This is not a playground. In order to produce high quality philosophical discussions we expect the posts to contain a good level of courtesy and respect. If something has angered you, walk away from the computer and come back when you have a clear head. It helps no-one to start throwing insults around the place. This rule is two-fold: Do not use personal attacks to further your argument (argumentum ad hominem) and don't use insults at all.
So we have two rules, one rule is "do not use personal attacks to further your argument", this can be interpreted as the ad hominem fallacy, and an example would be "the only reason you think this way, is because you kill babies". As opposed to someone saying "you are an idiot" which does not further anyone's position and thus is not encompassed by this rule.
The second rule is "don't use insults at all", which encompasses personal attacks that are not ad hominem, such as the example above of "you are an idiot". I would like to point out that this rule does not say "don't use personal insults at all", and so it must also include broad sweeping insults against groups of people. Such as "the left wing democRAT surrender monkeys can keep their fucking heads in the sand. it makes their asses easier targets. "
My question is if the second rule implies that sweeping generalizations and attacks against groups are not allowed.
I realize that certain philosophies come into opposition to each other, and what may be seen as an unfounded attack is actually the system of a well established philosopher, I have no question about such circumstances. My question is with obviously inflaming remarks that are not part of a larger philosophical discussion, but work only to degrade discussion. I also trust that moderators are well informed on the works of the major philosophers and are thus capable of making such a distinction, the question is, is such a distinction implied in the rules of the forum.
If it is not, I request that the forum rules are reworked to something like "wide sweeping generalizations as well as attacks against entire groups of people are allowed, however, saying anything bad about a single person who is a member of this forum is not allowed". "We realize that universal elimination means that wide sweeping attacks logically entail personal attacks, but we have decided to ignore this."
I also ask, that if this rule is ambiguous thus entailing that wide sweeping inflaming attacks are allowed, that until such a clarification occurs, members who interpret this rule as I have, be immune from reprimand for breaking "no personal attacks" when responding to a moderator who repeatedly breaks the rule interpreted literally as "no insults at all".
I dislike having to make this post more than any of you can know, but recent events require that the issue is officially cleared, because as the rules stand now, one experiences hypocrisy from moderators.