Let me get this straight.
If I say, “You are lying about your source.”
That’s verboten.
But, if I say, “I doubt the source you posted and the content is verifiable,”
or “The source you posted sounds like unadulterated sewer water,”
That’s ok.
I can’t say, “You are going to hell, are a sinner,” or otherwise impute one of the seven big sins to the person’s character.
But I can say, “Has it ever occurred to you that all Southern Baptists are gluttons because all of them are at least 70 pounds overweight?”
or,
“All Pentecostals who believe in demons pretending to be angels and elaborating tales of gross science fiction are perverting Scripture and leading people to the pit of hell?”
~And I know that person is a Southern Baptist or a Pentecostal?
If this it? Seriously, I thought generalizations were the rule anyway.
I’m gettin there ~ so in 2698, the “ALL” would be verboten.
That leaves “SOME” or “MANY” and that would be verboten?
So, I reply to someone who posts something absurd, and say,
I think your beliefs are a perversion of Scripture and leading people to the pit of hell.
That article you posted is garbage from a garbage site of Krishna-loving dung beetles.
I don’t think we can expect too much reason. I don’t see how a rule can be crafted that will make personal comments impossible without making reasonable discourse also impossible.
I think we have to tolerate:
A) I’m a Catholic.
B) All Catholics are stupid preverted reprobates.
Or the RM ends up having to make too many judgment calls.
The use of “I statements,” while usually a good idea, is not going to be effective. “I think you’re a moron,” is technically an “I statement” but is about as personal as it gets.
“I think that’s a moronic argument,” is marginally better, but is so rarely followed by a good analysis of the argument that it’s not much less insulting.
I would tend to pull “I think you’re a moron,” and to tolerate “I think that’s a moronic argument.”
I think this may be a moronic post.