[polemikos]

I have a question for you.

Some further clarifications would be appreciated. For example...

1 - Some in this forum make fun of the pope. Or they mock the pope. Or they ascribe to themselves pope-like attributes, I suppose in a lame attempt at humor. I find this highly offensive. But is it abuse? What if they do so on their profile page, but not in a particular thread?

2 - Offense by replication/omission. In a post, another Freeper calls the SBM an old C.S.-S.O.B. I reply that I don't think the SBM is that old. Is it abuse to quote the original offensive remark? Is it abuse to inadequately anathematize the offensive behavior?

3 - Someone makes an argument that is fallacious. Is it an offense to point out that the comment is fallacious? What if it is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, a well-known fallacy type? Is saying that an argument is an "Argument From Ignorance" too offensive?

4 - My tagline ascribes a bad result to a foundational aspect of Protestant theology. I believe it is fully, factually, and truthfully supportable. Is it offensive? Some would probably say yes. But is it an offense?

5 - Pulled punches - Lots of folks make offensive remarks and then use a smileyface or </sarcasm> tag to try and get it by. For example, "As a broad-church Anglican, you must love to use the back door ;-)" Is this an offense?

Enquiring minds want to know.

[Lead Moderator]

My stabs at answers.

1- Criticism of the Pope is allowed. When we get into humor, things get grayer. Some would see a piece of satire as offensive, others wouldn't. So there will be some discretion and case-by-case decision making that will occur. If someone is going out of their way to offend, that's crossing the line. That does mean that sometimes we are going to have to guess motives, and that also means sometimes we will guess wrong. But they will be educated guesses, and it is not the worst thing in the world to have an attempt at humor removed.

2- again, we'll have to take things on a case by case basis. I've said the following in other contexts, but really those who are in significant danger of getting into trouble for too often crossing the line are those who like to push the line.

3- Pointing out a fallacy is one of my favorite debate techniques. As for saying that something is an argument from ignorance, again I'll go back to my case-by-case handling stance, although I believe that in almost every case I can imagine where someone could throw out that the other's is an "Argument From Ignorance", it could be easily reworded to simply provide the cure for the ignorance.

4- Your tagline doesn't seem offensive to me, but it is not in English and if someone could convince me that I am missing something in the translation my answer could vary.

5- Sucker punching someone with a smile is still sucker punching someone.

[RnMomof7]

4 - My tagline ascribes a bad result to a foundational aspect of Protestant theology. I believe it is fully, factually, and truthfully supportable. Is it offensive? Some would probably say yes. But is it an offense?

Enquiring minds want to know.


299 posted on 01/23/2004 11:50:01 AM EST by polemikos (Sola Scriptura creats hereosis)



Your tag line is offensive as it mock Protestants and call then heretics .

Now in the past I would have looked and smiled and ignored..but no more ..who tight will the rules be? Well if they are tight you get a warning