-->
@Vader
I agree that the punishment should be different. But they are still both violations.
COC Revisions
Posts
Total:
171
-->
@3RU7AL
Calling someone a "liar" is a DEROGATORY remark aimed at a site user, and is therefore verboten by the COC.
I disagree. Or at least it requires such a vague and broad use of the word "derogatory" as to make all communication impossible.
-->
@drafterman
Is calling someone an idiot thought really a punishable. Maybe if it is repeat then you can soft warn, but still, this why we need to discuss this
-->
@drafterman
Ad hominems are not required to be abusive or derogatory, merely a critique of the person, rather than their arguments.
Can you provide even a single example of a "critique of the person" that is NOT derogatory?
And, even if there was such a thing, some perfectly neutral comment (aimed at site user and or site users) that had nothing to do with the actual claims (arguments) being espoused, wouldn't that comment be categorically OFF-TOPIC?
-->
@Vader
Is calling someone an idiot thought really a punishable. Maybe if it is repeat then you can soft warn, but still, this why we need to discuss this
Quoting from the site's current official COC,
"A personal attack is any abusive or DEROGATORY remark aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse. A personal attack may take any of several common forms, including but NOT LIMITED TO the following examples." [LINK]
ANY DEROGATORY REMARK. NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLES.
This seems quite comprehensive to me.
-->
@3RU7AL
It really isn't looking at some of the things that have been said overall and what actions have been done
-->
@3RU7AL
Can you provide even a single example of a "critique of the person" that is NOT derogatory?
If you are suggesting that critiquing people is against the CoC then I disagree that you are using the word "derogatory" in the manner intended by the CoC. Regardless, something like, "You've only ever lived in the city, so your arguments about farming are invalid" is an ad hominem.
And, even if there was such a thing, some perfectly neutral comment (aimed at site user and or site users) that had nothing to do with the actual claims (arguments) being espoused, wouldn't that comment be categorically OFF-TOPIC?
Depends on the conversation at hand, but it wouldn't be against the CoC.
-->
@Vader
I agree, I think the "Personal attacks" section should be done with and instead fall back to the harassment standard, keeping only the hate speech part.
-meI will intentionally be vague, because everything I say you will hypocritically portray as an 'attack on you' whereas your profile pic choices and active leading of gang bullying of me in the forums were legit abuse that would have psychologically broken a weaker individual.
Again. Another personal attack, unsubstantiated accusations and falsehoods.You’re not justifying your position, your not providing any detail; you are just doing what is called “poisoning the well”. Your not making your case, just saying bad things about the opposing party. Nothing you have said is true; and I will happily refer you to any of the threads or debates where the above were discussed - and you failed to defend your claims.
-irony
-->
@drafterman
Calling someone a "liar" is a DEROGATORY remark aimed at a site user, and is therefore verboten by the COC.I disagree. Or at least it requires such a vague and broad use of the word "derogatory" as to make all communication impossible.
Is it a verifiable FACT that someone is a LIAR? No, you would have to know for certain that someone INTENTIONALLY made an inaccurate statement and this is beyond your epistemological limits.
Is "liar" a complement? No, the term "liar" is generally considered derogatory. When you label someone a "liar" you are suggesting that nothing they have said in the past or in the future is trustworthy (trustworthy being a generally positive trait) and furthermore that nobody should even bother listening to them.
Is "liar" a neutral term? No, if you wanted to make a neutral statement you would say something like, "you appear to be mistaken" or "your statement appears to be inaccurate".
liar - a person who has lied or who lies repeatedly. prevaricator. beguiler, cheater, deceiver, trickster, slicker, cheat - someone who leads you to believe something that is not true. false witness, perjurer - a person who deliberately gives false testimony. fabricator, fibber, storyteller - someone who tells lies. [LINK]
Please provide your preferred definitions of the terms "liar" and "derogatory".
-->
@Vader
Please provide specific examples.It really isn't looking at some of the things that have been said overall and what actions have been done
Your statement appears to be an appeal to ignorance (bald assertion).
