I hope this thread’s ultimate effect is actually to legitimize the phrase “enthusiastic dickosaurus” in Great Debates.
Daniel
IMO the proper action is to entirely delete the GD forum. It’s very existence suggests that what is posted in there is something other (and more) than people’s opinions, which is entirely untrue. Virtually everything in there is a simple matter of opinion, and would more accurately be posted in IMHO.
Admittedly, the subject matter a bit more skewed to social, political and religious issues. Perhaps it would be more useful to have multiple opinion forums on politics or current events or the like. Like Cafe Society is supposed to be for the arts.
And, IMO, calling someone a Liar in any forum except the Pit is inappropriate. I’d rather allow creative and humerous ways to call someone an idiot, but that’s another thread.
Of course you’re right. I should’ve written that. Thanks.
I pretty much agree with Luc. Banning the word is pretty stupid because English is pretty rich with synonyms and synonymous phrases. On the other hand, there is nothing the least bit great about a debate in which one party is following another, nipping about the heels and screaming “Liar!”.
I don’t know why the simple boundary of ad hominem, applied in other cases, can’t apply here — a statement can be called a lie, but a poster cannot be called a liar. It has the advantage of reasonable consistency if nothing else, making for less to have to remember. I guess the argument about pretense could be made, that we are fooling only ourselves by pretending it means anything other than that the lying statement was typed by a liar, but again, not every false statement is a lie. And so a person can end up defending (or abandoning) a statement rather than his own honor. Liar precludes that.
Since this thread is evidently a poll…what Lib said.
I was surprised to hear Tom~ say that “liar” had been given a pass long before he became a mod. I’ve always assumed it was an insult.
And I’d also like to add that asking someone for a cite isn’t calling him a liar; it’s simply asking him where he got his information. If “Cite?” equalled “Liar!”, then the GQ mods would have burned out ages ago from the increased workload.
I also agree. But I wanted to keep this thread more general and not just a stealth re-hash of the GD thread we all know and loathe.
I would be more than happy to start or contribute to a Certain Poster is a Raging Dicklocodus With Delusions of Adequacy thread (sorry 'luc), but this is not that thread. I actually did hope we could stick to the more general issue. I can tell you how I really feel somewhere else.
I don’t really care all that much about banning particular words. I suppose we all just need to be more vigilant about not acting like that and reporting posts to mods when we see it rather than responding to them in kind.
I would like to see a firm ruling on this one way or the other. I don’t like this ‘case by case’ idea because it leaves to much room for interpretation and misunderstanding. If calling someone a liar is acceptable then it is…if not, then not. I don’t want to give the Mods MORE work while they try and parse out if in THIS instance calling someone a liar is ok, while in THAT one it’s not and they should issue a warning.
-XT
It can mean that, and since the Internet is a vast sea of different personalities posts are often not read the way they were intended, but many times when a reply is simply:
Cite?
It’s saying ‘bullshit’ with different letters. Not that I think that’s wrong mind you, simply pointing out members call eachother liars in many different ways all the time.
I take your point, but posting “Cite?” leaves open the possibility (however remote the cite-demander believes it to be) that the other person can come back with support for the challenged post. “Liar” leaves no such room for redemption.
I’m with Lib – “That’s a lie” gets under the radar, but “You’re a liar” is ad hominem and should be verboten in GD.
I think it goes back all the way to the days of DavidB, who was an extremely raucous and aggressive poster and happened also to be a mod. (**Gaudere ** was the other GD mod at the time.) I don’t remember any particulars about it, but I do remember often running headlong into his Button of Indignation. Especially around the time of the Up The Butt, Bob thread.
Since this is also a poll - I’m against banning the word in GD. There are times when it’s appropriate - the only time I called anyone that in GD certainly was. OTOH, I don’t find the word itself half as insulting as a lot of other people here seem to - must be another one of those “honour culture” things I skipped.
God, you’re a real ball-dragger.
Fair enough.
I’m w/you here as well. However, and if you’ll pardon my going back to the originating thread, I did find its usage there highly annoying. For it was simply a hollow “rebuttal” used over and over – along with the ever-present “,intellectually dishonest,” whatever the fuck that means – in lieu of any real counters.
Time and a place. That’s all.
Occam’s razor: the simple explanation (mistake, delusion or idiocy) of a clear untruth should be presumed unless the more complex explanation (intentional lying, with hutzpah given the venue’s ability to fact check and with the gusto required to face the firestorm) can be demonstrated.
Since it is tough to demonstrate intent, better debaters won’t go there, but will Cite and let the audience reach its own conclusion.
Love truth, but pardon error.
I don’t think it should be permissible to call a poster a liar or dishonest in GD.
It should be noted that this is far from the only problem with Middle East-related threads in GD, which commonly degenerate into name-calling. This happens because of several factors, including depth of convictions, simplistic good/bad assumptions, liberal use of straw men and occasional troll forays. No “sides” to this debate are immune.
I am far less willing than in the past to post in these looming train wrecks, but if I do it’ll be with the aim of being as factual and brief as possible, because I’m sure not about to change the minds of the habitual players.
– highlights mine.
With you all the way as far as this issue goes. The lines in the sand have long ago been drawn – and at this rather late time it appears pointless to get adherents of either side to cross same. I say, ‘pointless’, because that is exactly what it is. As a “habitual player,” you’re exactly right, I long ago made-up my mind about this whole madness – pre-invasion, mind you. And the facts, no matter the how much the ‘other side’ distorts them, continue to support said decision. Thus there’s in the absence of explosive new evidence little to nothing that will change my mind. Which I suspect is the same frame of mind that prevails on the other side – facts be dammed.
And no, while we might agree momentarily, you’ll get no Shodan-like groveling offer for a love child from me – as I thought I made it plain to John. I was simply taken aback by John’s reasoning, for without denying his obvious smarts, I was rather surprised by our apparent agreement on the whole of this particular issue, specially coming from some of our prior (I’d like to think, fairly civil though juxtaposed if not outright opposite POVs) exchanges. A first, really.
Having said that, I understood the jive you threw my way – it’s just that sometimes I’m too wordy. Like now more than likely. 
" I would have written you a shorter letter, but I didn’t have time."
- Mark Twain
yep.
I think a distinction should be drawn between calling someone a liar and identifying a lie they have told. This applies everywhere.
We’d find it close to impossible to find someone who has never, in their entire lives, told a single lie to anyone. So if we are strict about viewing “liar” as “one who lies”, then we are all liars. To my thinking, a liar is one who habitually, casually, and frequently lies. But people who are generally honest, have pretty decent ethics, and make the effort can and do tell the occasional lie, even funky self-serving ones. And it’s ok to say: “Hey, tha’ts a lie” without then identifying the person telling it as A Liar.
Some less negative illustrations of the concept:
Almost everyone writes. Does that make everyone a writer?
Most people cook sometimes. Are they all cooks?
Saying “You are…” vs. saying “You did…”: they are very different.
Therefore I think stating that someone has told a lie is fair and not insulting. Calling someone A Liar is a much larger assault on their general character, and should be confined to the pit.
I’m sorry, like “handstabber”, this is another Libism I’m going to need explained to me - is it a reference to dragging a ball-and-chain? Since I didn’t actually say who I was referencing (hint - it wasn’t you, Lib), I don’t really consider it a case of dragging out old shit. Or was this about the “honour society” comment? I don’t know - more explanation is needed.
As an aside, though, since you’re an unrepentant bullshit-and-run artist who doesn’t return to threads and acknowledge mistakes after being proved wrong with cites, I don’t exactly give your opinions on liars much weight, anyway. It’s not ad hominem if it’s true and on point.