|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:15 pm
Do some of the rules change in ED:R&M? Some of the threads are based on Good, Evil, right, wrong, and other subjective terms. I enjoy the content of some of these, so are there specific ways we should handle these kinds of threads?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:41 pm
The Dark Thought Do some of the rules change in ED:R&M? Some of the threads are based on Good, Evil, right, wrong, and other subjective terms. I enjoy the content of some of these, so are there specific ways we should handle these kinds of threads? I'm not exactly sure of what you are asking, but I shall attempt an answer none-the-less. Morality and Ethics deal with right and wrong. Religion deals with good and evil. In the M&R forum, as opposed to the main forum or other sub-forums, religious reasoning is typically seen as valid. One may use their religion to support their position. However, obviously, if you are in a thread specified to a particular religion, using another as support will not hold water. Despite the topics being largely subjective, that does not mean one should just post their opinion and expect it to stand. Be ready to defend your opinion through logical reasoning, facts, and/or religious doctrine (if applicable). For example, in a thread entitled "Is abortion wrong," the response of "Yes it is, because the Bible condemns killing" is an acceptable answer. Of course, you will then be expected to be able to prove that the Bible indeed does so. Also acceptable would be "No, as the Bible views the fetus as nothing more than property." And the answers need not reference religion at all, if one can think of a sound logical reason why abortion is or is not morally wrong. Hope that helped. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:35 pm
Quote: Morality and Ethics deal with right and wrong. Religion deals with good and evil. Erm, no. Religion is an organization of spiritual belief. The doctrine thereof can relate to morality, ethics, evil, or anything else. Besides, some might argue morality, ethics, and good v. evil are all the same thing. Quote: In the M&R forum, as opposed to the main forum or other sub-forums, religious reasoning is typically seen as valid. Not in my experience. Using subjective standards usually gets you canned. I might be more fierce about it than some, but saying 'ITZ WROG CUZ JESUS SEZ SO' has never worked in my recollection. Using intrapersonal standards in interpersonal or non-intrapersonal debate is never valid. Quote: One may use their religion to support their position. However, obviously, if you are in a thread specified to a particular religion, using another as support will not hold water. More or less. Quote: Despite the topics being largely subjective, that does not mean one should just post their opinion and expect it to stand. Be ready to defend your opinion through logical reasoning, facts, and/or religious doctrine (if applicable). Religious doctrine isn't valid unless we're debating such a doctrine. Quote: For example, in a thread entitled "Is abortion wrong," the response of "Yes it is, because the Bible condemns killing" is an acceptable answer. Are we looking at the same M&R? I have never seen such an answer not get blown out of the water.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:00 pm
SouthernCross Quote: Morality and Ethics deal with right and wrong. Religion deals with good and evil. Erm, no. Religion is an organization of spiritual belief. The doctrine thereof can relate to morality, ethics, evil, or anything else. Besides, some might argue morality, ethics, and good v. evil are all the same thing. Didn't intend to make the two exclusive of each other. Sorry, poorly worded. Quote: Quote: In the M&R forum, as opposed to the main forum or other sub-forums, religious reasoning is typically seen as valid. Not in my experience. Using subjective standards usually gets you canned. I might be more fierce about it than some, but saying 'ITZ WROG CUZ JESUS SEZ SO' has never worked in my recollection. Using intrapersonal standards in interpersonal or non-intrapersonal debate is never valid. The majority of threads in the M&R forum deal with religion or right and wrong. One can make a case for the former (though obviously needing more than your example provided.) Right and wrong are by nature subjective, but it is expected one can give a reason for there position. Religion is a sound reason, assuming one can support it. Quote: Quote: Despite the topics being largely subjective, that does not mean one should just post their opinion and expect it to stand. Be ready to defend your opinion through logical reasoning, facts, and/or religious doctrine (if applicable). Religious doctrine isn't valid unless we're debating such a doctrine. If applicable. Quote: Quote: For example, in a thread entitled "Is abortion wrong," the response of "Yes it is, because the Bible condemns killing" is an acceptable answer. Are we looking at the same M&R? Well...I haven't been around it much in a few months. Quote: I have never seen such an answer not get blown out of the water. I've never seen that particular argument not get blown out of the water. Assuming one can support it though, saying that it is wrong in accordance with Christianity with x, y, and z as supporting evidence should be perfectly valid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:28 am
Aino Ailill SouthernCross Quote: Morality and Ethics deal with right and wrong. Religion deals with good and evil. Erm, no. Religion is an organization of spiritual belief. The doctrine thereof can relate to morality, ethics, evil, or anything else. Besides, some might argue morality, ethics, and good v. evil are all the same thing. Didn't intend to make the two exclusive of each other. Sorry, poorly worded. Quote: Quote: In the M&R forum, as opposed to the main forum or other sub-forums, religious reasoning is typically seen as valid. Not in my experience. Using subjective standards usually gets you canned. I might be more fierce about it than some, but saying 'ITZ WROG CUZ JESUS SEZ SO' has never worked in my recollection. Using intrapersonal standards in interpersonal or non-intrapersonal debate is never valid. The majority of threads in the M&R forum deal with religion or right and wrong. One can make a case for the former (though obviously needing more than your example provided.) Right and wrong are by nature subjective, but it is expected one can give a reason for there position. Religion is a sound reason, assuming one can support it. Quote: Quote: Despite the topics being largely subjective, that does not mean one should just post their opinion and expect it to stand. Be ready to defend your opinion through logical reasoning, facts, and/or religious doctrine (if applicable). Religious doctrine isn't valid unless we're debating such a doctrine. If applicable. Quote: Quote: For example, in a thread entitled "Is abortion wrong," the response of "Yes it is, because the Bible condemns killing" is an acceptable answer. Are we looking at the same M&R? Well...I haven't been around it much in a few months. Quote: I have never seen such an answer not get blown out of the water. I've never seen that particular argument not get blown out of the water. Assuming one can support it though, saying that it is wrong in accordance with Christianity with x, y, and z as supporting evidence should be perfectly valid. But the majority of threads aren't debating solely within the domain of a certain religion. I can't see what possible validity 'Gayz r bad cuz teh bibl' has unless the OP asked specifically for the bible's stance on the matter. And from my experience most people agree with me on this. Usually bible-thumping arguments get hammered pretty hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 1:34 pm
