The Sacred Sciences

[TerrorDæmonum]

Forum improvement suggestion: work required from admin: moderate effort.

I suggest that a new membergroup be made for those who explicitly agree to hold themselves to a high standard of posting for access to The Sacred Sciences board and read only access be given to all others.

Violation of those standards (the basic description of the board) would result in exclusion from that membergroup.

I reiterate the eminent usefulness of this suggestion.

Consider this post on the morality of slavery which starts by:

• Acknowledging slavery is a sensitive subject because of, among other reasons, specific forms being the basis for many people's understanding
• Acknowledging the subject spans cultural experiences and may require more examination for those unfamiliar
• Acknowledging that making the necessary legal/philosophical distinctions may be difficult for some people and discussions concerning them might be difficult to understand for such people
• A long section showing that "slavery" eludes a strict definition which makes any statement about it except the most broad extremely difficult

The post was about slavery itself, and acknowledged that slavery in practice is fraught with many moral issues. But the specific moral considerations within the subject were not the subject.

I anticipated slow responses and more citations from the Church through the ages. The Church has written on slavery in general and slavery in particular throughout history and those citations would have fit the discussion as I focused on the fundamentals and scriptural sources only on purpose.

Instead, I got responses from someone repeating long and non-scholarly rants against "slavery" and blasphemies against a holy saint of the Church and approved devotions. There was also accusations of heresy and other bad things as if the devotions promoted have anything to do with that.

And then there was another response, which acknowledged that there are more than one definition of slavery, and then went into a rant about a very specific form of slavery involving very specific types of people, a reference to Nazis which doesn't make sense, and then asked what was wrong with emotional arguments.

Clearly, this board needs a means of quality control for those who have no discipline in controlling what and where they post. My original suggestion seems to be the most ideal and least restrictive.

[Philip G.]

This is a debate forum, this is not a personal blog.  Any subforum/structures that blurs these lines should not be pursued in my opinion.  It is one thing to create separate private access male and female subforums, it is another to create a division based at least in part on something subjective, such as posting style.  Let us not forget that St. Michael defeated Lucifer with a simple question.  As they say in boxing, styles make fights.

[TerrorDæmonum]

The Sacred Sciences is not about personal opinions. It is about science.

Nothing I wrote was personal opinion. I have to defend nothing against spurious statements of those not interested in the intellectual discussions suitable for that board.

Not everything is a matter for "opinions". Treating every single subject, from Church authority to philosophical discussions as mere opinions is what the problem is.

The Sacred Sciences board is either fit for purpose or not. What is its purpose? Is it a platform for someone to publish again and again the personal opinions and anti-Catholic rants of someone who claims that the board is "not a blog" and refers to it as my "precious sacred sciences forum", and derails threads to promote his blasphemous and erroneous and illogical points of view, and apparently arguing from ignorance, as his knowledge is lacking while pretending otherwise, and disparages theology as "lengthy theoretical verbiage"?

And there was a defense of theology posted just for that as well.

It is time to ask: is the forum fit for purpose?

It is not at this time. It must be corrected or closed, otherwise, it is just a mockery of the sacred science (and logic).

This is the final defense against his blasphemies.

For the rest, it shouldn't be in The Sacred Sciences board at least, although, it is hardly suitable for any rational discourse among Catholics.

EDIT: This was about the board, The Sacred Sciences, and that is what I was referring to by "forum", but the same general question applies to everything really and a good way to review whether something is good or not.

EDIT 2: This is specifically worded to address the above poster, but the issue of people replying emotionally or without understanding is the issue in general. Whether it be a matter of discipline, understanding, or malice, the board in question is in need of quality control. Discussions there can only have so many disclaimers that are ignored before it becomes ridiculous.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Not only have I lost track of Reality, I had to consult it for a reference for a post which specifically addressed all the various statements made around the forum that I saw about slavery, and yet, the thread is now about dictionary definitions and historical simplifications of Nazis.

If nothing else demonstrates my point, this exchange:

Can you point out what National Socialist slavemasters bought and sold innocent blacks on the auction block in the USA?  To my understanding, a full 80 years, minimum, separated the National Socialist Workers' Party of Germany and the antebellum South.

Correct. I was speaking of the mentality of the Nazis. By the mentality of the Nazis I mean the forced hard labor and the beatings of those who do not perform the forced labor and the subsequent gassing and murder of those who disobey orders. The slavemaster of the South  has a similar mentality in that he forced his slaves to perform hard labor against their will and if they disobeyed, they could be severely beaten. However, there were not gas chambers in the south, so that was a difference. Of course the slavemasters in the South were not members of the German Nazi party in the 1930's but IMHO they did have a similar mentality in many respects.
Also, the dictionary gives more than on definition of "Nazi" . For example the Merriam Webster dictionary gives one possible definition of "Nazi" as "a harshly domineering, dictatorial, or intolerant person."  I believe that a definition of this sort could apply to an individual who enslaves innocent men, women and children, forcibly taking them from their homeland,  buying and selling them as his property and subjects them to harsh labor against their will.

on a thread about slavery and the essential moral aspects using scriptural citations and logic does.

What more can one say?

A high level treatment of slavery as a core concept, followed up with some tricky to write and formulate explanations of various questions that people unfamiliar with the topic had around the forum, and now the thread is about Nazis, including citing a dictionary definition. It is still on the first page.

Of all the things to occur, the occurrence of Godwin's Law almost immediately and its continued discussion demonstrates the need for quality control. Invocation of that law should have taken place after some lengthy on topic discussions at the very least.

