The purpose of all of the JPF forums is to provide interactive opportunities that encourage self-improvement. The idea of self-improvement is that personal growth flourishes when people are able to reflect on their present condition, to gain insight and encouragement from interaction with others, and to apply the knowledge they have gained. In a word, self-improvement is a process of self-discipline. In the JPF perspective, it involves a lifetime commitment to growth; it involves the whole person and requires attention to every aspect of one’s life.
In this sub-forum, we develop our minds as well as our bodies. Politics and current events are truly volatile issues that have the potential to deeply divide people across partisan lines. It is the belief of your humble host that these divisions arise when dialogue breaks down and people end up entrenched in positions instead of exchanging ideas and opinons. Since this forum is meant to be a place where people have opportunities to express and defend their opinions, it naturally has an increased risk of disruptive conflict. Therefore, in the interest of advancing civil discourse and learning from one another, this sub-forum has a much stricter set of posting rules.
1. Only authorized members may post here. If you wish to post, you must send a request to JP via PM only (no email please). Your message must contain a request, along with your real name, address, and phone numbers (home, cell, and work). JP will contact you within 2 days of your request at his expense (unless you are outside the US) to confirm your identity and discuss the forum protocol. Your anonymity and privacy will be protected from other members of the forum.
2. Absolutely NO personal attacks, whether direct or indirect, will be allowed in the forum. The moderators will promptly delete the post and the person who posted it will receive a warning. If the member continues to attack other members they will lose posting privileges in this sub-forum. If they continue to insult others in other sub-forums they could lose all access to this forum. An example of a personal attack is any post in which you call someone a name, or imply that someone that they disagree with is either stupid or heartless. If a flame war erupts, the posters may lose privileges until things cool down, and the posts or entire thread in question could be deleted.
3. This is a serious topic forum, so it is expected that forum members will put thought into each and every post they compose. If you don’t have anything to contribute, don’t post… That simple. Sarcastic, short answers that do not contribute to the discussion will be deleted with extreme prejudice, and that member will receive a warning. If that member continues after the warning, they will lose posting privileges to this sub-forum. Along this same line, the use of emoticons (“smilies”) is not allowed in here. They are fine in other forums, but they can detract from a serious discussion, which is what this forum is all about. If you wish to post something funny or light-hearted, please do so in the general off-topic sub-forum.
4. The posting of articles and editorials is permitted, but ONLY if the poster discusses the article in detail as to which parts of the article with which they agree/disagree. A link to the source of the article MUST be posted if you got it on line. If you are quoting something off-line, please provide proper citation. With regards to editorials, it is preferred that if you post them, you break up the editorial with your own input and not just paste the editorial up in whole without commentary.
5. This sub-forum is a place to learn, and as such, basic critical thinking skills are a MUST. Here is an outline from Criticalthinking.net that I liked:
Quote:
Dispositions
Ideal critical thinkers are disposed to
1. Care that their beliefs be true, (3) and that their decisions be justified; that is, care to "get it right" to the extent possible. This includes the dispositions to
a. Seek alternative hypotheses, explanations, conclusions, plans, sources, etc., and be open to them
b. Endorse a position to the extent that, but only to the extent that, it is justified by the information that is available
c. Be well informed (4)
d. Consider seriously other points of view than their own
2. Care to present a position honestly and clearly, theirs as well as others'. This includes the dispositions to
a. Be clear about the intended meaning of what is said, written, or otherwise communicated, seeking as much precision as the situation requires
b. Determine, and maintain focus on, the conclusion or question
c. Seek and offer reasons
d. Take into account the total situation
e. Be reflectively aware of their own basic beliefs
3. Care about the dignity and worth of every person as opposed to constitutive disposition). This includes the dispositions to
a. Discover and listen to others' view and reasons
b. Avoid intimidating or confusing others with their critical thinking prowess, taking into account others' feelings and level of understanding
c. Be concerned about others' welfare
Abilities
Ideal critical thinkers have the ability to
(The first five items involve clarification.)
1. Identify the focus: the issue, question, or conclusion
2. Analyze arguments
3. Ask and answer questions of clarification and/or challenge
4. Define terms, judge definitions, and deal with equivocation
5. Identify unstated assumptions
(The next two involve the basis for the decision.)
6. Judge the credibility of a source
7. Observe, and judge observation reports
(The next three involve inference.)
