Civility Pledge

[LandoRamone30]

So there exist this man. He calls himself Daniel Fincke. He has a blog spot called camels with hammers (google search I find is the easiest way to get to it) I think he believes civil conduct is of value and important when people discuss topics and have debates. There is a pledge, a standard I think would be of benefit to this forum as well. Your thoughts please.

 

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2013/02/the-camels-with-hammers-civility-pledge/

[shirgall]

"1. I commit that I will engage in all public arguments with a sincere aim of mutual understanding, rather than only persuasion."

 

Erm. How about. "1. I will be clear and engaged."

 

"2. I commit that I will tolerate the existence of people with dissenting ethical, religious, or political views."

 

That's incredibly condescending, and conflicts with the next one.

 

"3. I commit that I will always focus first on the merits of other people’s arguments and not disparage them personally for asking unpleasant questions, taking unpleasant positions, or simply disagreeing with me."

 

What's wrong with "2 & 3. I will focus on the merits."

 

"4. When I feel it necessary to call out what I perceive to be the immoral behaviors or harmful attitudes of my interlocutors, I commit that I will do so only using specific charges, capable of substantiation, which they can contest with evidence and argumentation, at least in principle. I will not resort to merely abusive epithets and insult words (like “asshole” or “douchebag”) that hatefully convey fundamental disrespect, rather than criticize with moral precision."

 

Um, "4. I will be specific and cordial."

 

"5. I commit that I will go out of my way, if necessary, to remember that members of traditionally marginalized groups and victims of abuse have experiences that I may not have and which I may have to strain to properly weigh and appreciate."

 

So much for #3, apparently. Why not, "5. I will appreciate the different experience and culture of the other."

 

"6. I commit that I will not use any language that I know is offensive to either a subset of a marginalized group or to members of that group at large, for whatever reason."

 

See #4 and "cordial".

 

"7. I commit that I will not use any ableist language that disparages people over physical or mental limitations or illnesses."

 

See #4 and "cordial".

 

And on and on. TL; DR.

 

There is no merit to this pledge other than a roundabout way to come back to the basic rules of rhetorical debate.

 

Compare this pledge to the Covenant of Unanimous Consent: http://www.lneilsmith.org/new-cov.html

 

That's got some teeth to it.

[Justin K.]

I like shirgall's response. I also think people use religion frequently as a means of asking for tolerance while subscribing to a set of ideas that do not themselves foster tolerance.

 

As an animal advocate I hear frequently that my dissenting opinion is intolerant of others. To me this is as silly as saying that at freedomain radio, those people are just intolerant of the State and it's opinion that you should give it money or it's religious right to go to war.

I don't think all opinions or logic are equal. #2) sounds a lot like the wishy washy language of the past that places irrationality on the same plateau of rationality in the name of tolerance. We should at least hear everyone out though. Tolerate the existence of them? Sure. So long as by "tolerate" we do not mean that we don't criticize barbaric actions and real harm caused on their part by chalking it up to "cultural differences".

 

I didn't find much else wrong with it.

[LandoRamone30]

Thanks for your responses. I created a duplicate post unintentionally. I hope it is removed as I do not know how to remove it. I will look into your linked post shirgall

[J. D. Stembal]

Number two bothers me. What is a dissenting ethnicity? How does one tolerate a race? How does this work in practice?

 

Is this really a racial loophole for people to accuse others of being racist when they dare to claim that the Civil War had little to do with a public moral crusade to end slavery, and more do to with the Federal government forcing its will over the autonomy of the states?