Jonathan - How is this over the line?

[Bone]

@Colibri

What “group” does “a crazy person muttering to himself on the bus” belong?

They belong to the group of persons or things that having a debate with would be unproductive. Also in this group would be people who are comatose, those that don’t communicate in the same language, those that are sleeping, and inanimate objects (not a complete list). I illustrated this with my dishtowel example.

In your post, you compared Elvis, by name, to a crazy person.

No I did not. If I did, it would take the form of Elvis is like X. But that’s not what I did. I focused on the results of the discussion, not the poster I’d be having that discussion with. I hope the difference is clear. A less concise way to phrase the same idea would be to say that discussion with Elvis would be unproductive. Other things that would be unproductive could include X, Y, and Z. Just as I choose not to engage in X, Y, and Z, I choose not to engage in discussion with Elvis. No where am I stating that Elvis is X, Y, or Z.

@IvoryTowerDenizen

Yes. You called out Elvis specifically. You said you wouldn’t debate with people like him (the poster) because people like him are crazy.

No, that’s an inaccurate summation. See above response to Colibri where I illustrate the difference.

@Ethilrist

You called him a hoplophobe …

No. If I did, it would take the form of, “Elvis is a hoplophobe”. But that’s not what I did. I commented that discussion with Elvis, and separately discussion with other hoplophobes (in general) were not productive. They are the same idea joined in a single sentence but that statement does not call Elvis a hoplophobe directly.

… and said his opinions are like lint.

Yes. This seems perfectly acceptable to target his or anyone’s opinions without reservation.

As Czarcasm pointed out, the first is a direct insult and, unless you enjoy making your own emergency fire-starters or paper, so is the second.

It’s a label to describe in general a group of people. You may construe it as an insult but it doesn’t have to be, merely a convenient shorthand description. **BobLibDem **embraces the term proudly.

@Darth_Panda

Was your intent to actually not insult him in any way? I doubt it.

The intent was to disregard his [Elvis] ideas and opinions, not to insult.

If the mod action was as a result of giving the impression that something was insulting then that’s subjective and I could get behind that. Of course I think that does not create a bright line distinction as we have appeared to have in the past, when the rule was to attack the argument and not the poster.

Consider:
A. “You are worthless and shitty”
B. “You’re arguments are worthless and shitty”

My understanding is that A is verboten and B is permissable. Is B still okay?

[Jonathan_Chance]

Enough.

It has been made clear to you, Bone, the distinction. You appear to be choosing to be obtuse. This is not the behavior of one arguing in good faith. That is something that should play no part in Great Debates.

There will be no more discussion from me other than to say that if you do so again in any way in Great Debates it will go poorly for you. The BBQ Pit is there for a reason. Please use it or not, as you see fit.