8. Deduce, and judge deduction
9. Induce, and judge induction
a. To generalizations
b. To explanatory conclusions (including hypotheses)
10. Make and judge value judgments
(The next two involve supposition and integration.)
11. Consider and reason from premises, reasons, assumptions, positions, and other propositions with which they disagree or about which they are in doubt -- without letting the disagreement or doubt interfere with their thinking ("suppositional thinking");
12. Integrate the other abilities and dispositions in making and defending a decision
(The next three are auxiliary critical thinking abilities: They, though very helpful in various ways, are not part of the constitutive core of critical thinking.)
13. Proceed in an orderly manner appropriate to the situation, for example,
a. Follow problem solving steps
b. Monitor their own thinking (that is, engage in metacognition)
c. Employ a reasonable critical thinking checklist
14. Be sensitive to the feelings, level of knowledge, and degree of sophistication of others
15. Employ appropriate rhetorical strategies in discussion and presentation (orally and in writing), including employing and reacting to "fallacy" labels in an appropriate manner
If you are relatively new to the forum or logical construction of arguments, you may be required to do some study on the logical syllogisms. The best online resource I have found for this is http://www.fallacyfiles.org . If the moderators or regular participants feel that you need some work in this area, you may temporarily lose access in this forum until you have done some required reading and study. Once you can display the ability to identify bad arguments and support your presented ideas with logic you will be permitted to resume posting in this group.
On the topic of logical fallacies, please note that the forum prior to the date of this new set of rules will have many examples of what would now be considered breeches of these rules, so context is an important issue to consider. Keep that in mind when you bump old posts. These rules do not apply retroactively, so any previous examples of poor argument skills will not be held against current members of this forum.
Finally, this forum is conducted with fairness to all. If you disagree with the moderating decisions in here, please take it up with JP or one of the moderators via private message. Do not attack the host or panel of moderators in the publicly viewed area, or your post will be deleted and you will immediately lose access to this forum. This is not an attempt to squelch dissent, but to keep the forums as civil as possible. If it seems Draconian and you disagree with this, please feel free to participate in our many other forums at jpfitness.com, or find a less-monitored political forum on the internet that allows for flame wars and sniping.
Like the constitution, this set of rules is dynamic and flexible to adapt to the changing demands on the forum. Feel free to share your ideas for improving the rules to JP via PM or email. This very post may change periodically as we go along.
By sending JP a PM requesting access to this forum, you are agreeing to the rules and terms of this forum.
Addendum: Obviously the format of this forum has changed, allowing me greater flexibility on moderating the forum. Now I don't have to authorize anyone, I can simply have their posts screened by a team of mods (whichever one happens to catch it first) before going up. This means that anyone can post here, but I still want everyone to read and understand the initial post of this thread.
One last thing, I don't get a warning light when someone puts up a post, so I may not catch it until I happen to check it. If you put something up you may want to PM me or one of the mods to let us know so we can keep the conversation moving. Thanks!
[ QUOTE ]
Addendum: Obviously the format of this forum has changed, allowing me greater flexibility on moderating the forum. Now I don't have to authorize anyone, I can simply have their posts screened by a team of mods (whichever one happens to catch it first) before going up. This means that anyone can post here, but I still want everyone to read and understand the initial post of this thread.
One last thing, I don't get a warning light when someone puts up a post, so I may not catch it until I happen to check it. If you put something up you may want to PM me or one of the mods to let us know so we can keep the conversation moving. Thanks!
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow! That slows things down a bunch. I don't think I like waiting to see something I wrote show up. I guess we now have a 4 day cool down period, kind of like buying a gun.
It's very difficult to discuss a topic in here with the time delay. Can't you put the delay only on those who violate your rules? That way everyone understands the consequences of their actions?
I don't know that I can do that yet. You're right though... This is a little frustrating. Course, if you've ever posted at T-mag you would be quite familiar and accustomed to this.
I just don't want things getting like they were. The name calling and insults that went both ways are not the way I want to run this forum. I will work out the kinks... Just be patient and keep shooting me suggestions as we try to find a method that works.
It may be taking a little longer right now because I am the only mod watching this place, and sometimes I have to work, like the last couple of hours. It may not be so bad if we had about 6 mods working the forum.
Okay, I've turned it off for now so live posting is now enable. But my finger is hovering over that big red button, and I'm not really all that stable right now! [insert smilie for added levity].
