2 edits
Hi Bbarr,
People that are following our debates know what this post is all about. I want to apologise to you for attacking you in a personal way. I also apologise for becoming too quickly too emotional. I know in that case I'm raising my voice and I shouln't be doing that. I have to work on the way I am conducting my discussions. My debating skills are very poor. I'm working on that. This is for me a difficult task, however I plan to do the best I can. I apologise to you Bbarr. I hope you will accept them.
I also apologise to all the RHP members for behaving the way I did. I hope you will accept my apologies too.
The next apologies have to go to my brothers and sisters in Christ. I apologise for my behaviour. I did not represent Him in a respectable way. I'm sad about it and I hope you will except my apologies.
Thank you for reading this post.
.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThis is very good of you Ivanhoe.
Hi Bbarr,
People that are following our debates know what this post is all about. I want to apologise to you for attacking you in a personal way. I also apologise for becoming too quickly too emotional. I know in that case I'm raising my voice and I shouln't be doing that. I have to work on the way I am conducting my discussions.
I also apologise to all the RHP members for behaving the way I did. I hope you will accept my apologies too.
peace
Ranjana
Originally posted by ivanhoeThanks for the apology, Ivanhoe. I would have responded to this sooner, but I've been away for the weekend.
Hi Bbarr,
People that are following our debates know what this post is all about. I want to apologise to you for attacking you in a personal way. I also apologise for becoming too quickly too emotional. I know in that case I'm raising my voice and I shouln't be doing that. I have to work on the way I am conducting my discussions. My debating skills ar ...[text shortened]... d about it and I hope you will except my apologies.
Thank you for reading this post.
.
Although I've tried to be patient in our discussions, I've often felt that you were deliberately mistating my views in the forums. This came out most clearly when you brought up the Nazi's in the context of our discussion concerning euthanasia; a tactic I thought slanderous. Additionally, your frequent admonitions that my views are part and parcel of a Culture of Death led me to respond to your posts uncharitably, and sometimes in a downright hostile and mocking manner. Obviously, responding like this led only to further misunderstanding, which neither of us prefer. For this I apologize to you.
So, perhaps some ground rules are in order. In our debates I will not mock your religious beliefs if you will not continue to associate my views with those of Nazis or crazy Dutch bio-ethicists. I will not make broad generalizations about religious folk if you will not make broad generalizations about Freethinkers. I will not attack the Christian ethic by reference to the actions of, for instance, pedophilic priests if you will not attack my broadly Kantian ethic by reference to the actions of misguided policy makers. Let us deal with each other by presenting our arguments as clearly as we can, and by interpreting each other charitably.
I'll respond to your recent, substantive posts in the next couple days.
Originally posted by bbarr
Thanks for the apology, Ivanhoe. I would have responded to this sooner, but I've been away for the weekend.
Although I've tried to be patient in our discussions, I've often felt that you were deliberately mistating my views in the forums. This came out most clearly when you brought up the Nazi's in the context of our discussion concerning euthanasia; ...[text shortened]... other charitably.
I'll respond to your recent, substantive posts in the next couple days.
Thanks for your post and thanks for your apology, Bbarr.
As far as the groundrules are concerned you proposed in your post, I do not want you or I to feel limited in any way in the possibilities of bringing up the issues we consider to be relevant in some way in the debate in question. I wouldn't want to give the impression to anybody that we would have agreed on some kind of selfchosen censorship.
Of course I agree with you on the wish that we will deal with each other by presenting our arguments as clearly as we can, and by interpreting each other charitably.
Thanks again,
Joe
.
I'm glad to see this thread. I haven't gone through and caught myself up on your discussions yet since I've been back, but in the past your discussions have been some of the most interesting to me and one of the many reasons why I really missed the forums while I was away. So if you both can reconcile like this and not get so personally emotional with each other, your discussions will be that much more interesting and something to look forward to.
ncrosby🙂
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe,
Thanks for your post and thanks for your apology, Bbarr.
As far as the groundrules are concerned you proposed in your post, I do not want you or I to feel limited in any way in the possibilities of bringing up the issues we consider to be relevant in some way in the debate in question. I wouldn't want to give the impression to anybody that we would ...[text shortened]... ments as clearly as we can, and by interpreting each other charitably.
Thanks again,
Joe
.
I'm sorry, but I'm disinclined to continue any of our discussions if you can't abide by the groundrules I've proposed. I'm tired of being misrepresented, and I'm tired of being slandered by having my views lumped together with those held by Nazis, Utilitarians, Dutch Bio-ethicists, the Bio-Industrial Complex, etc. If you find these groundrules too limiting, then perhaps you ought to find a way to criticize the views I actually hold, rather than merely finding ridiculous views to criticize, and then claiming without basis that my views are similar to those. Anyway, if you can't agree to conduct our debates in a reasonable manner, and that entails not employing ad hominem attacks, then I see no reason to respond to anything you write.
Bennett
1 edit
Originally posted by Phlabibitpossibly, you are unaware of what has taken place historically.
I can't believe you guys are arguing about an argument, and debating weather or not you should debate!
i think it is an excellent idea that 2 of the most prolific contributors do set some specific ground rules. it is important that the debate that takes place, does so, focussing on truthful content rather than mockery or misinterpretation.
after all, the 'goading' does have its own forum in which these latter 'techniques' can be more appropriately practised 😀
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfYes, I understand what they are trying to get done... I just see that weather or not they want to debate, they are going to keep on debating.
possibly, you are unaware of what has taken place historically.
i think it is an excellent idea that 2 of the most prolific contributors do set some specific ground rules. it is important that the debate that takes place, does so, focussing on truthful content rather than mockery or misinterpretation.
after all, the 'goading' does have its own forum i ...[text shortened]... hich these latter 'techniques' can be more appropriately practised 😀
in friendship,
prad
You couldn't cut the irony with a Sawzall!
P-