-->
@3RU7AL
Insulting someone for mocking a serious mental illness deserves a fuck you piece of shit because someone who does that is a piece of shit but yet you get banned for calling someone that when they insulted someone first. Bullcrap
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't intend to argue to this level of semantics. My main point in my conversation with you is that "ad hominem" statements are not, and should not be, violations of the CoC.
-->
@drafterman
A statement like, "You've only ever lived in the city, so your arguments about farming are invalid" is, by all rights, a "DEROGATORY remark aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse".If you are suggesting that critiquing people is against the CoC then I disagree that you are using the word "derogatory" in the manner intended by the CoC. Regardless, something like, "You've only ever lived in the city, so your arguments about farming are invalid" is an ad hominem.
It is also beyond your epistemological limits.
It is also an example of the broad-brush fallacy.
It is also an example of a bald-assertion.
It is also an example of a rush-to-disqualify.
It is a DEROGATORY remark that attempts to discredit or dismiss any and all arguments on the subject at hand by disqualifying the person (suggesting that they are untrustworthy on the subject at hand regardless of their presented arguments).
-->
@drafterman
By your own admission, an ad hominem is a sub-category of personal-attack which is quite broadly defined in the COC.I don't intend to argue to this level of semantics. My main point in my conversation with you is that "ad hominem" statements are not, and should not be, violations of the CoC.
If you refuse to make your definitions EXPLICIT, then it is impossible for you to make a sound logical argument.
-->
@3RU7AL
A statement like, "You've only ever lived in the city, so your arguments about farming are invalid" is, by all rights, a "DEROGATORY remark aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse".
Incorrect.
By your own admission, an ad hominem is a sub-category of personal-attack which is quite broadly defined in the COC.
Actually I have been quite explicit that the kind of "personal attack" that an ad hominem is is NOT the kind of "personal attack" as defined by the CoC. I have said so:
If you refuse to make your definitions EXPLICIT, then it is impossible for you to make a sound logical argument.
You are correct in that I have implicitly relied on a minimal amount of common sense in the interpretation of words. If you are ceding that you have none, and need things spelled out to you like a child, I shall do so:
The CoC defines a personal attack as:
"Rather, a personal attack is any abusive or derogatory remark aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse."
From here we can rely on dictionary definition of words:
Abusive - extremely offensive and insulting;
Derogatory - showing a critical or disrespectful attitude
The contentious definition here is derogatory. Taken at the broadest of face values, any critical statement about a person would be a personal attack. Yet the CoC also limits what constitutes a personal attack:
"A personal attack is not anything directed at a person that they find to be unfavorable. Such a definition would stifle exchange and debate."
Taking the definition of derogatory at its broadest interpretation is just that and would stifle exchange and debate. By the terms set in the CoC, this broad brush interpretation is not appropriate.
Furthermore it is not required that an "Ad hominem" be offensive, insulting, critical, or disrespectful. It is simply an illogical connection between a person's character and their argument. Nothing about the statement:
"You've only ever lived in the city, so your arguments about farming are invalid" meets any of those definitions.
In fact, the trait identified by an ad hominem fallacy could very well be positive:
"You're always fit and healthy, so your advice about what to do when a person is sick isn't valid."
I hope this clears things up for you.
-->
@Vader
Insulting someone for mocking a serious mental illness deserves a flip you piece of schmidt because someone who does that is a piece of schmidt but yet you get banned for calling someone that when they insulted someone first. Bullhocky
Flag them.
Or focus on their actual arguments, or ask them for evidence to support their claims (bald assertions).
Don't let them pull you down to their level.
By engaging insults with insults you are implicitly endorsing insults.
-->
@drafterman
It is not impossible to communicate with someone who avoids all derogatory personal-attacks....as to make all communication impossible.
I do it all the time, and I actually find it quite pleasant.
-->
@Vader
My issue there needs to be a scale of what is considered severe and light personal attacks.
Are you suggesting a purely subjective standard?