This interesting question has recently been raised, and it is certainly an issue that has occupied much attention over the years. I thought it might be usefull to see if there was a common perception of the nature of this specie of creatures. If we came to share a clear consensus on the meaning of the expression, we will be able to address problems more effectively.
I have not given it a lot of thought, but I came up with a quick though certainly not exhaustive list of characteristics. If we can shape our different views into a list of attributes we agree upon, we can see if they cluster into specific categories and arrive at a better understanding of the problem.
In my view, a troll has some or all of the following attributes:
Has strongly felt opinions, that he or she has it right, and that those who disagree with those opinions simply do not get it.
Sees him or herself as a "reality checker" on a mission to straighten out folks who have yet to see the light.
Prone to defensiveness and shows little to no adjustment to other's ideas; i.e., no indication of personal learning or growth.
Claims to be open minded and demonstrates feigned humility and interest in other's opinions when a consensus forms to directly challenge him or her.
Posts inflammatory topics often using contentious language. Uses this method to dominate forum discussions.
Targets certain groups or types of individuals with unsubstantiated accusations of conspiracy.
Shows or sometimes admits to using these tactics just “to mess with people.”
Sometimes reveals actual malice toward others who are opposed to his or her views.
Demonstrates underdeveloped habits of critical thinking and prone to logical fallacies.
Waz, I restored this post as I think that the timing is perfect to discuss this. I also really like the way you broke it down and think that this deserves to be a "sticky".
I think it is important to point out though that we are not singling anyone out with this. The issues Waz mentions here are issues we have dealt with over the years of this forum's evolution. Learning to identify people using verbal bullying tactics need to be identified (and extricated) early.
In my view, the most important item on Wazier's list is "posts inflammatory topics." I would add this:
"Posts inflammatory topics for the sake of posting inflammatory topics."
We all get frustrated when the political news doesn't break our way (a feeling I've struggled with since November 2000). We all look for items that bolster our own point of view. That's what the board is for.
But there's a line between making a series of arguments that are sometimes over the top in terms of their harsh tone and content, and making nothing but arguments that go over the top.
It's very hard to go through life with a single narrative. You train yourself to see structural patterns in random events, just as you train yourself to dismiss competing narratives.
At the same time, I know it's tempting to create or buy into a single narrative that makes sense of all the horrible things that have happened in recent history.
And I also suspect that many of us are genetically wired to be more likely to buy into single-narrative thought patterns. The concept of being open-minded may be an illusion -- we may all be following whatever biological narrative we were programmed to follow from the moment dad's sperm crash-landed in mom's egg.
Still, I have to believe that we can all learn to open our minds to the possibility of competing narratives.
This example will seem absurd at first, but hang with me for a moment:
Until I saw Oliver Stone's JFK, I'd never given a minute's thought to the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill the president. After seeing JFK, I kept my eyes open for interesting articles about the assassination, and came to believe it was most likely a bigger conspiracy, with Oswald as the fall guy.
But then I saw a documentary on Discovery or the History Channel or one of those, in which they set up a dummy Dealey Plaza in the desert, with a tower that was exactly the same height and distance from their moving car as was the sixth floor of the Book Repository from JFK's limousine.
They put a sharpshooter in the tower with the exact model rifle Oswald had used. And they had him try to pull off the shots that Oswald allegedly fired.
He did it, but not on the first try. More often than not, the gun jammed, or he missed, or he couldn't get the shots off in the exact time frame Oswald allegedly fired his.
So did Oswald do it? I don't know. I still think the odds are very slight, considering that a trained marksman couldn't do it consistently. The luck factor would be off the charts for someone like Oswald.
My point is, I feel that I've weighed information from both directions, changed my mind a couple times, and finally concluded that the preponderance of evidence suggests that Oswald either didn't do it, or didn't do it alone. That's the simplest explanation, and it works for me.
But if I'd started with a firm narrative that said either Oswald did it or didn't do it, then I'd never be able to judge the opposite point of view on its own merits.
I guess my point is that any narrative can have pieces that fit. You just have to know what to do with the pieces that don't fit, which is when it helps to open your mind to competing ideas.
So who gets to decide what is to much? That would also be matter of opinion, right?
I really don't know, I am not trying to be a wise-ass here.. I just have difficulty seeing what would be considered over the top to some of you, and perfectly good topics of conversation to others..
