Nah, that would have been elucidator, by FinnAgain@39:
That nitpick aside, IMHO the ‘liar’ exception is a ridiculous one: it is an unnecessary exception to an otherwise consistent “attack the post, not the poster” rule in GD. It can be used, as many in this thread have already mentioned (and as it was by Finn), in instances where people come to honest but inconsistent interpretations of facts.
“Liar” should be reserved for when one believes someone else is deliberately and willfully fucking with the truth in GD. And we’ve got a forum - here, friends! Right here! - that’s tailor-made for taking matters to when one believes someone else is doing something that extreme. I really can’t see that anything beyond “that’s a falsehood” or “that statement is a lie” is necessary in GD.
The way I see it - “taking it to the Pit” is fine as a response to the actual liar, but does nothing to counter the lies within the flow of the debate. I don’t see how pointing out that someone is deliberately being untruthful is counter to the spirit of honest debate. In fact, I’d say it is almost essential to ensure honest debate. If I have to leave the debate forum in order to state something like that, then the entire process is kind of cut off at the knees. There have been posters who say they simply won’t go into the Pit, or won’t participate in pittings of themselves, plus some people are just not interested in following links. I think banning “liar” will only favour the liars - anyone who misuses the accusation in GD will find themselves here (and have in the past ) - just as surely as someone who constantly tells untruths in GD, and with as much justification.
Leaving it as permitted, I think, makes less work for the Mods, while still retaining the self-policing function of recourse to the Pit that advocates of banning the term cite, only on a different side of the use of the term.
It is a reference to the size of your balls. They’re so big they drag the ground. You discern no need to empathize with what you call an “honor culture” and can’t understand why someone would mind being called a liar, but we are all expected to empathize with your obscure South African culture and refrain from using the H-word, lest you run screaming from the room to get your mommy to make us stop. I think that for you, the H-word that applies is “hypocrite”.
Man, you…really can’t let things go, can you? I won my case, that really rankles you, doesn’t it, chief? Which case, BTW, was entirely about Hottentot’s use in a username, so you can can the silly “H-word” crap.
I’m not expecting you to empathise with shit, I’m expecting you to follow the rules, as we all do. You don’t like that, get them changed. Good luck with arguing that you should be free to use racist language, though.
And if you can’t see the fundie-mental difference between a racist username and calling a liar a liar, well, can’t really help you there.
Even if you can’t say, “you are a liar,” you can say, “that is a lie,” or untruth or falsehood or whatever.
That’s what attacking the post, rather than the poster, lets you do: it allows you to counter the lies within the flow of the debate.
And it also demands specificity about what you’re claiming the lie is, which is a good thing. Calling someone a liar can be done in a sufficiently general way that it’s not clear what the supposed lie is. Hell, by the board’s justification for the exception (one lie makes you a liar), it could be something from a thread back in 1999.
As others have said, there’s no difference between those first two. A liar is someone who lies. A lie is what liars tell.
As far as I’m concerned, calling someone a liar (with cites, naturelment) is attacking their posts. You’re attacking the factual basis.
I wouldn’t call someone a liar for saying one untrue thing. I’d call them that for an entire argument based on continuing to spread known untruths. And I’d point out what those untruths were while I called them that.
That’s not what I’m advocating at all. I respect the need for specificity.
I don’t buy that definition. To me, it’d have to be specified what the lie was, and for GD, it would have to be relevant to the discussion at hand, of course. So I think we are in agreement that as a general insult, it fits the “no insults in GD” mould, but unfortunately, it also has a more specific meaning that I’d be loathe to lose in GD.
The attitude you have displayed in this exchange is exactly what is being argued in this thread. Your assertion does not make it so.
There are many people for whom the declaration “You are a liar” is exactly equivalent to the staterment “This particular statement of yours was a lie.”
Others, however, would say that the declaration “You are a liar” indicates that the persion or poster addressed is a habitual liar whose word can never be trusted. It has a separate meaning and the point of this thread has been to discover which meaning should be employed when evaluating comments posted to the Great Debates Forum.
I should hope it doesn’t need explanation, but it seems it does - I was, of course, expressing my opinion on the matter, not a statement of fact. Since I came into this with a “Since this is also a poll, here’s my take”, I didn’t feel I needed to tak an “IMO” on each statement.
I understand that. I’m pointing out that I prefer the first formulation, and that I’d consider it a valid one if there are immediate references to why it is the case. I’m all in favour of not allowing it as a casual insult, and if you (Mods plural “you”) think that policing the difference is too much work, then I’ll take your word for it and reluctantly switch my vote to “ban it”.
Like I said already - Bullshit! And if this had been GD, this would be the perfect example of a good place to call you a liar, because you are posting the *same *untruth again, after irrefutable evidence was already posted to counter your last assertion. There are only two reasons for that - you didn’t see the first refutation (but you posted to that thread afterwards, so I doubt it) or you are willfully repeating something you know to be untrue. Makes you a liar, IMO. And no, it can’t just be that you disagree with my interpretation of my cite, because then you’d argue that rather than just make bald assertions and ignore the citation, as you have done.
Like I’ve said before, there’s *nothing *hypocritical about making distinctions between different classes of offensive words. Plus, I used the word because it seems to be offensive to you, in the correct forum for that offensiveness. That you don’t seem to recognise the difference between that and the Board-wide offensiveness of a username puzzles me. You’re not unintelligent, so I can only imagine it’s a manufactured offense directed against me specifically (since you sure seem to bring it up a lot) - in which case, I’m flattered and all, but really, get another hobby, motherfucker.
I agree. Far too often these days, if A disagrees with what B says, he will call B a liar. It seems to be the “thing to do”, and it is totally wrong. If A calls B a liar, A better be prepared to prove that 1) B said something incorrect and 2) did so knowingly and deliberately.
The reality is, most of us are going to take being called a liar even more personally than having an assertion of ours being called a lie. The thread that inspired this is a good example, I think. Once Finn started accusing people of lying, the thread quickly spun out of control. (I didn’t return to that thread because it was a trainwreck by early in the second page.)
I’m not saying you would. But other people can, and have. If all SDMB posters were peaceful, honest people who never behaved jerkishly, we wouldn’t need moderators, and we wouldn’t need rules.
I didn’t count, but it seems to me the overwhelmning sentiment in this thread is that it is NOT ok to call someone a liar in GD. So how long does this go on?
Gods (or the Mods) know. I say we put it to a straight up vote and let the chips fall where they may…but the Mods may want to wait for more input before making a final determination. They will probably also want to discuss this amongst themselves and perhaps with whatever greater powers there be for administrating this board.
Based on things so far it looks like the majority of posters are in the ‘no, shouldn’t be allowed’ category on this.
I understand that - but how often does that happen - I mean, the current rule’s been around for a while, and how often do accusations of lying spread out of control?
We *have *a rule - “don’t be a jerk” and we always have recourse to the Pit. Like I said, if the Mods feel the current setup is too much work, then I’ll reluctantly support banning the term. But if it’s just because people are thin-skinned enough that even backed-up, cited, unambiguously correct instances of the term (look at Lib for an easy example) are going to get their nose out of joint, I don’t know.
I kind of see it the same way I see the distinction between “no insulting posters” and “it’s OK to insult groups of people” - it’s a fine line sometimes, must make the mods work a little harder and all, but if I wasn’t free to state how I feel about US occupation forces on this board, even though some Dopers are in Iraq, I’m not sure I’d still be here. Obviously, I don’t feel as strongly about this issue, but it has a similar flavour - I feel like it’s limiting discourse for everyone because of the actions of some jerks. By all means, punish the jerks, but do you really need a rule to do it?
