]

If the OP was about a particular aspect of a religion, then the response should be limited to that particular aspect of the religion. The responses should not include comments about Invisible Pink Unicorns, Bearded Sky Pixies, Flying Spaghetti Monsters or Cthulu unless they are what the OP was about. If the thread is about why atheism is so great, you don’t want Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Baker and Pat Robertson jumping in to preach in about how the poster is going to go to Hell where they will spend eternity having to lick the sweat off Satan’s scrotum while listening to “Barney sings the Hits of Barry Manilow”.

[/QUOTE]

There have been quite a few cases of creationists (usually drive by ones) wandering into threads about other things and doing a creationist hijack, usually with a snarky comment of the “faith in evolution” type. I don’t ever recall cries of hijack. Usually those who know the stuff attempt to educate the hijacker, though this is usually futile.

BTW, one thing I didn’t notice in the referenced thread was anyone responding with either “there was no Jesus” or “Jesus couldn’t heal himself anyway.” So, pretty much everyone bought into the premise, with all the seriousness it merited.

Well, conversations here are not private. If someone invited me to a Bible study group, knowing that I don’t believe, and the teacher asked me a question, I sure as hell would answer in terms of my belief. Especially if it was about a logical absurdity he was propounding. I’d do it politely, but firmly. If he is not able to respond, it is a valuable indicator to the class about the level of support for beliefs. If they wish to preach only to the faithful, that’s fine, but I shouldn’t be invited. The same for people coming to my door. I welcome them, but I’m not going to act as if I buy into what they’re selling.

Atheists - even Der Trihs in this thread, are quite skilled at arguing in terms of “assuming this is true, here are the implications as I see them.” You may not like him saying God is evil, but he’s clearly assuming the existence of God for the sake of that argument. If a repeated response was “that’s stupid, god doesn’t exist” then everyone would have a quite legitimate gripe.

Yeah it’s all been done before. If no one posted here except original stuff, I’d be able to go through each days worth of posts in fifteen minutes flat. We wouldn’t want that, would we? :slight_smile:

96

[QUOTE=erie774]
Not to throw in a potential hijack here, but we get similar problems in abortion threads. If the question is asked, “Should abortion be limited to cases of rape, incest and saving the mother’s life?” someone is sure to chime in at some point with the, “It doesn’t make any difference because it is not a human being,” comment. That leads inevitably into a derailment and debate about baby/fetus/embryo/clump of cells/parasite and is it human or not. That wasn’t the original question and is not relevant to the discussion.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, but these are hardly the only subjects about which this could be said. For example, in a thread that begins with the question, “Is modern artist X full of shit?” the thread will rapidly and inevitably drift toward the question, “Is all modern art bullshit?”

There’s a long list of these, I don’t know, meta-debates, which are about the underlying assumptions of any superficial question above them, and toward which any thread that begins with such a superficial question can be expected to gravitate, generally within the first page or two. After that, it’s just the same-old same-old, because those underlying debates are eternal and unresolvable.

I’ve occasionally considered starting a thread to list and discuss these base issues, but I haven’t done so, because I’ve never been able to come up with a good title and therefore unifying theme for the discussion. My top two choices center on the concepts of black holes (for their irresistable gravitational attraction) and tar babies (because of the stickiness of the subject matter), but both of them have what I consider distracting connotations that would potentially sidetrack the discussion into undesirable tangents. Any ideas?

97

Excellent post, Voyager. Well said.

The problem with asking for disclaimers is not that they would be unwieldy or awkward so much as they would identify the OPs clearly as particularly bigoted or as overtly preaching to the choir, which might attract some well deserved ridicule for the narrowness of their position. Starting a post “FOR XIANS ONLY” would help in preventing hijacks (and is the position that such OPs take when “hijacks” first occur) but would show the OP’s reluctance to engage in genuine discussion.

Please note that in “Are Xians Stupid?” all sorts of hijacks were permitted, perhaps encouraged, despite my returning to the the OP several times, and requesting that others follow suit. It’s a judgment call as to what constitutes a hijack, and it’s absurd that the person who gets to make that call is also an active and hostile participant in the discussion.

98

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
Excellent post, Voyager. Well said.

