Hong Kong thread

This is not an attack or challenge of a ruling but a request for clarification, as I can be a big thicko sometimes, especially when in the moment.

Specifically, was my allegation that Sir P was an apologist for the Govt in Beijing out of order? I guess I thought it was plain from his posts and thus permissible.

I'm not after a change or anything just an insight into the hosts' thinking so I can feed it into my own.

Comments

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    edited October 11
    My admonition was because an argument which effectively boils down to ‘You would say that wouldn’t you because…’ falls foul of Commandment 3
    Attack the issue, not the person
    and is not conducive to good debate. It may not quite have moved to the personal insults stage, but if it hasn’t, then it’s very liable to lead that way.

    It implies that the person is arguing the way they are not because their argument or facts are compelling, but because they have some other prior commitment to the point of view they are advancing.

    ‘You would support the French because you work for the French Embassy’, or ‘You’re only criticising the French because you dislike your French brother-in-law’ are both equally ‘attack the person’ statements. Neither working for the French Embassy, nor having a French brother-in-law is an insult in itself, but the implication that my argument is motivated by one or other of those facts rather than by force of the evidence or the inherent merits of the argument does tend to suggest that I may be insincere.

    This has happened or has got close to happening more than once, and by more than one poster in the Hong Kong thread; hence the ‘general admonition’.
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Spoken like a true Purg host. :wink:
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    #hellhostburn
  • Thanks very much for clarifying BroJames. I suppose I kind of got it before, but I just wanted it to be crystal for future reference.
Sign In or Register to comment.