The game rules of this site are “assume other posters are posting in good faith”. This applies whether or the assumption is valid. The reason for this rule is that I set up this site to be a place where we could get past arguments about motivation and down to the nitty gritty of whether an argument actually makes sense, or is supported by evidence.
Things get a little tricky when it comes to perfectly valid topics like church-state separation, or other topics with a political dimension, for example anthropogenic climate change. But I want to make it clear to all readers that the game rules for this site are simply: for the purposes of debate here, assume other posters are posting in good faith. You do not have to assume that people are acting in good faith when they are acting as public figures, or elsewhere, but you do have to assume it when they are posting here.
So, no, I don’t think ID proponents “deserve” charity, nor do “Darwinists”. I don’t think that anyone “deserves” charity. I think charity is a good thing, but I think it is orthogonal to what anyone “deserves”. It is also irrelevant to the rules of this site, where the assumption that other posters are posting in good faith is simply a rule that applies irrespective of who the other poster is, or what anyone thinks they “deserve”.
I understand and commend you for the intention, Lizzie. However, I think folks here are always going to bump against the fine line on some topics. For instance, what “good faith” can one assume of Mung’s taunt posts? I’m not asking how we should respond to such; clearing no response is appropriate. I’m merely asking on what to base an assumption of “good faith”? Similarly, when William provided quote mines in Darwin’s Doubt, should we assume that William doesn’t know they are quote mines, even when we can go back and find said quotes have been shown to be quote mines prior to Williams reposting?
I really applaud your patience and persistent focus on the specific points Lizzie; it’s a rare discipline and willpower that demonstrates a genuine integrity in an arena otherwise known for its chaos and contention. However, I think some concession must be granted to those who are trying to play by the rules vs those who just flaunt their disdain for any rules.
Sometimes maintaining the fiction of another’s good faith can be prohibitively labor-intensive.
There’s a simple solution to taunts. Ignore them. It’s not labor intensive. I’m not perfection, but I have lasted for years at sites where my worldview was not welcome, because I have been able to depersonalize arguments. I do slip up, but goals remain goals, even when not achieved.
This is true, but there are other sites for that. That’s why I’ve always made it clear (I hope) that this is not some moral stricture, merely a quirk of this particular site rules, like some variant form of chess.
I have been accused of abusing Elizabeth’s hospitality. I am pretty sure that my OP’s here at TSZ can be counted on one hand. Which of them has been an abuse of her hospitality?
In what manner, in any of my OP’s here at TSZ, have I personally attacked Elizabeth?
Some posts moved to Guano.
Interesting:When asking other people to cite which of his posts here at TSZ constitute abuse of Lizzie’s hospitality, he explicitly restricts his question to his OPs, which constitute a very tiny percentage of all the things he’s posted here. One wonders whether Mung is of the opinion that comments on other people’s OPs cannot constitute abuse of Lizzie’s hospitality.
In case you can’t figure Patrick’s message out, have any of your posted comments abused Lizzie’s hospitality?
Interesting. You don’t provide any evidence, regardless. Skeptical much?