ISTM that, for the good of the board and the benefit of all those looking for thoughtful discussion, “the truth” of whether I personally “have a system of morality” vs “a bunch of unexamined responses to things you find unpleasant”, whether I, personally, am the reason “why we need laws”, and whether I, personally have a “childish desire for vengeance against people who did nothing but protect themselves”, ought to be discussed in The Pit rather than GD.
As we’re not going to draw up a list of bright lines, that is why we have moderators. Best to avoid commenting about posters in a negative way, no matter how truthful you think it is. (Outside the pit of course).
Also you seem to confuse Fact with Opinion. Truth with Conjecture.
It wasn’t about being “too emotional”, it was about being emotional rather than rational. That’s an observation that can be made quite easily when someone makes it clear that they are doing so, and in a debate where rationality matters (that is, any debate) then it should be acceptable to point that out, so as to discredit the position of the person arguing from emotion.
Well, someone certainly is. I’m far from convinced it’s me, though.
Well, then, certainly “stupid” should be allowed. It’s an observation that can be made quite easily when someone makes it clear that they are, and in a debate where critical thinking matters (that is, any debate) then it should be acceptable to point out that a poster is not good at thinking critically, so as to discredit the position of the stupid person.
I’m not sure that “not good at thinking critically” is analagous to what I’m saying, choosing not to think critically would be more relevant. And that is certainly something that should be pointed out. There are plenty of cases where someone is failing to think critically but, in the course of a debate, can be helped to do so. It’s certainly happened to me before - and sometimes that’s been by noting that I’ve ignored the facts or been emotional.
I genuinely think that low quality debate about important issues, based on emotion and avoiding critical thinking, is damaging to this board, and is behind serious problems in multiple societies - the election and continued support for Donald Trump being one of the most obvious examples, and Brexit in my country. A board like this should, in my opinion, make a strong stand against that, and not accept it from one side.
All of them, in a debate thread? “You’re being emotional”, “you’re being irrational”, etc. – none of those address the point that the poster made in the post. Address the issue in the post, not the person who made the post.
If a statement is true, can it still be an insult? - seems like a good IMHO topic.
Should truth be a defense to the rule against personal attacks? - seems like a distinct ATMB topic, since you already admitted your post included “unnecessarily judgmental” language, and even apologized.
Oh, so they don’t have to be mere “observations,” as you originally stated. They also have to be true (in your opinion, at least) AND they can’t be “value judgments.” Interesting how you keep narrowing the parameters.
You might want to be careful in excluding "value judgments."They can be implied as well as explicit, and what you seem to think are strictly factual statements obviously aren’t always generally accepted as such.
An observation is necessarily true - it may well not be complete, however. To go back to the example Rittersport used, saying someone is fat is an observation. Judging them from that without knowing their circumstances is not, neither is calling them a pig.