Tips - Revision history

DaveLeach: /* Relevance not just to the subject, but to potential action */

2023-04-30T16:36:52Z

‎Relevance not just to the subject, but to potential action

DaveLeach at 11:10, 24 June 2021

2021-06-24T11:10:56Z

DaveLeach: /* Responsiveness */

2019-05-10T02:54:27Z

‎Responsiveness

DaveLeach: /* No censorship of any religion’s Scriptures */

2019-05-10T02:22:26Z

‎No censorship of any religion’s Scriptures

DaveLeach: /* No censorship of any religion’s Scriptures */

2019-05-10T02:19:07Z

‎No censorship of any religion’s Scriptures

DaveLeach: /* No "personal attacks" */

2019-05-10T02:16:55Z

‎No "personal attacks"

DaveLeach: /* No "personal attacks" */

2019-05-10T02:10:27Z

‎No "personal attacks"

DaveLeach: /* How to dig for truth. */

2019-05-09T18:49:27Z

‎How to dig for truth.

DaveLeach at 13:01, 24 March 2018

2018-03-24T13:01:38Z

DaveLeach at 16:18, 10 October 2017

2017-10-10T16:18:41Z

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 ==Relevance not just to the subject, but to potential action==
-Problems about which humans can do nothing are not “political” problems - “political” issues are those where humans have different views of how we should solve them. Problems incapable of even any alleged or proposed human solution are therefore not the purpose of this forum. [[Scriptures about relevance to action]]
 ==No "personal attacks"==

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 |[[Rules]]
 |[[Tips]]
-|[[FAQ]]
+|[[SaveTheWorld:FAQ]]
 |[[Begin!]]
 |[https://www.paypal.com/donate/?token=G3A8DgIJOtxZ3zn7_1cVGnF-lRSUzXCVpSf30Q7Gd_zLYTBERe7VSt2YrZSlihtU6K4lYW&country.x=US&locale.x=US Donate]

@@ Line 98: / Line 98: @@
 That will at least show that you have read the alleged facts. If you won’t do that, how can anyone, who disagrees with you, ''reason'' with you? If you won’t make clear exactly ''where'' you disagree, it is not possible for your opponent to know ''where'' to respond to you. And he will have no confidence that if he takes the rather considerable time it takes to try, that you will even read his response.
-Responsiveness is part of America’s code of ethics for judges. In Iowa, Iowa Code 52.10(1)(b) makes it a ground for removing a judge from the bench.
+Responsiveness is part of America’s code of ethics for judges. In Iowa, Iowa Code 52.10(1)(b) makes lack of it a ground for removing a judge from the bench. It makes violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics (as opposed to the more recent, and much more abbreviated, Code of Judicial Conduct) grounds for removing a judge. One of the canons says:
 :Canon #19: In disposing of controverted cases, a judge should indicate the reasons for his action in an opinion showing that he has not disregarded or overlooked serious arguments of counsel. He thus shows his full understanding of the case, avoids the suspicion of arbitrary conclusion, promotes confidence in his intellectual integrity and may contribute useful precedent to the growth of the law.

@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 Some of the most emotional political issues wouldn’t even exist were it not for the Bible. To listen only to lesser reasons than the reasons that actually persuaded your ideological opponents, cripples you in your effort to understand and reason with them. Across America, the percentage of people “who report reading the Bible in a typical week and who strongly assert the Bible is accurate in the principles it teaches” varies between 10% and 51% depending on the city, according to a [http://cities.barna.org/2015-bible-minded-cities Barna survey]. If you refuse on principle to address any of the verses claimed by your ideological opponent, your principle torpedos your ability to reason with a very significant portion of the American population on issues where the Bible is relevant. Many today stand on precisely that principle, which contributes to deep division in America today.
-Let’s be honest. If a Christian knows a verse that backs up his political position, even if only loosely or vaguely, that Christian will surely stand on the Word of God; but if he is shown a verse that appears to contradict his political position, that doesn’t mean he will change the latter. We are all human, and we all could use a fair forum to make us honest.
+Let’s be honest. If a Christian knows a verse that backs up his political position, even if only loosely or vaguely, that Christian will surely claim support for his position in the Word of God; but if he is shown a verse that appears to contradict his political position, that doesn’t mean he will change the latter. We are all human, and we all could use a fair forum to make us honest.
 When you know a Christian’s belief is founded upon a Scripture which you do not believe, that is not the end of the line for productive dialog. There are at least three directions you might still proceed:

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 ==No censorship of any religion’s Scriptures==
-Every participant must be free to articulate, in defense of his positions, the highest principles he knows. How can we reason with someone after we have prohibited him from telling us the real reasons for his positions? We censor only things like profanity, personal attacks, irrelevance, etc. We can censor Scriptures whose relevance to the subject under which they are posted is not explained. But when Scriptures help explain a position, or explain why some believe it, their citations are useful.
+Every participant must be free to articulate, in defense of his positions, the highest principles he knows. How can we reason with someone after we have prohibited him from telling us the real reasons for his positions? We censor only things like profanity, personal attacks, irrelevance, etc. ''We can censor Scriptures whose relevance to the subject under which they are posted is not explained.'' But when Scriptures help explain a position, or explain why some believe it, their citations are useful.
 Remember the purpose of this forum. Only part of it is for ''you'' to be persuaded by new evidence, as commendable as it is that you are so willing to be corrected that you would like to limit evidence to what will persuade you. Your other reason for meeting is to persuade others. To do that, you need to know what drives their opinions. You need to know how much of your political differences are driven by theological differences. Once you know, you can prepare a line of reasoning to refute it.
@@ Line 87: / Line 87: @@
 (2) Directly challenge their interpretation with alternative interpretations based on context, exegesis of the original language, etc. Although this approach will be the most grievous and difficult for you if you do not honor the Bible yourself, much work has already been done for you by others.
 (3) Challenge the application of the verse to the specific situation before you. Scripture seldom directly applies to public issues; application is mostly the domain of reason.
 ==Responsiveness==

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:16, 10 May 2019
Line 67:		Line 67:

	[[Scripture about "no personal attacks – attack nonsense"]]		[[Scripture about "no personal attacks – attack nonsense"]]
		+
		+	For more babbling about personal attacks, see [[Rules#Personal_Attacks_vs._Criticism]]

	==No censorship of any religion’s Scriptures==		==No censorship of any religion’s Scriptures==

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 Don’t accuse anyone’s motives, because you can’t back it up. “Conflicts of interest” can be documented, but even they do not document that anyone is motivated by other than the honest, impartial pursuit of truth: they only document a ''temptation'' to pursue an interest opposed to the truth.
-Our goal is information about issues, not about each other. We need information that will help voters and politicians correctly understand issues, like the effect on the economy of the minimum wage, or immigration, or abortion. Or federal control of a third of Western state land. Your opinion that the lady you are debating is going to Hell gets in the way of that purpose. It is a distraction from getting where we need to go, like a box of nails on a highway.
+Our goal is information about issues, not about each other. We need information that will help voters and politicians correctly understand issues, like the effect on the economy of the minimum wage, or immigration, or abortion. Or federal control of a third of Western state land. Your opinion that the lady you are debating is going to Hell gets in the way of that purpose. It is a distraction from getting where we need to go, like a crate of nails on a highway.
 Insulting ideological opponents is popular; many love to level insults, and some like to read them. If that is your contribution, you can still do it in the “comments” after most blogs and articles on other websites. Not here. Those comments are mostly ignored by people who are serious about information, because of the time it takes to sift through clever insults and unrelated “rabbit trails”.
 Talk to people with whom you disagree as respectfully and with as much love as you talk to your own children when they are disagreeable. Or at least, as respectfully as you wish you had been, after you cool down and think about what you just said. You can be firm, and intolerant of lies and errors. But except in the most extreme circumstances you would never want to communicate to your children that you hate them and never want to see them again. Even with the most direct criticism, let your focus be correcting errors, not insulting this other person who is making you think so annoyingly hard.
 When statements are not true, don’t “tolerate” them. Dispose of them. Shoot them down, shovel them up, and bury them. When people make untrue statements, love the people like you would love your fiance when some little disagreement starts up which you hope will be contained. Reason respectfully.

