Closing Threads

[Andante]

Dear Moderators. Re the thread “What belief system do you follow?”

Here we go again another thread closed leaving questions unanswered, statements made that we can not query, we are not children please do not treat us as such. If we ad hom by all means give the individual a rollicking but to close a thread because a few are arguing is more more appropriate to a children’s forum.
I would also like to point out that questioning the message as has been the case in this particular thread must not be construed as attacking the messenger and therefore in not ad hom, unless a specific complaint is made to admin by a member then in fairness to all posters the mods should leave the thread open.
In frustration, Andante

[Lukecash12]

I have to agree. When we come across conflicts on this site, it never turns into much of a problem. More of a gentleman's "you have slightly pissed me off, sir" kind of interaction. Maybe we are a wild bunch and I'm not aware of it. But it seems like a good portion of us can handle it and try to back up our conclusions. Although a lot of gloves get tossed, bets wagered, and dueling blades drawn: we've never exactly been spiteful to one another, or that I know of.

Really, half the fun of this site is going in to converse with people who actually know their head from a whole in the ground. These sort of topics seem perfect for individuals such as ourselves, and I can attest that I was enjoying the topic, at least.

Edit: That is, with all due respect. The decision is yours, and the responsibility is yours. Therefore, it is entirely your choice, and you deserve to make the choice as well.

[Polednice]

There'll be no surprise to anyone that I agree as well. Something that I find most frustrating is one person's labelling of another's post as 'condescending'. Sometimes, they're right - people can be condescending and it's pretty obvious when they are. If, however, that person repeatedly tells you in the utmost honesty that they are not being condescending, then I think their own knowledge of their own way of speaking and their own tone should prevail over anybody else's reception of their words - people really need to ask whether or not they might be taking undue offense at the slightest of comments.

Specifically on the contentious issue of 'irrational', even though we have to respect moderator decision, I would still urge the consideration that it just maybe might not be an ad hominem. The reason why people use the word is because they feel it can be justified. That is why it is not just a shallow attack on an individual, far from being the equivalent of calling someone 'stupid'. The problem is that there seems to be a taboo in these topics on actually going into those justifications, and so we end up with just the word 'irrational', which some people seem to find offensive, while others don't. There's no universal opinion on whether or not it is offensive, and so it isn't a black-and-white ad hom.

I'd also reinforce Lukecash's comments about the members of this forum being able to 'handle it'. I think a better approach would be to allow such heated and passionate discussions to take place, so long as the OP makes it clear to everybody that if they step into the discussion, then they are not immune from (heavy) criticism of their ideas - which, I might add, is one of the healthiest and most exhilarating ways to broaden your mind. In a sincere context, where the 'rules' of the thread are made clear, I'm certain that people who engage in such a discussion would be fine with it.

Also, I don't know quite what the process was on the other thread, but were any of the posts actually reported? It seems to me that it would be a better idea for the moderators to only arbitrate on whether or not a post/thread breaks the rules if it has been reported for whatever reason. To step into the thread when nobody has reported it as being a problem, and then to define with generalised and very slippery ideas what is and isn't against the rules, seems to be counter-productive for those who wish to have challenging discussions

[Taneyev]

Well, it's a fact on every forum I know that any post relative of political or religious matter is going to became a war field, with insults and offences. I've saw it happend many times. IMO those subjects have absolutely nothing to do on a musical site like this one, and should be avoided. There are dozens of political and religious
sites when anybody can say what they want.

[Andy Loochazee]

I think the thread was closed partly to avoid a situation where certain members whose general presence is appreciated sling their hook and don't bother with T-C any more. That's what seems to have happened with several former well regarded members who got into spats with others and left for good rather than linger on here.

A related reason was possibly to avoid a situation where normally well-behaved and useful members are tempted to over-step the mark and incur infractions (or worse) which may have had the same effect. Again, that kind of thing has happened here in the past and T-C has suffered the consequences with the loss of some very good people.

Whatever the reason, it's pretty clear that there were accusations of actual "ad homs" having been made, these accusations having come from people who now, it seems, reckon they can "handle it". It didn't seem so at the time, rather the contrary that they appeared to throw a tantrum at the thought of their own presumed intellectual superiority been questioned.

[Polednice]

Well, it's a fact on every forum I know that any post relative of political or religious matter is going to became a war field, with insults and offences. I've saw it happend many times. IMO those subjects have absolutely nothing to do on a musical site like this one, and should be avoided. There are dozens of political and religious
sites when anybody can say what they want.

