Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Registering your position
Aximili23
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 20 (184826)
02-13-2005 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by coffee_addict
02-12-2005 1:43 PM


Why?
I wholeheartedly object!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by coffee_addict, posted 02-12-2005 1:43 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 17 of 20 (184837)
02-13-2005 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
02-12-2005 6:31 PM


quote:
So while I might define myself as a Conservative Reactionary Fundamentalist Literalist Christian Creationist, others my well feel that my posts show a different character and place me in some other categories.
Don't forget "Movie-Hating Gun Nut", jar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 02-12-2005 6:31 PM jar has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 18 of 20 (184960)
02-13-2005 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Aximili23
02-12-2005 1:22 PM


I wholeheartedly object, too...
I don't feel that adding labels or categorizing members would help discussion in the least - in fact I think it may hurt discussion.
I cringed a few days ago when someone responded to one of my posts by stating, "I'm not sure whose side you're on." All I had tried to do was clarify a point of science for this person, and now they were essentially asking if I was friend or enemy. I think it may be less than constructive to label people as such from the start.
Also, I could see people dismissing each other's now-labeled ideas before reading them; that is, evaluating the world-view of the person making the comments rather than the comments themselves.
There are other forums on the net that use such a system, and it seems downright silly to me (especially one that gave two choices for religion - Christian or Atheist). The discussions on those forums seem much more adversarial, though they also don't have the same quality of moderation found here. I refuse to join such forums, usually because I refuse to label myself, especially inaccurately.
In this way, it is immediately easy to tell what position each person subscribes to, especially when it isn't always clear from the post.
I think this statement bothers me the most - it would not be "immediately easy to tell," it would be immediately easy to assume. Why post or respond to posts when they are unclear? And why should we assume we know what someone's ambiguous post means because of a one- or two-word label under their name?
Your statement is exactly the problem I have with labeling members - people will prejudge and argue the label rather than closely examining the point of discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Aximili23, posted 02-12-2005 1:22 PM Aximili23 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Quetzal, posted 02-13-2005 8:23 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 19 of 20 (184982)
02-13-2005 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by pink sasquatch
02-13-2005 7:09 PM


Re: I wholeheartedly object, too...
I agree with PS here. I find that the tendency in pigeonholeing leads all too easily to arguing the position, rather than the evidence. It should be relatively (and in many cases, painfully) obvious from reading peoples' posts where they stand - you either accept/argue the evidence, or you don't. That's about the only valid distinction on a board that prides itself on scientific discussions. It shouldn't matter whether whether you're an atheist, a bible-thumping Evangelical, or someone who sacrifices goats at the full moon to Yrrtta the Insectoid All-Mother. If you can or can't support your position with logical argument is the only real label needed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by pink sasquatch, posted 02-13-2005 7:09 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

  
Aximili23
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 20 (185009)
02-14-2005 12:11 AM


Okay, I concede. I guess it isn't as good an idea as I had originally thought. Thanks for considering it anyway.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024