So who gets to decide what is to much? That would also be matter of opinion, right?
I really don't know, I am not trying to be a wise-ass here. I just have difficulty seeing what would be considered over the top to some of you, and perfectly good topics of conversation to others.
Jaw, you've been posting a few weeks now, and stirring up the same kinds of rancor with virtually every post. That's why I went into the the long digression about conspiracy theories -- if you have one narrative that fits every situation, it's hard to understand that people aren't convinced by your arguments, or the links you use to back up your arguments.
For people who don't embrace that single narrative -- "a cabal of Bad People controls everything" -- arguments in favor of it come off as paranoid rantings. What makes perfect sense to you makes no sense to those who haven't bought into the narrative.
We've been down this road before with other posters, and it always comes to a dead end. They can't understand why we aren't buying their narrative, and we can't understand why they don't see the holes in their arguments.
Does that make any sense?
I love talking about politics, and I'm no stranger to the darkness of conspiratorial thinking. And I get frustrated when people dismiss every suggestion of darker motives as the type of thinking that's best accessorized by a tinfoil hat.
I used the example of the JFK assassination. Forty-some years later, that looks like a conspiracy to me.
The Vietnam War was ramped up with a conspiracy of misinformation from an elitist circle of intellectuals who used all their brainpower to do something really dumb.
Watergate was a conspiracy. People forget that the entire thing was based on a desire to win the 1972 election by any means necessary.
Iran-Contra was another conspiracy, and many of the people who brought us that bit of lunacy topped themselves by bringing us the Iraq War, a terrible moment in our history that I think is worse than anything else on this list. I think it'll take decades to figure out all the misdeeds of the people involved.
But even while we're condemning the people who've done all these things that shouldn't have been done, it helps to step back and figure out why they were done. I've thought about the Iraq War from every angle I can find, and I've come to the preliminary conclusion that most of the people who supported the war were very sincere in their motives. Many of them were dishonest and ruthless, and of course they were all dead wrong in my view. But I'll concede that a lot of them thought they were doing the right thing.
Unfortunately, there were no cool heads to talk them out of it. The oil industry had its motives, the neocons had theirs, and the result was like a courtship involving a nymphomaniac and a sex addict. Who was going to say no?
All that said, I still try to put the brakes on myself when I catch myself trying to connect things that have no connection. So I can make a logical argument that 9/11 gave Bush and Cheney the excuse to occupy Iraq, and I can find evidence that Cheney and the neocons had had their eyes on Iraq for a long time, and I can speculate that they probably would've found an excuse to go there even without 9/11.
But I can't support the idea that they planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks so they could invade Iraq. Sure, it worked in their favor, but that doesn't mean they were smart enough or crazy enough to do it themselves. If they had, I think we'd have at least one verifiable piece of evidence of what they did and how they did it.
I hope I'm making a salient point here, and not just ranting about stuff as an argument against ranting.
But I can't support the idea that they planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks so they could invade Iraq. Sure, it worked in their favor, but that doesn't mean they were smart enough or crazy enough to do it themselves. If they had, I think we'd have at least one verifiable piece of evidence of what they did and how they did it.
I hope I'm making a salient point here, and not just ranting about stuff as an argument against ranting.
I think there is a damn sight more to this than any of us will ever find out. I dont necesary believe this was a total governmental involvement but dont believe that Al Qaeda were involved.
I do agree tho on who decides whether someone is a troll or not. Just beacuse majority have one opinion the other is wrong otherwise we'd still be looking at a flate earth and not a globe
__________________
BFG
"The time for talking has passed, actions are speaking louder than words."
The oil industry had its motives, the neocons had theirs, and the result was like a courtship involving a nymphomaniac and a sex addict. Who was going to say no?
Another classic "schulerism"... Is anyone cataloguing these?
Jaws, don't feel like all this is a result of your presence. We've had a long history of dealing with trolls of various types in here. I don't actually consider you a troll because I don't believe you have malicious intentions. If I did, you probably would not have access in here. I think that you are taking on some huge questions, and I admire that someone your age actually gives enough of a shit to even go out there and read up on the various subjects.
BUT, young padawan, you have much to learn. It's tempting and easy to go down the single narrative route. It is also intellectually lazy. Since I have higher hopes for your potential, I would like to see you exercise that intellect and not take the bait laid out by people who are fast and loose with the facts.