It also needs to depend on the scenario that occurs
Do you have any primary AXIOMS that might facilitate this proposal?
e.g: Calling someone a dumb donkey in the middle of nowhere should not be treated equally than calling someone a flipping n-word homophobic word, or saying OK BOOMER!
Is "ok boomer" a derogatory comment?
There needs to be clear lines.
I agree 100%.
I don't want get punish eqaully for calling someone an idiot for making a bad argument vs someone getting the same time calling someone a fussy n-word
Why can't you just tell them they've made a bad argument and explain exactly what logical errors they need to address in order to salvage it?
-->
@3RU7AL
It is not impossible to communicate with someone who avoids all derogatory personal-attacks.
I agree, using a sensible interpretation of the word. But a sensible interpretation of the word does not necessarily include ad hominem statements.
<br>I do it all the time, and I actually find it quite pleasant.
Liar.
-->
@drafterman
A statement like, "You've only ever lived in the city, so your arguments about farming are invalid" is, by all rights, a "DEROGATORY remark aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse".Incorrect.
Well it's not neutral and it's not a complement or an endorsement.
Pray tell, what, exactly such a comment is intended to produce, if not implicit invalidation of that person's arguments on the topic at hand by attacking them (and or their hypothetical credentials) personally (while ignoring their arguments wholesale).
-->
@drafterman
It is not impossible to communicate with someone who avoids all derogatory personal-attacks.I agree, using a sensible interpretation of the word. But a sensible interpretation of the word does not necessarily include ad hominem statements.I do it all the time, and I actually find it quite pleasant.<br>Liar.
Please be kind enough to support your claim with evidence.
-->
@3RU7AL
Well it's not neutral and it's not a complement or an endorsement.
Sure, it's neutral.
Pray tell, what, exactly such a comment is intended to produce, if not implicit invalidation of that person's arguments on the topic at hand by attacking them (and or their hypothetical credentials) personally (while ignoring their arguments wholesale).
And here you concede the point. An attack is a personal attack if it is directed at the person, rather than their arguments.
An ad hominem, taken as a whole, is directed at a person's arguments, it just happens to also contain a reference (an illogical one) to their person.
It is essentially saying:
"Your argument is wrong because of X."
It is a statement about their argument. That X is an illogical reference to their person is what makes it the logical fallacy of ad hominem.
That it is ultimately a statement about their argument, and since there is no requirement that X be derogatory, means that ad hominems are not forbidden by the CoC.
@RM
Awesome. So as you won’t defend anything, I’ll have to presume you are conceding your arguments have no merit.
I will politely ask that as this is a debate website, not an accusation website - you should stop making up nonsense accusations of you are unwilling to defend them.
So, as I said before: these rules should prevent people making explicit call outs and abuse via profile picture, but won’t not prevent relevant satire directly aimed directly at others toxic behaviour.
The more stringent aspects should be issued as guidelines, not upheld rules due to the likelihood that individual members will pretend to be upset by legitimate and reasonable discourse in order to shield themselves from criticism that they cannot address with intelligent discussion.
-->
@3RU7AL
People are weird about what they want done to themselves, so this would not quite work.What you do not wish done to you, do not do to others.
ONLY YOUR OPPONENT CAN AWARD POINTS
It would not work, as easily exemplified with a question: In how many of your debates here did you or your opponent concede?
Plus, how many people who "spews off topic gibberish without addressing the topic" do you really expect to have such high integrity?
-->
@drafterman
The contentious definition here is derogatory. Taken at the broadest of face values, any critical statement about a person would be a personal attack. Yet the CoC also limits what constitutes a personal attack:
The key phrase here is, "any critical statement about a person". This is the core of "identity politics". When speaking logically, it is crucial to focus on the text of the discussion and avoid commenting on the identity of the individual making the claims. Your identity cannot validate or invalidate the logic of your claims.
"A personal attack is not anything directed at a person that they find to be unfavorable. Such a definition would stifle exchange and debate."
I agree 100%.
For example, If I refuse to capitalize the word "gods" or refer to certain ideas as "hypothetical" or "imaginary" people quite often take personal offense.
