Uh, no. Humans being the fallible creatures we all are, some observations are patently false–not merely incomplete, but false.
You may make observations about a post, or a particular argument used.
While it can advance a discussion to separate which parts of an argument are based directly feelings and which are logically derived from other things (which are likely based on value judgements which are, themselves, rooted in feelings) it does not advance a discussion to say, “you are being emotional.”
In contrast, it might advance a discussion to make a more nuanced and specific claim like, “this may feel wrong to you, but if you look at the logical implications of not-this it produces results that are even worse, such as…”
Is this one of those situations where saying it more like this would be acceptable?
No, your posts don’t show a system of morality, they show a bunch of unexamined responses to things you find unpleasant. Posts like this show why we need laws, and why it’s so vital to apply them correctly despite the fact that it leaves some people unhappy.
I think that it’s clear how the Mods are going to handle this and that most people agree with this and that the rules don’t need clarification. Just don’t do that shit anymore, Steophan
That sort of post is generally okay, yes.
I think it’s clear to most posters, but i don’t know whether Steophan has gotten the clarity he needs. @Steophan , if you aren’t clear on what’s allowed, i do recommend you just avoid commenting about other posters entirely.
One discredits the position of a debate opponent by discrediting their position, not by denigrating the purported mindset from which they express that position.
Ad hominem is not a valid debate tactic in the Great Debates forum. As much as it seems to be the stock-in-trade in the debased discourse misscalled “debate” out there in the online and media world, here it’s actionable poor form.
I know I’m in the minority on this, but I don’t really see a difference between calling me stupid or calling my posts stupid. However, this is a long standing and well known rule and it is not going to change. It’s a pretty simple rule to stay on the right side of and still get your point across.
I agree that it actually is a pretty fine line, a difference largely without a distinction. It’s even finer if one tries to rules-lawyer a difference between “that statement is a lie” and “you are a liar”. Since we have an explicit rule against accusations of lying, the two would usually be moderated the same (and likely draw a warning).
But the underlying point here is that one should generally feel free to refute any argument they don’t agree with, in any way they want, as long as they don’t personalize it by attacking the poster’s character or honesty or impute motivations to that poster. Sometimes that distinction, too, is a judgment call, but I think that view provides a bit more clarity than the simple “attack the post, not the poster” motto. It doesn’t seem that hard to me to just focus on the argument.
“That statement is a lie” is an attack on the poster. That’s clear cut to me. A lie requires intent to mislead.
“That statement is false” or “you’re wrong about that, here’s my cite” both attack the post, not the poster. They don’t imply that the speaker (or writer) is intentionally misleading, just misinformed.
This all doesn’t seem that difficult to me. If I’m not sure whether my post is attacking the post or the poster, I’ll reword it or dial it back to make sure I’m within the rules.
Simple and 100% accurate.
It’s not difficult, all you have to do is replace “you” with “your post” and it’s perfectly fine. As I said above, I don’t really see the difference, but the rule is entrenched and I don’t see it being changed. It’s also a well known rule and easy to skirt so I don’t see why people have a problem with it.
Most of us aren’t looking for ways to skirt it.
Depends on if you think there is a difference between attacking the post or the poster. I see no difference between the two. The line between calling me a liar or calling my post a lie is just a board accepted way of saying the same thing.
I would be surprised if the moderators see that line the way you do.
“Your repeating false information” is a way to say the content of a post is wrong without calling a poster a liar.
Just saying “your post is a lie” will almost always get modded (if seen or reported)
Of course they don’t, that’s why the rule is enforced. I have no problem with the rule, or following it. I just happen to think it’s a polite fiction.
I can say that someone’s post is incorrect without having to imply that they intentionally were giving false information.
Wouldn’t that depend on context? I couldn’t call it a lie if someone posted all Demoncrats are baby blood drinking pedophiles?