![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 32 to 56 of 68. Go back in thread:
Posted by Toph on October 3, 2006, at 8:11:43
In reply to Re: untrue religions » Toph, posted by Dinah on October 3, 2006, at 7:58:00
> There is a separate set of rules already. :)
>
Is this true or sarcasm Dinah?So, if I say (as someone raised as an Episcopalian), for example, that lithium is the Episcopalian drug, this statement (regardless of its veracity) could be viewed in terms of its civility differently on the PB board, Faith board and Social board?
Posted by AuntieMel on October 3, 2006, at 8:11:52
In reply to Re: untrue religions, posted by SLS on October 3, 2006, at 6:53:14
Sorry if I misunderstood. I tend to think of everything on a logical level, not a feeling one.
The way I think about it is that all earthly religions have been interpreted throughout time by people and that people are not perfect. So if anyone were to say to me that my religion wasn't *all* true I would have to agree that there is that possibility.
But - that's me.
Peace?
"The statement in question: "not all religions are all true."
My response:
"To process the logic further, at most, only one religion can be all true. The reader is then faced with the proposition that the author would choose for himself the religion that he believed was all true. If the reader's religion is different from the author's religion, then the reader has just been told that his religion is not all true. Only a religion that is all true can be Truth. Therefore, any religion that is not all true is not Truth. The author has, in effect, made the statement that his religion is the only true religion and that all other religions are not true religions."
Posted by Dinah on October 3, 2006, at 8:22:33
In reply to Re: untrue religions, posted by Toph on October 3, 2006, at 8:11:43
I try not to be sarcastic on board. :)
Check out the opening paragraph on the Faith Board. I think it points out that the rules are different. If not, past practice definitely shows that the rules are diffferent.
As to your example, I'm not sure. I let Dr. Bob make the Faith Board calls, for reasons that must be obvious. :)
Posted by SLS on October 3, 2006, at 8:48:09
In reply to Re: untrue religions, posted by Toph on October 3, 2006, at 7:47:32
> > First of all, it is not a fact.
> That all people are not the same makes the statement inherently true
> (unless you believe that all people are perfect)
:-)
> > However, it would still be civil. It is not a matter of faith or religion to be found on the Faith board.
> So are you suggesting Scott that there should be a different set of rules on the Faith board from other boards?
That's the idea.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 3, 2006, at 8:55:37
In reply to Re: untrue religions » SLS, posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 7:06:56
> > in a social context, I believe it is an implied put down of all religions other than the one held by the author for the reasons I have already detailed in a previous post.
> I'm sorry you interpreted the poster as intentionally putting down your religion.
> I don't think that happened explicitly. It certainly doesn't follow from what was said.That's why the word "implied" was used. It was implicit in the statement, not explicit.
> I don't think it is very charitable to interpret them at intending to imply that.What does charitable have to do with an emotional reaction? Feelings are feelings. They don't have to be justified. They just are.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 3, 2006, at 8:57:59
In reply to Re: untrue religions, posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 7:08:38
> I think they should have got a warning before a blocking at the very least
I would have preferred that Dr. Bob requested a rephrase. That's why I started this thread.
> :-(
Agreed.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 3, 2006, at 9:47:58
In reply to Re: untrue religions » Toph, posted by Dinah on October 3, 2006, at 7:58:00
> I guess because it's an application of the rule that I don't really understand, and where I'm afraid that I could inadvertently make the same sort of error, my main reaction is that I should try not to post on Faith.
This is a difficult thing to accept. It is too close to being civil to want to deal with.
Knowing that you are on the Faith board, under what circumstances would you say:
"Not all religions are all true."
Why would you say that?
I can't imaging that you would. Do you see that it is a negative statement that is generally unsupportive?
Still, it seems logical, right?
How do you know what religion I am? IF my religion is different than the poster's religion, and IF the poster believes that his religion is all true, THEN my religion is included in the group he is describing as being not all true. * ASSUMPTION: The poster believes his religion is all true. THEREFORE, he is IMPLYING that my religion is not all true, and that his religion is the only true religion.
* AUTHOR: "I believe in what the scripture says about it"
If I believe that my religion is all true, this statement is likely to evoke negative emotions - I might feel put down.
Understand?
I have not been injured by this. I am trying to illustrate how the statement in question can be interpreted as an infraction and justify the decision of Dr. Bob to cite it as an infraction.
I hope you don't avoid the Faith board because of this.
You really can't ask for a rephrase. You just can't find any positive or supportive way to insist that there are religions that are not all true. Maybe just a PBC. I doubt we will see a rescinding of the block. I wish the length were reduced, though.