The fact that some people "take offense" at my choice of terminology does not automatically make my statements or my use of certain terms "a personal attack".
HOWeVEr, according to the OP here, "if someone makes a reasonable request, please comply" would suggest that if someone insisted that I capitalize the word "gods" and I continued to refer to the term in lowercase, then I might be considered in violation of such a proposed rule.
Taking the definition of derogatory at its broadest interpretation is just that and would stifle exchange and debate.
This statement is a bald assertion and a statement of pure opinion AND NOT AN ACTIONABLE RULE.
By the terms set in the CoC, this broad brush interpretation is not appropriate.
It would seem to me that the intent is to avoid situations where one speaker dismantles an argument, without commenting on the person themselves, like perhaps if someone pointed out that there is absolutely no logical connection whatsoever between any hypothetical gods and the concept of "objective morality" and then that person, presumably religious, in response, claimed that the person presenting such an argument was being intentionally insulting and reported the interaction as harassment and or some sort of personal attack.
Furthermore it is not required that an "Ad hominem" be offensive, insulting, critical, or disrespectful. It is simply an illogical connection between a person's character and their argument.
I agree. I often find replies to my comments riddled with ad hominem attacks, and I don't find them even slightly offensive.
But they do qualify as technically DEROGATORY.
And I'm basing this on your own quoted definition.
Derogatory - showing a critical or disrespectful attitude
You've made an excellent choice of words in this case.
Nothing about the statement:"You've only ever lived in the city, so your arguments about farming are invalid" meets any of those definitions.
It seems to meet this one,
Derogatory - showing a critical or disrespectful attitude
It is critical because it attempts to dismiss their presented arguments out-of-hand.
It is disrespectful because it attempts to paint the individual as unreliable and or disingenuous.
In fact, the trait identified by an ad hominem fallacy could very well be positive:"You're always fit and healthy, so your advice about what to do when a person is sick isn't valid."
It's still, Derogatory - showing a critical or disrespectful attitude, because it is a statement clearly intended to disqualify arguments by sniping the individual speaker personally, and furthermore it is beyond the accuser's epistemological limits, making it a bald assertion.
I hope this clears things up for you.
I appreciate your graciousness and civility.
-->
@Barney
What you do not wish done to you, do not do to others.People are weird about what they want done to themselves, so this would not quite work.
I agree, which is precisely why the golden rule ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you") is so obviously problematic.
The silver rule is a much more comprehensive guideline.
-->
@3RU7AL
Everything above the cut was off topic.
Nothing about the statement:"You've only ever lived in the city, so your arguments about farming are invalid" meets any of those definitions.It seems to meet this one,Derogatory - showing a critical or disrespectful attitudeIt is critical because it attempts to dismiss their presented arguments out-of-hand.
Critical statements about arguments are not forbidden.
It is disrespectful because it attempts to paint the individual as unreliable and or disingenuous.
Incorrect.
In fact, the trait identified by an ad hominem fallacy could very well be positive:"You're always fit and healthy, so your advice about what to do when a person is sick isn't valid."It's still, Derogatory - showing a critical or disrespectful attitude, because it is a statement clearly intended to disqualify arguments by sniping the individual speaker personally, and furthermore it is beyond the accuser's epistemological limits, making it a bald assertion.
Irrelevant. Attacking people's arguments is allowed.
-->
@Barney
ONLY YOUR OPPONENT CAN AWARD POINTSIt would not work, as easily exemplified with a question: In how many of your debates here did you or your opponent concede?
There are a few cases where I've managed to convince my opponent with arguments, for example:
"Sorry for not having a counter-argument, but you've convinced me that you're right, so I guess you've won." [LINK]
And I myself have conceded in the face of a logically sound, well crafted statement.
Plus, how many people who "spews off topic gibberish without addressing the topic" do you really expect to have such high integrity?
Well, I think we should give people the option. It would, I believe, lead to much more productive and informative discussions.
I try to give people points in the informal (forum) debates by noting, "good point", or "excellent point".
If we were in a formal, self-moderated debate, they could tally up those points to determine the winner.