That's understandable, but, if people would like to have a political or religious discussion in the context of members with whom they have something in common like classical music - however tangential that connection may be - don't you think that members should have the right to discuss whatever they like and, if others don't enjoy such conversations, they similarly have the right to stay away? After all, there are tonnes of threads that have nothing to do with classical music on here, but because they're 'pleasant' we don't mind - I think people just need to be more careful about which threads they get involved in.

[Lukecash12]

It didn't seem so at the time, rather the contrary that they appeared to throw a tantrum at the thought of their own presumed intellectual superiority been questioned.

That's quite the assumption, but I guess let you can make it. I can agree that a massive majority of people have their logic and emotions connected to light circumstance, hear-say, and tangible experiences. But try to give some of us the benefit of the doubt. Transcendental understanding isn't exactly impossible, just improbable.

Superiority isn't all it's cut out to be either.

[Krummhorn]

Although good arguments are great for discussion, too many of them will tear down a great forum such as this in short order. Newbies visiting will see all the negative things right away - too much negativity, and the rather constant verbal attacks of other members, is not healthy for any online forum. Our main purpose is to draw people into Classical music discussion, not keep them out. This forum is not a "social club" for a selected few - It was never intended to be such.

The point is, is that this forum has certain posting guidelines for which the administration team (who are, btw, appointed by the site owner) are empowered, and expected, to enforce.

We reference the FAQ Guidelines and Terms of Service where it reads in part:

"The owners of Talk Classical reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason."

The threads in question will remain closed and all the posts will remain intact as they are now.

[Lukecash12]

Although good arguments are great for discussion, too many of them will tear down a great forum such as this in short order. Newbies visiting will see all the negative things right away - too much negativity, and the rather constant verbal attacks of other members, is not healthy for any online forum. Our main purpose is to draw people into Classical music discussion, not keep them out. This forum is not a "social club" for a selected few - It was never intended to be such.

The point is, is that this forum has certain posting guidelines for which the administration team (who are, btw, appointed by the site owner) are empowered, and expected, to enforce.

We reference the FAQ Guidelines and Terms of Service where it reads in part:

"The owners of Talk Classical reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason."

The threads in question will remain closed and all the posts will remain intact as they are now.

Thank you for your clarity. I guess we can discuss this sort of thing with visitor/private messages anyways.

[Andante]

From the forum rules Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«.
I was under the impression this is what we were doing and I still fail to see where ad homs were committed, however it is in the end up to the mods so I will say no more.

[Andy Loochazee]

From the forum rules Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«.
I was under the impression this is what we were doing and I still fail to see where ad homs were committed, however it is in the end up to the mods so I will say no more.

I suggest you can’t have looked properly if that's what you think.

There were several allegations by ordinary members that they were the victims of “ad homs”. These people were presumably either seeking Moderator control of the perpetrators or trying to throw the scent off themselves. You might go back and check out who made these claims in both closed threads. When you discover who was making them you might see why I was suggesting that a certain amount of two-faced behaviour is evident in this mini post mortem. Once you discover who they were, think about it.

The plain fact is that when there are “strongly argued opinions”, “dust-ups”, “rows”, “arguments” – call them what you will - of this nature you get a lot of people visiting the site purely for the pleasure of watching arguments. It’s a well-known fact that this happens. They turn up droves, watch and stare in bewilderment, with many hoping that things will turn even more argumentative so as to give them an extra “kick”.

I bet that a very high percentage of the non-participants in those threads who may be reading this will admit, if they are honest with themselves, that they tuned in merely to see who was getting the better of whom in the verbal stakes, not to learn anything about religion or atheism. The management of this place obviously know that, and it’s not the kind of publicity they want. That's probably another main reason why they closed the two threads, plus the other two I mentioned previouisly.

I can’t say that I blame them for doing this, but it does raise questions about the suitability of allowing certain topics in the members chat area. The supposed "anything goes provided it's within Forum Rules" is a naive mantra when it's highly likely that the subject of religion will degenerate into a tough-talking brawl, as so often happens. On one or two other big classical music forums where they allow non music discussion on topics such as religion, the Mods take a far (and I mean far) more generous attitude towards allowing free discussion. Only the very worst of personal attacks are excised, which here would occasion a ban. This Forum has always had a reputation for being very tough against strongly worded debate, and it's not the place to expect the freedoms of a University style debating society.

