Posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2006, at 3:46:45
In reply to Still here » Dr. Bob, posted by Tamar on June 21, 2006, at 18:17:11
> Where I have a problem with this block is that the bits you took out to use were *way* out of context.
>
> Also in that post she wrote:
>
> > yeah i was stating my opinion. i wasn't knocking religion. i wasn't making a statement about religion being *bad* I was making a statement about how I think the world could be better..Again, not all opinions are civil. And she may not have intended to knock it, but IMO, it was knocked.
> > what do i mean by religion?
> > i mean established religion as opposed to personal spirituality.Established religion is important to lots of people, too.
> > maybe the trouble is in trying to differentiate between religion and culture? i think the world profits from cultural diversity it is just the established religious movements that i'm not sure profit the world particularly... but that is just my opinion of course and i'm sure the majority of the world doesn't agree with me...
IMO, that could also be more sensitive to the feelings of members of those movements...
> I thought she took great pains to try to explain what she was talking about in a non-hurtful manner, while at the same time keeping her integrity. I admire that a lot more than I would have just a "Sorry, Dr. Bob" answer - which would have saved her from the block.
>
> AuntieMelShe did take great pains to explain, and I'm not saying she, or standing up for one's beliefs, shouldn't be admired.
--
> My view is that it should not be considered uncivil to critique social institutions. If Estella had identified a particular religion ... then perhaps it could be considered uncivil. But it was a comment about a social institution that is too broad to be identified with one of its subsets.
First, some people consider religion more than just a social institution. Second, IMO, being insensitive to the feelings of a broader group of people is less civil.
> I take [civility] seriously too. But I think it is most easily achieved when people understand the rules well enough to stay within them. This particular blocking seems to be a very grey area. In particular, the sentence quoted was part of a complex argument, and to take one sentence out of context might not do justice to the meaning of the posts as a whole.
I agree, this seems not to be understood well.
People can be triggered by one sentence... What would you consider the meaning of the posts as a whole? Could it be expressed in a sensitive way?
> > the primary goal of blocking isn't to teach, it's to keep it civil here. Whether or not people learn.
>
> It sounds to me as if you’re saying it’s more important to exercise your authority in order to ensure civility than to block justly in order to ensure that civility is imposed fairly. I don’t mean that as a criticism; it just looks to me as if the issue of authority is more important than fairness. But if I have misunderstood I will apologise.I do think authority is an important aspect of this. But I try to exercise my authority to block justly. Might doesn't make right. But the exercise of authority isn't necessarily unjust, either.
> > I've discussed this with the deputies, and my decision is to let both blocks stand.
>
> I see. And perhaps if I or others continue to raise the issue it might constitute a challenge to your authority.
>
> TamarIf I wanted to avoid being challenged, I would've done away with this board a long time ago! Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged. :-)
I just wanted everyone to know where things stood. Continuing to raise the issue is fine -- it may be best if debate about what's just goes on forever -- but it probably won't affect this particular block unless, as Dinah said, people come up with new arguments or restate old ones in ways I find more convincing.
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:646675
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060622/msgs/660479.html