The way I read that thread, you called people who believe in ID naive and sheeple. I happen to agree with you, but it is still name-calling. You also did not address the OP directly - that is, you did not give any counter-argument. So I’m not sure what you are objecting to.
this person accues me of always resort to namecalling, which I find an unreasonable accusation.
I find what I say is well argumented and usually highly scientific, just that people without higher scientific understanding, won’t comprehend what I say nor mean.
to even start off a discussion post with such slander is off topic and without any value to the discussion itself.
further i would like this person to back up the accusations against me.
you guys blatantly turn your blind eye to this unreasonable act.
Dude - you name-called. No one has to “prove” that.
Okay, there’s that word “always”. Shall we survey every post you’ve ever made?
I happen to think that ID is ridiculous and that you are correct in your assessment of the court’s decision.
But you want a warning issued over “always”?
Can’t you both just get past this and get back to hatin’ on each other? There’s nothing juicier than an ID/Evo debate. I’m sure that the two of you will come up with much nastier things to say to each other if given the chance. Give that thread that chance at hellish life, Hex.
You owe it to ILP.
Of course. I was merely pointing out that Lell was not slandering.
HH, I think that under some construction of the rule you’re citing, the quote in question can be seen as warning worthy, but I don’t think that it’s a good idea for us to enforce the rule in the way you’re recommending.
The intent behind all site rules is to create an environment in which people can best discuss philosophy. While blatant trolling, flaming, and off-topic posting disrupt that environment, enforcing the rule against small infractions has a chilling effect, and does more to erode the environment we’re after than it does to encourage it.
Sometimes, people do call names and lack substance in their arguments, and to some extent the allegation is subjective. If we prevented people for saying so, we would prevent legitimate responses to some arguments. Augmenting the claim with always makes it slightly more troll-y, but you’d have to take it literally to consider it ad hom; no one things that the poster is actually saying that you’ve been doing nothing but calling names since the beginning of time.
The rules should be interpreted in light of the forum philosophy, and in that light they don’t recommend actions in this case.
I find satisfactory in that you actually adress the problem at hand, instead of dogeing it and look the other way.
Further your explenation of the situation is rational and reasonable, I didn’t nessesarily look for punishment, but neither that it went unoticed by, neglected and rideculed by mods as in this thread.
At the same time I would adress a critique of your mods, telling me that I am the one who is wrong. Hopefully they will be reprimanded, but that’s just wishful thinking.
There are many reasons why to come here, if you like people to tell you that your are wrong, then so be it, that’s your thing.
MagsJ
(..a chic geek -all thoughts are my own-)
18
There is too much ‘going off-topic/attacking the poster and not the post’ going on lately - debate is not to be taken personally, but I fear that many here are… if you can’t stand the debating-heat stay out of the discussion people.