- Scott
Posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 9:50:20
In reply to Re: untrue religions » alexandra_k, posted by SLS on October 3, 2006, at 8:55:37
> What does charitable have to do with an emotional reaction? Feelings are feelings. They don't have to be justified. They just are.
Sure, I agree with you 100%.
I just thought that you were making claims about what the poster intended to convey by their post. I.e., to imply that your religion was false. I guess I'm wondering whether the poster really did intend for you to take their post in that way or if they are feeling misunderstood about now.
I have no idea.
I'm sorry that you feel hurt :-(
But I'm sorry that you interpret the poster as intending to put down your religion, too.
I don't think that feelings are the sorts of things that need to be / that should be / that could be justified.
But I think that interpretations of other peoples intent... Are a different matter...
Posted by Toph on October 3, 2006, at 11:06:29
In reply to Re: untrue religions » Dinah, posted by SLS on October 3, 2006, at 9:47:58
>
> Knowing that you are on the Faith board, under what circumstances would you say:
>
> "Not all religions are all true."
>
> Why would you say that?
>
> I can't imaging that you would. Do you see that it is a negative statement that is generally unsupportive?
>
Well one possibility would be that you are uncertain about religion and you are seeking to discover a religion that appears to have the most truth. Your assumption that the author believes that their religion is without fault is not necessarily true. The statement leaves open the possibility that there may be a religion that is all true. Why couldn't that religion be yours Scott?
Posted by SLS on October 3, 2006, at 13:02:39
In reply to Re: untrue religions » SLS, posted by Toph on October 3, 2006, at 11:06:29
> > Knowing that you are on the Faith board, under what circumstances would you say:
> >
> > "Not all religions are all true."
> >
> > Why would you say that?
> >
> > I can't imaging that you would. Do you see that it is a negative statement that is generally unsupportive?
> >
>
> Well one possibility would be that you are uncertain about religion and you are seeking to discover a religion that appears to have the most truth. Your assumption that the author believes that their religion is without fault is not necessarily true.Yes.
But what if it were known that the author believed that his religion were the only true religion through his posting history? How would the reader be likely to react? Should this be taken into account if the author states this belief elsewhere in the post when evaluating the phrase for civility?
By itself, the statement, "not all religions are all true" seems logical, true, and benign.
I don't know to what degree the phrase has been evaluated within the context of the post, but it must be evaluated with regard to the environment of the Faith board. It is likely that the manner in which one might feel put down would travel a course similar to the one I detailed in previous posts. It is a course that a reasonable human might take, especially when he is feeling defensive during a debate about religion. When speaking of religion, one must always be sensitive when speaking in absolutes, especially when referring to the religion of others, which is what occurred here. Since I can't read the mind of Dr. Bob (who can really figure him out anyway?), I don't know how much any of this applies to the decision he made.
I think a reasonable person could feel put down by the statement in question as it is natural to assume that the author would believe that their religion was the only true religion. The statement effectively affirms for the reader that their religion is not. The reader is not going to take the time to break down the components of the syllogism as I outlined it or evaluate the phrase as a logic statement outside the context of the discourse. Let's think in real life here. All they know is that the author has just placed them in a group of inferior religions.
My only real concern is that one might need to jump to conclusions about the author in order to judge this phrase as being uncivil. Perhaps Dr. Bob committed this error. So now, I must ponder this question. Is it necessary to jump to a conclusion about the author in order to make the syllogism work, or is the assumption that the author believes that his religion is all true a natural one to make? Should this be taken into account, and is the author responsible for the assumptions of the readership? What if the author provides information indicating such a belief implicitly or explicitly? Should either of these be taken into account?
Film at 11:00.
- Scott
Posted by jlynne on October 3, 2006, at 13:21:09
In reply to Re: untrue religions » Toph, posted by Dinah on October 3, 2006, at 7:58:00
>>> . . . my main reaction is that I should try not to post on Faith.
Or on any of the other boards, for some? . . . think about it. Are we all becoming paranoid here, on some level . . . too uncomfortable to be genuine because we might say the wrong thing?
Posted by gardenergirl on October 3, 2006, at 14:21:46
In reply to Re: untrue religions » Dinah, posted by SLS on October 3, 2006, at 9:47:58
> doubt we will see a rescinding of the block. I wish the length were reduced, though.
>I think this points to how jarring it can be when the length of a block doesn't seem to fit the perceived "severity" of the behavior.
Part of me agrees that consequences should feel like they "fit the crime" (Not saying that any crimes have been committed). On the other hand, I think that it's also important to factor in when there is a history of repeated behavior leading to administrative actions. When someone has received multiple PBC's, please rephrases, and blocks throughout their time on Babble, I think that should be considered when determining length of a block.
