You just exemplified what you are saying. Instead of accusing, judging and spewing an insulting personal commentary, you expressed your own thoughts. There is a vast difference between “I think you’re wrong here”, and “As usual, you are wrong and nobody should listen to you”.
The first is honest and expresses your view. The second is insulting, and uncivil.
And it isn’t hard to grasp why. Statements that start with “I think” and then are followed by your thoughts, reasoning and views, are civil, even if somebody doesn’t agree with you, so what? It’s when you get on a high horse and speak down, or try to speak for everybody, that it comes across as insulting.
Even if “you” are 100% correct, you don’t have to be insulting to make your contribution.
I conceive of civility as a continuum. I can show the tradeoff with an admittedly extreme case: consider this letter from a well known inventor to a member of royalty written hundreds of years ago. It is highly polite, but requires some parsing to comprehend: [INDENT][INDENT] Having, most illustrious lord, seen and considered the experiments of all those who pose as masters in the art of inventing instruments of war, and finding that their inventions differ in no way from those in common use, I am emboldened, without prejudice to anyone, to solicit an appointment of acquainting your Excellency with certain of my secrets. [/INDENT][/INDENT] Flowery language lacks clarity. Perhaps a better example would be if somebody writes: “Your post is complete bullshit and here’s why”. That’s clear. It’s also uncivil and may or may not be moderated in GD.
That’s not the only tradeoff of course. Precision and clarity also conflict, since precision involves details that are sometimes extraneous to the main point. More deeply, we are social creatures so linking an idea with a person (eg a fellow poster) adds clarity to the discussion. And that implies that GD arguments inevitably get somewhat personal.
Admittedly, there are counterexamples. Bone himself typically combines clear language with unfailing politeness. So again, I’m hand-wringing a little.
John Mace: Thanks for your response. I have a better idea of the sort of civility bar you advocate.
FXmastermind: There are cases of non-fallacious ad hominem reasoning: they occur when it is necessary to assess the reliability of the source material, which in some cases involves the contentions of those with certain posting habits. A degree of incivility in this context can aid the fight against ignorance.
Of course one can use civil words and concepts, and be quite insulting, but it’s not a personal insult. It’s making it personal that seems to be the mark of a true jerk, who is more interested in the person, than the information, ideas, concepts and data under discussion.
For example, somebody may be wrong, and it becomes quite obvious. But to harp on this with out ceasing, attacking the person if you will, isn’t polite, or civil. The Pit is for the insipid obsession of casting aspersions and venting one’s spleen, if you will.
Respecting the boundaries of Great Debates or whatever other forum that has different rules, requires a lawyers finesse, and a great deal of restraint.
That’s a pretty indefensible view though, unless you stretch the idea of “ignorant” in weird directions.
I was just annoyed that Tamerlane brought up Ralph’s post in defense of bringing something up. My comment was merely meant as “seriously? His post was worse than useless” which I would certainly still stand by.
In the actual world at large, it’s rare to find an educated and effective person who would spew insults and gutter talk as a response to a subject like we find in Great debates. Much less turn a discussion of worldly matters of some import into a pissing match, laced with foul mouthed language and personal insults. It’s just not done.
Not by anyone who wants to be viewed seriously, or who actually cares to influence others, if even in a small way.
Civility and respect are the hallmarks of an educated person. In fact, learning not to lose your temper, swear like a sailor or be an insulting fuckbag would be some of the first lessons an educate person would have to master.
I personally don’t think you are saying anything insightful or useful here and I don’t think that, for myself, there is any benefit to continue communicating with you.
I have made the mistake of using “you” in the general sense of “anyone”, when I should have stated it as “If one is going to …”. Using “you” makes it personal,while using the all encompassing “one” allows opinions to be expressed with out seeming like it’s an insult.
Obviously avoiding names or the word “you” in general will give our posts a thin veneer of civility and polite conversation.
What you seem to miss here is the effort people are putting forth to learn the little nuances of the forum. Comments like they one you posted are not indicative of an understanding of what’s really happening in this thread.
One could say the same thing about your efforts. But simply saying something is just an opinion. If you want to persuade, it’s best to lay out your thoughts, and reasons, in order to explain why you have the opinion.
No, he wasn’t “mistaken”, nor was he lying, nor did I accuse him of such.
It may be instructive to look at the actual exchange from the link below.
The poster made the statement “And Kantian ethics permits retroactive abortion up to age 13”.
I said “I want to see a credible cite for that.”
Poster acknowledges that he doesn’t have a cite, but alleges that it follows from Kantian ethics. I argue that it doesn’t. Clearly this is the poster’s own interpretation, hence my observation that he “just made it up”. Which he freely acknowledges in so many words: “I made it up but I think it follows from what Kant said.”
The upshot here is that we’ve established that his view is his own interpretation and not something that can be cited from authority. Yes, “you made it up” is a blunt and direct way of saying that, but in this context that is what it says, and nothing more. In a completely different context such a phrase could be used to imply that someone is lying, sure. But not here. That’s why, as always, context is important.
This specific incident was no big deal and I only bring it up now as an example supporting my earlier concerns about blanket prohibitions on specific phrases because of what they might mean. I’m trying to promote reasonable use of language here, not trying to a jerk advocating the use of gratuitous insults.
Like “you’re right”, “you’re wrong”, “you have a point”, “you misunderstand me”? That doesn’t seem like a very practical rule, or one conducive to natural conversation.
Okay, thanks for the link. I could only base my original opinion on your description. I think it was fortunate that the other poster was gracious about it, but generally speaking, it’s best to avoid that type of blunt accusation, as you yourself admit in that thread:
That’s an overly literal interpretation of my point (see what I did there?).
I meant it as a guideline - a good habit to keep you focused on replying to the post instead of the poster. It’s practical in that it keeps you from getting mod notes and warnings, and it’s less likely to put the other poster on the defensive - which comes in handy when you’re trying to persuade someone to your point of view.
BTW, I’m not trying to be preachy here; it’s something I aspire to myself. I think practicing civil persuasive skills on the internet has real life benefits as well.