We try to hold ourselves to the same standards, and I don't claim to be perfect by any stretch. That's the cool thing about discussion forum with many diverse participants though... We have some built in checks and balances, and I have several people in here who will call me down in a second if they see me doing that.
So it's not your conclusions that we're going after... It's the thought process. This thread was not started because Waz thought you were a troll though. It has been discussed in here a lot lately, so he felt compelled to lay out a clear cut definition so we can all identify and erradicate them quickly.
I do agree tho on ho decides whether someone is a troll or not. Just beacuse majority have one opinion the other is wrong otherwise we'd still be looking at a flate earth and not a globe
You bring up a good point and one that I would like to address. It is not just about "deciding who's a troll"... It's about creating an objective litmus test that you can apply to one's posts over time. Everyone (myself included) can display troll-like tendencies at some time over their posting history.
It is a big picture thing though. If someone is dragging down the discussions into name calling (or other such immature postings) a pattern emerges, faster with some than others. At the point that there is some kind of consensus that someone is not contributing to the forum in a positive way, it is time to openly discuss the issue and smoke the troll out of their hole.
Ultimately, if someone is generally insulting or disrespectful of people, they get picked off pretty quickly. There is room for being passionate about something one feels strongly about without insulting someone else. Again though, sometimes people are misinterpreted, sometimes they have bad days. I wouldn't judge whether a person should be banned or not on one day of bad posting.
Ultimately, if someone is generally insulting or disrespectful of people, they get picked off pretty quickly. There is room for being passionate about something one feels strongly about without insulting someone else. Again though, sometimes people are misinterpreted, sometimes they have bad days. I wouldn't judge whether a person should be banned or not on one day of bad posting.
i agree with that, but yikes makes me sound like a troll. Im passionate in my viewpoint only cos otherwise it seems a very one sided affair in that other options are not deemed viable as the masses dont consider they work and pack mentality ensues
__________________
BFG
"The time for talking has passed, actions are speaking louder than words."
You don't need to worry BFG. First, there is nothing wrong with being passionate. Second, this forum is a bit different than the rest of the forums. I don't tolerate disrespect in ANY of them, but in here passions can run a bit higher because of the personal nature of the topics we discuss. It is necessary to have a stricter set of rules in here if we wish to move forward in our discussion.
sorry was just playing devils advocate to explore the logic behind the argument....not a good idea when am ashamed to say I am a little sloshed (the first time in 6 months!!!!!)
__________________
BFG
"The time for talking has passed, actions are speaking louder than words."
I think it is important to point out though that we are not singling anyone out with this. The issues Waz mentions here are issues we have dealt with over the years of this forum's evolution. Learning to identify people using verbal bullying tactics need to be identified (and extricated) early.
Jaws: I actually posted this for you in response to your question in another post. Assuming your interest was authentic, I thought a discussion of the issue would be useful, not only to you, but to everyone else as well. As JP points out, the intent was not to single you out, however, inasmuch as you have been singled out in the thread that you posed the question, it does draw attention to you.
I especially appreciate the way you frame the question above because I believe that it goes to the crux of the issue. That being said, my intent in posting this thread was as JP wrote, to not single anyone out. That was why after posting it initially, I immediately deleted it because it occurred to me that it could. Apparently, JP’s belief that it would not is a result of the long term discussion that has been going on in the forum is sound enough that he felt the discussion would be more constructive than not. I have faith in his judgment.
The reason that your question is as essential is that all standards and norms are relative to the communities they arise in. Also, I think it is safe to say that all communal norms evolve. Even the most staid of communities like the Roman Catholic Church have ecumenical councils and encyclicals to adapt to emergent situations. The norms of the JPF forums have evolved as well, and if anything, being a part of that evolution has been the most interesting feature of being a part of them. As far as I can tell, this dimension of participation has almost been exclusive to the CE forum which is hardly surprising.
I believe that your question is authentic and sincere in it’s motivation and therefore an excellent opportunity to advance not just your understanding of this group process but our own as well. I believe that this interest is what motivated JP to go ahead and revive my deleted post. I am going to be out of pocket for the next couple of days, but I encourage others to pick up from here, if for no other reason than to help Jaws understand the peculiarities of JPF CE.
READ THIS FIRST! (long, but required)
Linear Mode