But as muffled pointed out earlier, that aspect is not always readily apparent. So I think we try to make sense of things as best we can with the info we have available. And by what "feels right". I can see why this block length might not "feel right"
No answers here, just an observation of some of the factors in play...
gg
Posted by SLS on October 4, 2006, at 0:30:29
In reply to Re: untrue religions, posted by SLS on October 3, 2006, at 6:53:14
Well, it is 11:00, and I still feel the same way about the phrase:
"not all religions are all true."
Out of context, it seems logical, true, and benign. I have said ths already.
However, within the environment of the Faith board, faith in, and emotional attachments to, one's own religion brings in a special set of dynamics.
I think a reasonable person could feel put down by reading this statement, even if taken out of context. I think it is reasonable to assume that the author would favor his own religion. In a forum where many people believe that their religions are all true, it is not unreasonable for a reader to assume that this might also be the belief of the author. To assume this, the reader would naturally feel put down, as this statement implies that his religion is not a true religion.
This statement is in a negative format and automatically places the reader in a defensive position.
Why should someone make a statement like this?
Let me add the surrounding text to the phrase cited for sanction:
"There is truth in all religions, but not all religions are all true. Most religions are man made with some sort of spiritual foundation."
I guess we now have the added proposition that the author probably believes that at least one religion is not man made. I think a reasonable reader would take this to indicate that the author believes that there exists a religion that is made by God. The reader would probably conclude that the author would choose to worship that religion that he believed was made by God.
Now, as I have illustrated in a previous post:
"To process the logic further, at most, only one religion can be all true. The reader is then faced with the proposition that the author would choose for himself the religion that he believed was all true. If the reader's religion is different from the author's religion, then the reader has just been told that his religion is not all true. Only a religion that is all true can be Truth. Therefore, any religion that is not all true is not Truth. The author has, in effect, made the statement that his religion is the only true religion and that all other religions are not true religions."
So, what do I think?
I think the author has very strong beliefs in his religion. I think it is very difficult to navigate the special standards of civility when authoring posts on the Faith board. I think a reasonable reader would feel put down by the phrase cited for IDENTIFICATION and sanction when in context. I do not think the statements represent an eggregious incivility. However, I do believe that the meaning of the statements is clear. It is not necessary that the author subscribe to the religion that is all true for the statements to be uncivil. The sanction is valid, if perhaps unpopular. The block is long, if perhaps equitable.
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on October 4, 2006, at 10:27:26
In reply to Re: untrue religions, posted by SLS on October 4, 2006, at 0:30:29
First of all, I'm sorry you felt hurt, Scott, and sorry that I didn't focus on that before.
I guess it really is a statement that I could see myself making, in a completely logical way, so it hit me hard. Context *is* always important. I understand that.
I don't know. I consider myself to be an enormously open and embracing person in a religious sense. My personal belief is that God (by whatever name he is called) welcomes those who seek him, through whatever path they choose, or that is made available to them.
However, my path to that openness is one that I'd be afraid to state, given the block to Ray. And it somehow bothers me that her statement is read as a putdown of other religions, when similar thoughts brought me to embrace all seekers of the divine as being on a valid path.
Posted by Dinah on October 4, 2006, at 10:28:54
In reply to Re: untrue religions » SLS, posted by Dinah on October 4, 2006, at 10:27:26
Which does not mean that I believe that those who do not seek the divine are not on a valid path, I must add.
It's just that we were discussing the Faith Board and religion.
Posted by SLS on October 4, 2006, at 11:06:49
In reply to Re: untrue religions » SLS, posted by Dinah on October 4, 2006, at 10:27:26
> First of all, I'm sorry you felt hurt, Scott, and sorry that I didn't focus on that before.
I was not terribly injured by the statements made.
I don't wish to add any further comments with regard to them at this time.
It was my objective to evaluate the statements cited for sanction in an effort to understand better the decision reached by Dr. Bob to block the author.
- Scott
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 4, 2006, at 21:32:59
In reply to You can't make sense out of nonsense (nm), posted by 3mta3 on October 2, 2006, at 14:12:27
> You can't make sense out of nonsense
I don't think it's sensitive or respectful to imply that anything here is nonsense. Also, I believe you to be posting under more than one name at the same time.
But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by SLS on October 5, 2006, at 7:38:38
In reply to I understand, but still..., posted by SLS on October 1, 2006, at 20:57:16
> Regarding the following block:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/690854.html
>
>
> > > not all religions are all true.
> >
> > Please don't put down the beliefs of others.
>
> * blocked for 12 weeks
>
>
> Ouch.
>
> I don't know if this was an attempt at an exercise in logic or a veiled put down of all religions except for perhaps one. I took it as the latter when I first read it. However, it could have been the former.
>
> I guess I know what's what. I just hate to see 12 weeks for what might have been a momentary lapse in a focus on civility.
>
> I guess you know what's what, too.
