Important Questionnaire #18: Proselytizing Sub-forum

[Revoltingest]

Well as Trump has started changing the social media laws so that he can continue lying on twitter and facebook.
It might change the laws regarding what Forums can moderate?????

I sense danger in making this thread about Trump.
If you believe he's changed a law, a new thread would be best.

 

[Kenny]

Well as Trump has started changing the social media laws so that he can continue lying on twitter and facebook.
It might change the laws regarding what Forums can moderate?????

this is a great example of need of a "proselytizing forum" . This fire and brimstone messaging needs a special place so that they can get it out of their system"

That being said, I think it is better to have tried, and removed if need be, than to never have tried at all .

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Personally, I don't see the need for a proselytizing forum. If people want a place to proselytize, they already have one: the whole rest of the internet.

 

[dybmh]

It could also be a breeding ground for unsavoury characters who wish to start their own weird, potentially harmful, groups

... and after that it could become a honeypot for trolls who enjoy provoking them ...

ew.

 

[Vinayaka]

Most of the proselytising that goes on here is sneaky proselytising, like fake debates. I don't really think those folks would use a special forum, as that would take away the sneaky bit.

 

[Samael_Khan]

... and after that it could become a honeypot for trolls who enjoy provoking them ...

ew.

Oh God...

This place will become like the Youtube comments section...

 

[Samael_Khan]

... and after that it could become a honeypot for trolls who enjoy provoking them ...

ew.

And then we will have people join them who just act as though they want to be proselytized so they can join the thread, only to be from another group who wants to deconvert the proselytizers through questions so that they can join their group. It would be like proselytizing warfare.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Most of the proselytising that goes on here is sneaky proselytising, like fake debates. I don't really think those folks would use a special forum, as that would take away the sneaky bit.

People would still be sneaky. I know about an ex JW on youtube who actively went out to ask for a bible study by a JW and acted as if they weren't apostates just to gain their trust and see if she could get them out of the group. It was very underhanded.

 

[HonestJoe]

I don't see how proselytizing has a play in a forum since it isn't about engaging in debate or discussion, just making assertions of belief for the listener to accept or not. Any reasonable questions about a particular faith someone interested might have would be acceptable elsewhere on the forum and obviously any of the inevitable unreasonable responses wouldn't (and shouldn't) be permitted of the forum at all. And even if you found a way to strike a balance within that sub-forum, I don't see how the consequences couldn't bleed out anyway.

Ultimately, I don't see it creating anything that isn't available elsewhere and I do see plenty of potential negative consequences. At best, you'll just have another sub-forum with little or nothing going on in it.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

There are quite a few good post in this thread that provide food for thought in either direction; however, I would strongly disagree.
The following posts most strongly reflect my thoughts as well as I could type them.

​

We come across people with this reasoning all the time, even accusing others of lying if they criticize the "true faith" or say that they are "blind". So it seems that this rule pretty much isn't enforced anyway and the forum has become a space for proselytising.

I strongly disagree that a proselytising section should be outrightly allowed as it would take away from the depth and intent of RF post IMO, as there would be people who only wish to proselytise. It could also be a breeding ground for unsavoury characters who wish to start their own weird, potentially harmful, groups and this could backlash on the forum. I think it would make this forum a breeding ground for indoctrination.

I think that RF's current format is best. The DIR's serve the closest we should go to proselytising. The debate forums are best to investigate the foundation of beliefs because it allows people to question statements and really scrutinise a belief, and based off those answers a person can decide whether a religion is true or not.

I see RF as a place where INTELLECTUALS from various beliefs and non beliefs can be found, which is what makes it awesome. There are many knowledgeable people on here. I think a proselytising section could also invite the anti-intellectual and RF could become as average as other forums.

Even though I strongly disagree with a proselytising section, I wonder if it would be completely transparent to the community so that we can all see what is written and a general review of the beliefs in question could be had? Like a member review?

Maybe there should also be an age restriction to the site? Just in case members who want to proselytise start inviting young people to the forum in order to take advantage of them and indoctrinate them? Or will the featured thread prevent them from doing this?

We could also have a topic section maybe that stores all threads relating to debates and discussions on certain topics in order for someone else to see on the home page.

I don't see how proselytizing has a play in a forum since it isn't about engaging in debate or discussion, just making assertions of belief for the listener to accept or not. Any reasonable questions about a particular faith someone interested might have would be acceptable elsewhere on the forum and obviously any of the inevitable unreasonable responses wouldn't (and shouldn't) be permitted of the forum at all. And even if you found a way to strike a balance within that sub-forum, I don't see how the consequences couldn't bleed out anyway.

Ultimately, I don't see it creating anything that isn't available elsewhere and I do see plenty of potential negative consequences. At best, you'll just have another sub-forum with little or nothing going on in it.

...And for those who are drooling at the thought of being able to spew their personal nonsense at the weak-willed on the internet, I would note that atheists and agnostics would of course be allowed to create threads in there, in order to lead people back out of your dogma.
At best, it would become a lowbrow debate forum with no enforceable rules and a few unfortunate victims.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Skipped the poll as you desired in the OP. Does not make any difference if there is a sub-forum for it. But just a little note, proselytizing is the cause of much rancor in the forum. The proselytizers will not be interested in that sub-forum. They want an audience as big as it can be.

 

[Vinayaka]

People would still be sneaky. I know about an ex JW on youtube who actively went out to ask for a bible study by a JW and acted as if they weren't apostates just to gain their trust and see if she could get them out of the group. It was very underhanded.

From my POV, unless you come right out and say from the start, "I'm here to try to convert you to my faith," it's sneaky.

 

[Heyo]

...And for those who are drooling at the thought of being able to spew their personal nonsense at the weak-willed on the internet, I would note that atheists and agnostics would of course be allowed to create threads in there, in order to lead people back out of your dogma.
At best, it would become a lowbrow debate forum with no enforceable rules and a few unfortunate victims.

That's why I strongly agreed. I could promote Agnosticism without restraint. (And I'm so arrogant that I have confidence to be more persuasive than the believers or atheists ;-)
The preacher fears the free speech, I welcome it.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I sense danger in making this thread about Trump.
If you believe he's changed a law, a new thread would be best.

are you not keeping up with the news about his changing the law concerning social media.
it could well affect forums though directed mainly at twitter, to stop them moderating his tweets.
he has already signed the order to start the process.
it is not make believe or fake news.

 

[Revoltingest]

are you not keeping up with the news about his changing the law concerning social media.
it could well affect forums though directed mainly at twitter, to stop them moderating his tweets.
he has already signed the order to start the process.
it is not make believe or fake news.

What law has changed?
If you know, that would be a great thread topic.
Be careful which threads you derail.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

What law has changed?
If you know, that would be a great thread topic.
Be careful which threads you derail.

This one Trump signs order targeting social media giants

It could affect all social media.

 

[Revoltingest]

This one Trump signs order targeting social media giants

It could affect all social media.

OK, not an actual law.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

OK, not an actual law.

not yet but he hopes to get it through the house?????

 

[Revoltingest]

not yet but he hopes to get it through the house?????

I wish Trump all the success he's entitled to on that.

 

[Harel13]

I'm not really sure at the moment. It might be a useful area on-site, but I have a feeling it could get really out of hand.