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 ==How to dig for truth.==
-How are suspicions tested? First, by getting as close as possible to an admission out of the mouth of the one we accuse. Matthew 18:15. The first decent step is always to give the one we accuse an opportunity to defend himself – to refute our charges.
+How are suspicions tested? First, by getting as close as possible to an admission from the one or ones that we suspect. Matthew 18:15. The first decent step is always to give the one we accuse an opportunity to defend himself – to refute our charges.
 Usually our ideological enemies proudly admit their support of or involvement in what we condemn. For example, most Democrats proudly advertise that they support the very abortions which Republicans condemn as the slaughter of innocents. Most Republicans unapologetically insist we stop the admission of Central American children which Democrats condemn as a death sentence for innocent children. Their “guilt”, as we allege it, is easily confirmed out of their own mouths.
@@ Line 29: / Line 30: @@
 The Scientific Method is a process of tests to ''disprove'' your theory. In other words, you try to put yourself in the shoes of your bitterest enemy, think like he thinks, and from that perspective, look for holes in your theories. By anticipating your ideological opponents’ objections in this way you can avoid being unprepared when you reason with them.
 You can quickly adopt this mindset by proclaiming what you believe as publicly as you can even among people most motivated to ridicule you for disagreeing with them. When you are vulnerable to criticism, you will be ashamed to be proved wrong and stupid, which will make you study the facts very well before you “go public” to minimize your embarrassment.
 ==Suspicion’s purpose, and limits==

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:01, 24 March 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~<code>~~[[~~The~~ Forum]] \| [[Offer ~~to Politicos~~]] \| [[~~Local~~ Partners]] \| [[Rules]] \| [[Tips]] \| [[~~SaveTheWorld:~~FAQ]] \| [[~~Getting Started~~]]</~~code>~~	+	{\| class="wikitable"
		+	\|[[Forum]] (Articles)
		+	\|[[Offer]]
		+	\|[[Partners]]
		+	\|[[Rules]]
		+	\|[[Tips]]
		+	\|[[FAQ]]
		+	\|[[Begin!]]
		+	\|[https://www.paypal.com/donate/?token=G3A8DgIJOtxZ3zn7_1cVGnF-lRSUzXCVpSf30Q7Gd_zLYTBERe7VSt2YrZSlihtU6K4lYW&country.x=US&locale.x=US Donate]
		+	\|}

	''The following tips are not rules; that is, violation of them will not get your contributions deleted, or yourself banned. They are strictly for your benefit, to help you be more persuasive. In fact, they are intended to help you be more persuasive in any situation where you are trying to reason with someone who disagrees with you.''		''The following tips are not rules; that is, violation of them will not get your contributions deleted, or yourself banned. They are strictly for your benefit, to help you be more persuasive. In fact, they are intended to help you be more persuasive in any situation where you are trying to reason with someone who disagrees with you.''

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:18, 10 October 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	<code>[[The Forum]] \| [[Offer to Politicos]] \| [[Local Partners]] \| [[Rules]] \| [[Tips]] \| [[SaveTheWorld:FAQ]]</code>	+	<code>[[The Forum]] \| [[Offer to Politicos]] \| [[Local Partners]] \| [[Rules]] \| [[Tips]] \| [[SaveTheWorld:FAQ]] \| [[Getting Started]]</code>

	''The following tips are not rules; that is, violation of them will not get your contributions deleted, or yourself banned. They are strictly for your benefit, to help you be more persuasive. In fact, they are intended to help you be more persuasive in any situation where you are trying to reason with someone who disagrees with you.''		''The following tips are not rules; that is, violation of them will not get your contributions deleted, or yourself banned. They are strictly for your benefit, to help you be more persuasive. In fact, they are intended to help you be more persuasive in any situation where you are trying to reason with someone who disagrees with you.''