SouthernCross Aino Ailill SouthernCross Quote: Morality and Ethics deal with right and wrong. Religion deals with good and evil. Erm, no. Religion is an organization of spiritual belief. The doctrine thereof can relate to morality, ethics, evil, or anything else. Besides, some might argue morality, ethics, and good v. evil are all the same thing. Didn't intend to make the two exclusive of each other. Sorry, poorly worded. Quote: Quote: In the M&R forum, as opposed to the main forum or other sub-forums, religious reasoning is typically seen as valid. Not in my experience. Using subjective standards usually gets you canned. I might be more fierce about it than some, but saying 'ITZ WROG CUZ JESUS SEZ SO' has never worked in my recollection. Using intrapersonal standards in interpersonal or non-intrapersonal debate is never valid. The majority of threads in the M&R forum deal with religion or right and wrong. One can make a case for the former (though obviously needing more than your example provided.) Right and wrong are by nature subjective, but it is expected one can give a reason for there position. Religion is a sound reason, assuming one can support it. Quote: Quote: Despite the topics being largely subjective, that does not mean one should just post their opinion and expect it to stand. Be ready to defend your opinion through logical reasoning, facts, and/or religious doctrine (if applicable). Religious doctrine isn't valid unless we're debating such a doctrine. If applicable. Quote: Quote: For example, in a thread entitled "Is abortion wrong," the response of "Yes it is, because the Bible condemns killing" is an acceptable answer. Are we looking at the same M&R? Well...I haven't been around it much in a few months. Quote: I have never seen such an answer not get blown out of the water. I've never seen that particular argument not get blown out of the water. Assuming one can support it though, saying that it is wrong in accordance with Christianity with x, y, and z as supporting evidence should be perfectly valid. But the majority of threads aren't debating solely within the domain of a certain religion. I can't see what possible validity 'Gayz r bad cuz teh bibl' has unless the OP asked specifically for the bible's stance on the matter. And from my experience most people agree with me on this. Usually bible-thumping arguments get hammered pretty hard. Why would it not be excepted? One is asking a moral question. Another is providing a set moral doctrine and explaining why something is moral or immoral in regards to said doctrine. In the sphere of Christianity, 'x' is wrong/accepted/right. In my experience, the bible-thumping arguments get hammered, but by religious argument in the sphere which of which the bible-thumper set-up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:15 am
Thanks for some clarification. I can see that some of this is still debatible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:07 am
It's not so much that one can drop subjective concepts more in morality and religion, but that the arguments are put in a slightly different context. They are assumed to be in the context of subjective terms like religion or morality, so if one asks a Biblical question, answers should be in the context of the Bible, and Christian dogma. Saying "But is Christianity even valid to begin with?" is off-topic in that situation. It is assumed in a Biblical debate, that the Bible has bearing. Similarly, in an ethical debate it is assume that there is such a thing as ethics, and such things as right and wrong, etc.
Epistemological questions such as whether right and wrong are real concepts and all that jazz are certainly welcome in M&R, and should be taken on their own terms. For example, if one cites Biblical sources for an answer to that question, when it's a question of subjectivity, one may (hopefully politely) question that source, based on it's subjectivity, and is not a universal agreed-upon guide to morality, whereas in a Biblical debate, such an objection would be inappropriate.
Hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:48 pm
Religion is just something you throw out the window when any argument is concerned, unless the debate only concerns one religion. If you have two or more religions in a debate, they all nullify each other because they all have equal factual standing as far as people who are not of that religion are concerned. I am atheist, and if someone who is Jewish tells me something is wrong and backs it up with religious doctrine, all I have to say is "I don't follow your religion, so really none of that means anything to me." If I were also Jewish, or the debate was posed from the perspective of the Jewish religion, then it would not only be valid but pretty much required to use the Jewish religious doctrine. However, if the debate is religiously open, then religion is notwithstanding.
Even then you get into little subsets, denominations and sects and such with miniscule differences that all seem to disagree with the next one over. Religion's a confusing thing, I tend not to touch it, unless I am correcting someone on their own religion or reminding them of appropriate practice when they toss dogma at me (for Christians it seems to be the whole let-he-who-is-without-sin-cast-the-first-stone, et al) or simply saying "I'm not religious, so put away the holy books."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:13 am
It seems to me that people always confuse morality and religion, or try to make them inseparable. You can have morality without religion (like I do) or you can have religion without morality (extremists who do terrible things in the name of their religion).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:33 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:41 am
monochan It seems to me that people always confuse morality and religion, or try to make them inseparable. You can have morality without religion (like I do) or you can have religion without morality (extremists who do terrible things in the name of their religion). For the latter, while I agree with the claim, I disagree with the example. You assume a set moral code when you say it. Many do 'terrible things' believing what they are doing is moral. That it is 'right' and 'good'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