The problem with asking for disclaimers is not that they would be unwieldy or awkward so much as they would identify the OPs clearly as particularly bigoted or as overtly preaching to the choir, which might attract some well deserved ridicule for the narrowness of their position.
[/quote]

Which can also be the case in the alternate perspective, as well. I have no problem with an OP that presumes a Materialist metaphysic, and argues from it. And I would assume that a well-stated stance that Materialism is not the only reasonable metaphysic would not be deemed a hijack – especially if phrased wittily and with obvious relish in the discussion. Where my issue lies is in reiterated, unsubstantiated snark against the premise of the OP, which does nothing but aver the beliefs of the person posting, and which by simply “dumping on” the contents of the discussion, serve only to constitute a useless hijack. (For example, distinguish Der Trihs’s repeated reiterations that religion is (in his view, which he never acknowledges is the case) an actively harmful perversion of thought pursued for the benefit of the clergy, on the one hand, from Liberal’s exploration in the Habeas Corpus Pit thread of the nature and origin of rights. Though the latter is in some ways also a hijack, it is one with a valid purpose in debate and with substantial bearing on the OP’s chosen topic. What has been termed “threadshitting” is simply an injection of one’s personal and unsupported views contrary to the content of the OP, repeatedly and without substantive content other than being a personal view, with the evident intent of disrupting the discussion.

One reason why I found your “Are Christians Stupid?” thread interesting, despite the provocative OP, was that it honestly attempted to explore the divergence between the worldviews of believers and non-believers.

You may be right, although we have the word of a moderator that it is not needed. Personally, I have enough respect for the vast majority of Dopers to believe they are fully capable of picking up on tacit premises. If somebody asks why Frodo did not simply go to the nearest blacksmith and have him melt down the Ring, it’s not necessary to go into the fact that this is the invented universe of J.R.R. Tolkien, which is not the real world we live in – it’s presumed from the content. If somebody asks why Arthur did not legitimize Mordred, it’s clear that the Arthurian corpus is being presumed for the sake of argument. And if someone asks why Jesus did not simply climb down off the Cross and smite the Romans and Jewish leaders with a First Century style death ray, it’s a clear presumption that the Gospels are being put forward at face value for purposes of the discussion.

Completely agreed – other than the fact that both the two atheist and the Christian moderators of GD have all proven their ability over several years to distinguish between necessary actions in moderation of religious discussion and participation in those discussions in support of their own views. I can recall Gaudere warning someone who had taken a verbal potshot at me personally, following which she merrily tore a premise I was advancing from a Christian perspective in the thread of the moment into small shreds, chortling joyously as she worked. :wink:

And I distinguish between (1) the useful hijack, dealing with an aspect of the bigger picture that the OP had failed to address, (2) the interesting sidebar hijack, dealing with the factual matter behind something advanced as an example, (3) the personal stance hijack, in which one simply takes issue with the premise advanced – you, Voyager, and Apos among others are particularly good with these when you so choose – and (4) the threadshitting hijack, in which the Doper figuratively throws a tantrum that everyone else does not support his unsubstantiated worldview over numerous and repeated posts. I forebear to give examples of the last, but I think they’re obvious to most members.

Note too that kanicbird was similarly guilty of a hijack – which variety, I choose not to specify – in her ongoing and detailed presentation of the evangelical Christian soteriology and eschatology in the Unhealed Stigmata thread that provoked this one. Acting on the past advice of badchad and yourself, I decided not to post extended disagreement with her, although I find large parts of her view contrary to my understanding of the relevant subjects.

99

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
both the two atheist and the Christian moderators of GD have all proven their ability over several years to distinguish between necessary actions in moderation of religious discussion and participation in those discussions in support of their own views. I can recall Gaudere warning someone who had taken a verbal potshot at me personally, following which she merrily tore a premise I was advancing from a Christian perspective in the thread of the moment into small shreds, chortling joyously as she worked.
[/QUOTE]

You know, you may be right here. It may be that I’ve just had colossally bad luck to have every single one of my last x threads in GD have Tom as the moderator. I literally can’t remember the last time Gaudere or MEBuckner moderated a GD I posted in, so maybe its just my bad luck (or my bad memory) that’s made me so sensitive to participating on a Forum moderated by someone who disagrees with my every thought, and thinks I’m malicious, deliberately obtuse, witless and kind of dim. Maybe I should give it another fifty or eighty GD threads before I start inferring a pattern of intemperate moderation (to coin an oxymoron).

100

[QUOTE=pseudotriton ruber ruber]
…someone who disagrees with my every thought, and thinks I’m malicious, deliberately obtuse, witless and kind of dim…
[/QUOTE]

Oh, sweetie, there’s plenty of people besides tomndebb who think you’re malicious, deliberately obtuse, witless, and kind of dim. Don’t sell yourself short.