Re: FROM THE LIST-OWNER - A warning

March 2, 2005

What exactly is a personal attack? Is it a personal attack to say something

like, " I see that you are a leftist, and therefore have no respect for

individual right " , etc. Or is it only a personal attack when you skip all of the

bullshit and just tell someone what you think?

At this point, I am so disgusted with the list, I am really beginning not to

care whether I am kicked off or not.

>

> I have just laboriously deleted an entire batch of messages containing

> personal attacks and curse words. Much as I hate ANY abridgement of free

> speech, I hope I got them all.

>

> Since it's apparently necessary, I'll formulate official list rules

> soon. In the mean time, be clear on this: NO PERSONAL ATTACKS ARE ALLOWED,

> and DECENT LANGUAGE IS REQUIRED. Any message backquoting personal attacks

> or unacceptable language will also be subject to deletion, and any member

> who cannot refrain from personal attacks will be subject to banning.

>

> I wish this sort of draconian measure weren't necessary, but as they say,

> it is what it is.

>

> -

>

> <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

> " http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

> FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> IMPORTANT ADDRESSES

> <UL>

> <LI><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

> NUTRITION</A> online</LI>

> <LI><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A> the entire message

archive

> with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL>

> <PRE><A

> HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A>

> Idol

> MODERATORS: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

March 2, 2005

> FROM THE LIST-OWNER - A warning

>

Any message backquoting personal attacks

>or unacceptable language will also be subject to deletion, and any member

>who cannot refrain from personal attacks will be subject to banning.

Just a thought, but you can also put offenders on moderation. More work for

you though.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

March 2, 2005

Suze-

>Just a thought, but you can also put offenders on moderation. More work for

>you though.

It is more work, but it's worth it. Good idea, and done.

-

March 2, 2005

Gene-

>What exactly is a personal attack? Is it a personal attack to say

>something like, " I see that you are a leftist, and therefore have no

>respect for individual right " , etc.

Yes. I certainly wasn't limiting my condemnation of personal attacks to

you. " You're a jerk " and all similar constructions are personal

attacks. " You have no respect for life " and all similar constructions are

personal attacks. This isn't rocket science.

>At this point, I am so disgusted with the list, I am really beginning not

>to care whether I am kicked off or not.

That's your choice, of course, but besides the fact that political

discussion is anything but the main purpose for this list, it seems to me

that you have unrealistic expectations for diet and nutrition. Good diet

and nutrition don't make you a better person -- regardless of any

reasonable definition of what a " better person " does. Any anthropological

examination of healthy native peoples will reveal that while their in-group

behavior was in some ways preferable to ours (depending on your values) it

had plenty of drawbacks from a modern perspective, and their out-group

conduct was generally very violent and often arbitrary. Good diet and

nutrition help give you energy, vigor and clarity of mind, but they're not

a magic cure-all nor a guarantee that people eating what you eat will think

the way you think. To expect otherwise is misguided.

-

March 2, 2005

>

> Gene-

>

> >What exactly is a personal attack? Is it a personal attack to say

> >something like, " I see that you are a leftist, and therefore have no

> >respect for individual right " , etc.

>

> Yes. I certainly wasn't limiting my condemnation of personal attacks to

> you. " You're a jerk " and all similar constructions are personal

> attacks. " You have no respect for life " and all similar constructions are

> personal attacks. This isn't rocket science.

>

Well, good. Thought I'd ask. The political discussion has made me rather

cranky... no, it isn't rocket science.

> >At this point, I am so disgusted with the list, I am really beginning not

> >to care whether I am kicked off or not.

>

> That's your choice, of course, but besides the fact that political

> discussion is anything but the main purpose for this list, it seems to me

> that you have unrealistic expectations for diet and nutrition. Good diet

> and nutrition don't make you a better person -- regardless of any

> reasonable definition of what a " better person " does. Any anthropological

> examination of healthy native peoples will reveal that while their in-group

> behavior was in some ways preferable to ours (depending on your values) it

> had plenty of drawbacks from a modern perspective, and their out-group

> conduct was generally very violent and often arbitrary. Good diet and

> nutrition help give you energy, vigor and clarity of mind, but they're not

> a magic cure-all nor a guarantee that people eating what you eat will think

> the way you think. To expect otherwise is misguided.

>

I didn't mean to imply that good diet and nutrition would make one a better

person. Don't think I did. Doesn't matter. Getting really sick of this whole

thing.

March 2, 2005

>Yes. I certainly wasn't limiting my condemnation of personal attacks to

>you. " You're a jerk " and all similar constructions are personal

>attacks. " You have no respect for life " and all similar constructions are

>personal attacks. This isn't rocket science.

>

No, it's not rocket science. However, some people may find that calling

an idea, behavior, attitude, suggestion, position, proposition, and the

like to be one step away from an attack. This came up for me recently,

and I find such arguments meritless. You yourself called an idea

" laughably absurd " recently. Does that make absurd for writing

it? I say no. Moreover, US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia just

today said (referring to some lawyer's argument about the Ten

Commandments posting), " That's idiotic. " Does this amount to government

ad hominem? No.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews & storyID=7788356

" Justice Antonin Scalia dismissed an argument that the Ten Commandments

provided the basis for the U.S. Declaration of Independence. " That's

idiotic, " he said. " You can't get the Declaration of Independence out of

the Ten Commandments. " "

I think I could safely call a Christian without it being an

attack, same as if I say someone is a liberal or conservative; but

perhaps even that is personalizing things. Maybe it's better to say

that these Christian, or conservative, or anarchist arguments fail

because of the following reasons. That way the person is not being

labeled, but ideas and arguments are.

Deanna

March 5, 2005

Deanna-

>No, it's not rocket science. However, some people may find that calling

>an idea, behavior, attitude, suggestion, position, proposition, and the

>like to be one step away from an attack. This came up for me recently,

>and I find such arguments meritless. You yourself called an idea

> " laughably absurd " recently. Does that make absurd for writing

>it? I say no. Moreover, US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia just

>today said (referring to some lawyer's argument about the Ten

>Commandments posting), " That's idiotic. " Does this amount to government

>ad hominem? No.

I agree, but I was talking about actual name-calling and the like.

>I think I could safely call a Christian without it being an

>attack, same as if I say someone is a liberal or conservative; but

>perhaps even that is personalizing things. Maybe it's better to say

>that these Christian, or conservative, or anarchist arguments fail

>because of the following reasons. That way the person is not being

>labeled, but ideas and arguments are.

Any reasoned argument is going to attack facts and logic, not identity. I

don't think anyone's telling , for example, that he's wrong because

he's a Christian, or that I'm wrong because I'm a whatever, or you're wrong

because you're a woman. But there is a difference between calling someone

a conservative, a libertarian, a propertarian, a Christian, etc., and

calling that person an " extremist " something-or-other. " Extremist " has no

real informational content of its own; it's an emotional label. And it's

been used by both sides, recently (if it's even reasonable to say there are

" sides " , and two of them, in this case).

So yes, some of the border questions can get tricky, but most of what

constitutes ad hominem attack is quite obvious.

-

Sign In

Re: FROM THE LIST-OWNER - A warning

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Activity