>
> That's all.
This is where I began the thread.After all that has been said, nothing has changed in my mind.
I will avoid jumping to conclusions here regarding the intended meaning of the author and just say that if the statement identified for sanction were indeed uncivil, I believe it was the result of an unconcious error made by the author when composing a post in an environment where standards of posting behavior are strict and difficult to navigate. Since the statements made were not eggregiously uncivil, I would have preferred to see a PBC issued instead of a posting block.
It was my hope by posting here that Dr. Bob would consider reducing the sanction to a PBC or a shorter posting block. I do not dislike Ray and hate to see her gone for 12 weeks. She is a pivotal member of the Faith board and will be missed.
- Scott
Posted by Toph on October 5, 2006, at 9:48:47
In reply to Re: I understand, but still..., posted by SLS on October 5, 2006, at 7:38:38
Scott, I don't mean to belabor this but I went to the original thread and was curious about your initial reaction to Ray's comment:
>> but not all religions are all true.
>
> Perhaps none of them are. If no two religions are exactly alike, then at most, only one could be the Truth...
>Why should not your concurring statement be deemed uncivil also?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/690529.html
Toph
Posted by SLS on October 5, 2006, at 12:30:17
In reply to Re: I understand, but still... » SLS, posted by Toph on October 5, 2006, at 9:48:47
> Scott, I don't mean to belabor this but I went to the original thread and was curious about your initial reaction to Ray's comment:
>
> >> but not all religions are all true.
> >
> > Perhaps none of them are. If no two religions are exactly alike, then at most, only one could be the Truth...
> >
>
> Why should not your concurring statement be deemed uncivil also?
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20060614/msgs/690529.html
That is a very good point, Toph, and I don't know how to respond to it other than to describe how I came to write that. To describe how I came to write that would entail detailing to you how I interpreted the statement in question and my emotional reaction to having someone state it, especially in public. It also involves the conclusions that I had reached about the author's beliefs and his motivations.It is actually unnecessary, and would be uncivil, for me to provide such an explanation. The logic is self-evident, and anything more involves jumping to conclusions about the author. Is that a satisfactory explanation?
I guess not.
I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of rhetoric.
What I attempted to do was to suggest the possibility that even the author's religion could not be all true and to demonstrate how absolute making such a statement like his was by positing the one Truth theorem. In other words, I found him out. Get it?
Maybe?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 5, 2006, at 12:51:47
In reply to Re: I understand, but still... » Toph, posted by SLS on October 5, 2006, at 12:30:17
So, I'm brushing my teeth when I realized just how well I managed to do what I tried so hard not to do...
> In other words, I found him out. Get it?
...Demonstrate the conclusions I had come to.
Sorry, Ray.
Thanks, Toph.
- Scott
Posted by Toph on October 5, 2006, at 17:23:17
In reply to Re: I understand, but still..., posted by SLS on October 5, 2006, at 12:51:47
I have no personal interest in this matter other than I wanted to weigh in on what I found to be an unnecessary sanction for a benign generalization.
Posted by SLS on October 5, 2006, at 18:07:53
In reply to Re: I understand, but still... » SLS, posted by Toph on October 5, 2006, at 17:23:17
>
>
> I have no personal interest in this matter other than I wanted to weigh in on what I found to be an unnecessary sanction for a benign generalization.
It was what it was.I'm happy for you that you, too, have found an interpretation that you can live with.
- Scott
Posted by Toph on October 5, 2006, at 21:42:48
In reply to Re: I understand, but still..., posted by SLS on October 5, 2006, at 18:07:53
I appreciate your convictions Scott.
Toph
Posted by SLS on October 6, 2006, at 8:16:29
In reply to Re: I understand, and... » SLS, posted by Toph on October 5, 2006, at 21:42:48
> I appreciate your convictions Scott.
Toph:Mine weren't personal.
Rayww:Again, Ray, I apologize. I never wanted to see you blocked. However, I do understand how your statements could have been interpreted as being uncivil if the site guidelines were administered in a certain way by Dr. Bob. That's just the way I see things. I am sorry if you feel that I have attacked you or put you down. It was about the words, not the person.
I have nothing against you personally. I respect you. I admire your dedication to doing good and not evil. I respect your right to having your own belief system, and I have no designs on changing it. I enjoy your intelligence and its application in matters of philosophy. I happen to like your religion. I understand and appreciate your loyalty to it.
If we both appear together on the Faith board, I don't doubt that we will again disagree on matters of belief. Hopefully, our respect for each other and our acknowledgement of each other's rights to have separate belief systems will surmount those differences and allow for civil discourse, as difficult as that may be to achieve.
I hope Dr. Bob reduces the length of your block and that you return to Psycho-Babble.
- Scott
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.