Do I understand right that saying “specific statement X is a lie” is not allowed while saying “specific statement X is a falsehood” is allowed? Assume cites are provided in both cases.
If so I don’t understand the point, the first dictionary definition of falsehood is “a lie” ?
While “lie” seems to be one of the definitions (or, at least, synonyms) of falsehood, the basic definition of falsehood is simply something that it not true. You can say something that isn’t true without telling a lie; it’s a matter of willfulness and intent.
Someone who repeats a piece of incorrect information believing it to be true might be telling a falsehood, but is not telling a lie; someone who repeats a piece of incorrect information knowing it to be false is telling a lie.
I know you can’t accuse someone of lying, but i’m pretty sure you can tell someone in GD that what they’re saying is incorrect. Whether you should go around using the term “falsehood” might be open to question, because while a falsehood might not necessarily be a lie, some people might still perceive it as an accusation of lying. If you believe a person is wrong, but don’t believe that he or she is being intentionally deceptive, why not just say, “I believe that what you have said is incorrect”?
Well, one is addressing whether the statement is true or false. When you start saying something is a lie, you are implying that the poster knows that the statement is false, and intends to mislead.
Seems to me that one is attacking the post, and the other is at least coming close to attacking the poster.
and…ninja’d
Well someone could be making misleading statements because of a personal / religious / political agenda. I don’t really agree that you should not be able to point out the ulterior motive that a poster might have for a position in Great Debates. Is there any acceptable way of doing that within the rules of GD?
I have always given it a two-pronged test. A poster is saying something is a lie when.
It short, crossing the line and personalizing the statement is always a mistake. Address the post, not the poster. It’s easy - especially given some of our more dug-in debaters - to allow personalities to come to the forefront of debate. It’s usually a bad idea, though.
For myself, I only learned that “falsehood” meant “lie” when a mod called me on it. I was drafting a snotty response, and I looked up the definition for “falsehood,” and sheepishly deleted my snotty response and instead apologized. I’d always thought that “falsehood” was simply a comment on the statement’s accuracy, with no opinion about deliberate dishonesty. We could use a noun that describes such a statement, but I don’t know of a good one.
I really don’t like to give safe harbors because they WILL be abused by our resident rules lawyers. But here are a few - bearing in mind that context is everything and these could still be actionable given the right circumstance - that might help.
“That turns out not to be the case.”
“I believe you are mistaken.”
“You’re wrong.”
Even “That’s not true” would be acceptable to me provided there’s nothing else in the post that can be interpreted as meaning it was intentional.
Think of it as an exercise in writing. And note, also, that my own rules may be different than Tom’s and I make no claims for him.
And, for the pedants among us:
Thesaurus for ‘mistaken’.
Which is much of the problem in GD - no one knows what tomndebb’s rules are, including tomndebb, and they change from thread to thread and week to week.
Regards,
Shodan
This is not the place for such, Shodan. You know that.
Where do you suggest - the Pit, or GD?
Regards,
Shodan
So to clarify, am I allowed to say to someone in GD “statement X is a blatant falsehood. Here is is the cites etc etc” ???
As mentioned above, ‘falsehood’ would trigger the ‘lie’ rule. So I’d suggest not doing so.
Warning. I told you to stop. You didn’t.
That’s an inappropriate warning. He stopped the behavior (jabbing at Tom) you told him to stop. Perhaps his comment was snarky, but it wasn’t a jab at Tom.
I get the reasoning behind the rule. I really do.
In practice, though, the rule doesn’t work as it’s intended to. It empowers the liars. It encourages the trolls. It gives rope to the bigots.
Isnt this the place to discuss moderator actions and isnt the topic openly discussed on the other board?
I agree.
Agreed.
(Though I’d go further and say that given the restriction on commenting on mod actions anywhere but ATMB, it is the place for it inasmuch as there’s any place for it.)
Shouldn’t you guys be in sync? You’re two separate people, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable for you to coordinate in broad strokes so that there is an element of consistency. I’m not saying there isn’t consistency, but when you express these reservations it’s like you are specifically calling out opportunities for inconsistency which I think is undesirable. It shouldn’t be JC’s rules and Tom’s rules, but rather, GD rules.