The subject is now lost. The anticipated further posting citing specific Church teachings and writings, the analysis of the core features of slavery, and the discussion of slavery in the context of our modern day which tends to shun the word, are all lost. I used scripture only to set the stage for an actual discussion which is hardly likely to take place now.

Writing posts like that takes some time. It doesn't take me much effort, but it takes more time and care to ensure it meets my standards to keep everything free of personal opinion. Even (especially) statements which do not have any citations posted require verification.

I went from verifying the terminology for matters of Justice, to thinking about descriptivism in dictionaries not being relevant to any discussions of the actual history and reality of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, the NSDP, colloquially called "Nazi".

The posts on topic are outnumbered by: posts about Nazis and separately, posts which contain blasphemy.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Let respect for orthodox theological vocabulary and citations be the Shibboleth for write access:

And the Galaadites secured the fords of the Jordan, by which Ephraim was to return. And when any one of the number of Ephraim came thither in the flight, and said: I beseech you let me pass: the Galaadites said to him: Art thou not an Ephraimite? If he said: I am not:

They asked him: Say then, Scibboleth, which is interpreted, An ear of corn. But he answered, Sibboleth, not being able to express an ear of corn by the same letter. Then presently they took him and killed him in the very passage of the Jordan. And there fell at that time of Ephraim two and forty thousand.

Those dispute or provider answers to theological questions using their own ideas, impious citations, and other novelties be read only, either through altered permissions or through moderator enforcement.

A board specific moderator would be a good idea too if one could be found.

[TerrorDæmonum]

I give up.

[Jayne]

I give up.

While I agree with your analysis of the problem, I think the current discussions happening in the Sacred Sciences sub-forum speak for themselves. The majority of posts are not consistent with its purpose.  This is probably clear to most people and almost certainly clear to KK.  Give him some time to figure out how he wants to deal with it.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Give him some time to figure out how he wants to deal with it.

That is what I meant. I am not going to make any reports or offer solutions until the next phase starts.

I am also going to reconsider what I post there if anything, as I took great care in explaining the context and acknowledging the sensitivity some may have of the subject, and I still only got responses off topic from people who read only titles (and then people replying to them).

This was then followed by another thread being used to carry on the same discussion (so, three of my threads have rants of a particular person, and now another with an odd fixation). I never even made a thread about historical slavery or the particulars of it. Maybe I will.

[Jayne]

Give him some time to figure out how he wants to deal with it.

That is what I meant. I am not going to make any reports or offer solutions until the next phase starts.

I am also going to reconsider what I post there if anything, as I took great care in explaining the context and acknowledging the sensitivity some may have of the subject, and I still only got responses off topic from people who read only titles (and then people replying to them).

This was then followed by another thread being used to carry on the same discussion (so, three of my threads have rants of a particular person, and now another with an odd fixation). I never even made a thread about historical slavery or the particulars of it. Maybe I will.

I agree that you need to take into account the sort of responses that can be expected.

[TerrorDæmonum]

I agree that you need to take into account the sort of responses that can be expected.

And the sort of responses that can be expected on a board with the stated purpose of The Sacred Sciences should be subject to more scrutiny and quality control.

I'm sure some solution will arise eventually.

Maybe I'll focus on topics that are more abstract and harder for people to derail.

[Jayne]

Maybe I'll focus on topics that are more abstract and harder for people to derail.

I have enormous confidence in this forum's members' ability to derail threads.   

[TerrorDæmonum]

I have enormous confidence in this forum's members' ability to derail threads. 

Let us see them try derailing this thread on historical slavery.

I still think this forum is possibly an extended social experiment by the owner.

[Jayne]

 

[TerrorDæmonum]

This is a debate forum, this is not a personal blog. 

Some things are not up for debate.

And you are the one using threads to make your own repetitive and novel statements while ignoring theology and doctrine.

You are the one which is pretending there is a debate, and declaring one is "defeated" when they give up on replying to you.

I posted this earlier, not in this thread because paeniteo has to evade his past defeats by starting new threads constantly even if on the same subject. 

You posted it on a thread which had a word in common, but was about a different topic. You cannot distinguish topics, yet, you think you can debate. You think that ignoring your posts as you reply to yourself is a "victory".

But worst of all, you seize on topics that contain words you feel are associated with holy saints and devotions which you condemn in defiance of the Church and this forum's rules.

You think all is up for debate and condemnation and if it were just you harassing me, I would not protest and just ignore you.

But your presence draws in others and distracts the topic and may confuse or mislead others who don't realize how ignorant you are.

You treat theology as if it were a plaything and have disdain for it.

If you were just opposing me, it would be easy to ignore. But you are not.

The fact you treat sacred science and philosophy as if it were just my personal opinion, when in fact I don't share opinions in such discussions and I am happy to supply citations for you and any. Yet, you still persist in ignoring them and treating it as a personal matter open for debate. Your level is of a catechumen who is learning only the basic catechism, yet, you treat it as if it a primary source on moral theology...which the book you hold in so high esteem states it is not.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Besides the acute issue at hand, maybe my expectations that posting could be more disciplined is just too high.

Anyway, the board is not fit for purpose in its current state. It is more or less indistinguishable from any other board. The fact someone can use the fact a post is not in the sacred sciences board to post most inappropriately, that same person can freely continue it.

Acknowledging the venues as being distinct and then flagrantly using it as any other board is a great demonstration of the problem: if the results of posting in it and out of it are the same, what is the distinction?