Tips for 'intro' to link posts

If you're not sure how to go about following the guidelines in providing a thoughtful opinion, or a relevant statement/question about a link (article or audio/video) that you believe is worth sharing with the group, here are some tips.

 

First, ask yourself what your own view is of whatever your link is talking about. Do you like what it says, or dislike it, and why? Try writing a short statement on what you liked or disliked about whatever your link is saying, and why you liked or disliked it.

 

Second, ask yourself what you imagine members of the group might want to discuss about the link you want to share. What is your link saying that's worth discussing? Try writing a short statement about any key points you think the link makes, and why you think they are so important, or should be, to yourself and others.

 

Third, ask yourself if you have any views that could be added to whatever your link is talking about. For example, if you want to share an article that talks about specific economic causes of some event, maybe it occurs to you that there are some significant non-economic factors that the author didn't address. Try writing a short statement on any other relevant insights you have that could be added to whatever your link is saying.

 

Fourth, after considering and writing a short statement on
1) your own opinion of whatever the link is saying, why you liked or disliked it, and
2) what the key points are that you think others should notice and discuss about whatever your link is saying, and
3) whether there's anything else you might have to add that's significant to whatever the link is saying,
then 4) try writing a discussion-provoking question related to the key points, and/or your opinion and reasons for it, and/or any additional insights you might have on the topic

 

Of course, providing your thoughtful opinion, or a relevant statement or question about your link needn't involve ALL these things together, but if you're not sure how to go about providing such a thing with your link, following these steps should help.

 

As you can see, providing a thoughtful opinion, or a relevant statement/question about a link (article or audio/video) is all a matter of simply engaging the material for yourself before asking others to. It's like the golden rule.

 

 

 

 

Effective Discussion Principles

by T. Edward Damer, author of Attacking Faulty Reasoning

Edited by Shane Lems here: https://reformedreader.wordpress.com/2015/04/01/a-code-of-conduct-for-arguments-and-discussions/

 

1. The Fallibility Principle:
each participant in a discussion of a disputed issue should be willing to accept the fact that he or she is fallible, which means that one must acknowledge that he or she might not hold the most defensible position.

 

2. The Truth-Seeking Principle:
each participant should be committed to the task of earnestly searching for the truth or at least the most defensible position on the issue at stake. Therefore, one should be willing to seriously explore and examine other positions and look for insights in them.

 

3. The Clarity Principle:
the formulations of all arguments should be free of any kind of linguistic confusion and clearly separated from other positions and issues.

 

4. The Burden of Proof Principle:
the burden of proof for any position usually rests on the person who set forth the position. That person should provide an argument for his position.

 

5. The Charity Principle:
if a participant’s argument is reformulated by an opponent, it should be expressed in the strongest possible version that is consistent with the original intention of the arguer. The arguer should be given the benefit of the doubt in the restatements of their position.

 

6. The Structural Principle:
one who argues for or against a position should use an argument that meets the fundamental structural requirements of a well-formed argument.

 

7. The Relevance Principle:
one who presents a position should attempt to set forth only reasons that are directly related to the position.

 

8. The Acceptability Principle:
one who presents an argument should use reasons that are likely to be accepted by a rationally mature person and that meet standard criteria of acceptability.

 

9. The Sufficiency Principle:
one who presents an argument should attempt to provide reasons that are sufficient in kind, number, and weight to support the position.

 

10. The Rebuttal Principle:
one who presents an argument should attempt to provide an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument and to the strongest arguments for viable alternative positions.

 

11. The Resolution Principle:
an issue should be considered resolved if the proponent for one of the alternative positions successfully defends that position by presenting a structurally sound argument that uses solid premises and grounds of support.

 

12. The Suspension of Judgment Principle:
if no position comes close to being successfully defended, or if two positions are defended equally, one should, in most cases, suspend judgment about the issue.

 

13. The Reconsideration Principle:
if a successful argument for a position is later found by any participant to be flawed in a way that raises new doubts, one is obligated to reopen the issue for further consideration.

 

 

Posting & Commenting Guidelines

(updated December 2020)

Read this document before posting or commenting.

This group is for thoughtful discussion and sharing information about a Reformed view of libertarian politics and free market economics, and their relation to a Reformed worldview, philosophy, theology, and other topics.
See here for more on Reformed libertarianism: https://reformedlibertarianism.blogspot.com/p/what-is-reformed-libertarianism.html

While primarily intended for those who are confessionally Reformed (affirming a historical Reformed confession, such as WCF, BC, 2HC, LBC, SD, or others) and libertarian (affirming self-ownership and the non-aggression principle), those who are interested in learning more about Reformed libertarianism are also welcome.
If you're committed to this group's stated purpose (above), then this group is for you.
See here for more on general libertarianism: https://mises.org/library/what-libertarianism

To facilitate the stated purpose of the group:

1. Before you ask a question:
check the group search function to see how it may have been asked and answered already.

2. Keep it grown-up, friendly, and Christian.
No personal insults of any kind are permitted. Disagreement and counter-argument must be expressed Christianly and politely. Communicate only in a way that builds-up those you address. No profanity or vulgarity. No libel/slander.
See here for info on effective discussion: https://reformedlibertarianism.blogspot.com/2020/01/effective-discussion-principles.html.

3. Keep it relevant to our purpose.
When posting a link (article or audio/video) you must provide either your thoughtful opinion on the piece, or a statement/question about it relevant to Reformed libertarianism.
No 'bare' links.
No memes.
No spamming, trolling, ads, or mere 'joke' posts.
No 'hogging'; be selective and generally do not exceed one post per day.
See here for tips: https://reformedlibertarianism.blogspot.com/2020/01/tips-for-intro-to-link-posts.html

4. Keep it private.
No screenshots of group activity posted outside the group without the express permission of all parties involved.

5. We do not allow promotion of:
    a. views contrary to doctrines common to the Reformed confessions. (Also, no pictures of Jesus/God)
    b. views contrary to libertarianism and/or free market economics
    c. theonomy, theocracy, or establishmentarianism
    d. neonomianism, ‘New Perspective’, Federal Vision, or similar teachings rejected by confessional Reformed churches
    e. patriarchalism
(a man's headship extends beyond a husband in relation to his wife, and/or that leadership is restricted to males beyond church office, and/or a woman's or wife's role is exclusively domestic)
    f. feminism
(society is based on male oppression of females, and/or all sex/gender differences are illusory).

6. If there is a problem:
do not use Facebook’s “report” function. Instead, contact admins/mods by tagging one or more of them in a comment.
If a link you are sharing is “fact” checked, please edit the link by removing “http://www” and replacing “.” with [dot].

7. As a member of this group:
you agree to follow these guidelines.

The admins/mods seek to apply these guidelines consistently and reasonably to facilitate the purpose of the group.
Current admins are Peter Gay, David Andrew Gay, and Gregory Baus.
Current mods are Jeanne Nunnallee Rausch and Don Staley.