[KaerbEmEvig]

Specifically on the contentious issue of 'irrational', even though we have to respect moderator decision, I would still urge the consideration that it just maybe might not be an ad hominem. The reason why people use the word is because they feel it can be justified. That is why it is not just a shallow attack on an individual, far from being the equivalent of calling someone 'stupid'. The problem is that there seems to be a taboo in these topics on actually going into those justifications, and so we end up with just the word 'irrational', which some people seem to find offensive, while others don't. There's no universal opinion on whether or not it is offensive, and so it isn't a black-and-white ad hom.

In all honesty, I think that theists perfectly know that the term is not condescending in the least - they just use this as means to escape the debate (claim they have been insulted). I haven't met a person who would find my calling his playing the lottery irrational offensive.

[DrMike]

In all honesty, I think that theists perfectly know that the term is not condescending in the least - they just use this as means to escape the debate (claim they have been insulted). I haven't met a person who would find my calling his playing the lottery irrational offensive.

Playing the lottery doesn't begin to approach the importance of a belief system that explains the meaning of life, why we are here, and what our fate is after death. If you can't understand why someone would be offended that you would call their beliefs irrational, I can't help you.

But regardless of why the thread was shut down, it should have died, because even with this new thread, nothing new is being discussed. No new insights have been contributed. The general discussion has not been moved forward one inch. It has become repetitive and inane. So what, people are upset that they were not allowed to continue to call religious beliefs irrational and be called condescending for saying so? Yeah, our entire community is so diminished that such intellectual wrestling was cut short. I think it was an easy decision for the moderators. They moderate. If you were in some other situation where the conversation was moderated, outside of an internet forum, I guarantee that a moderator would realized how repetitive it was all becoming and push the discussion elsewhere.

[Edward Elgar]

Playing the lottery doesn't begin to approach the importance of a belief system that explains the meaning of life, why we are here, and what our fate is after death. If you can't understand why someone would be offended that you would call their beliefs irrational, I can't help you.

I agree, my views have been criticised lately about my deeply held convictions that the universe was created when it was sneezed out of a cosmic mega-goat. The goat put us here to rule over all other animals (except goats which are to be venerated) with an iron fist, making them our slaves. When we die, we will be rewarded for these actions by having our own galaxy to control.

If anyone tells me these beliefs are irrational I want this thread CLOSED. Too long have my deeply held convictions been oppressed by those who falsely profess to "know the true nature of the universe". I'll gladly discuss my beliefs with non-goatists, but if they criticise them I want this thread CLOSED. If they tell me to look at evidence that is contrary to my beliefs I want this thread CLOSED. If they compare my beliefs with other nonsense hocus-pocus such as sikhism I want this thread CLOSED. In fact, it doesn't even matter what they have to say on the matter, if they say anything at all concerning theology I want this thread CLOSED.

[DrMike]

I agree, my views have been criticised lately about my deeply held convictions that the universe was created when it was sneezed out of a cosmic mega-goat. The goat put us here to rule over all other animals (except goats which are to be venerated) with an iron fist, making them our slaves. When we die, we will be rewarded for these actions by having our own galaxy to control.

If anyone tells me these beliefs are irrational I want this thread CLOSED. Too long have my deeply held convictions been oppressed by those who falsely profess to "know the true nature of the universe". I'll gladly discuss my beliefs with non-goatists, but if they criticise them I want this thread CLOSED. If they tell me to look at evidence that is contrary to my beliefs I want this thread CLOSED. If they compare my beliefs with other nonsense hocus-pocus such as sikhism I want this thread CLOSED. In fact, it doesn't even matter what they have to say on the matter, if they say anything at all concerning theology I want this thread CLOSED.

Ah, the wonderful reducto ad absurdum argument. If you truly believe those things, I'll discuss them with you. And if I think them irrational, I'll keep that opinion to myself. But to simply call them irrational is nowhere near having a serious discussion of your ideas. It is merely being dismissive on my part. It is an easy way to carry on a pointless argument, because it states from the outset that I am right, you are wrong, because you are irrational. To judge something irrational is a judgment, and if you seek to discuss a person's beliefs, if you are truly interested in knowing what they think, you might want to hold off such judgments until after you have heard what they have to say. If you declare my ideas irrational before you have heard them (and not just your assumptions of what I believe), then don't be shocked if I don't feel like sharing them with you. Especially if you compare them to flying spaghetti monsters, intergalactic goats, and the lottery.