3RU7AL

I think you just restated the exact same thing I said, so I agree with you

ONLY YOUR OPPONENT CAN AWARD POINTS

It would not work, as easily exemplified with a question: In how many of your debates here did you or your opponent concede?

Plus, how many people who "spews off topic gibberish without addressing the topic" do you really expect to have such high integrity?

What you do not wish done to you, do not do to others.

People are weird about what they want done to themselves, so this would not quite work.

The contentious definition here is derogatory. Taken at the broadest of face values, any critical statement about a person would be a personal attack. Yet the CoC also limits what constitutes a personal attack:

"A personal attack is not anything directed at a person that they find to be unfavorable. Such a definition would stifle exchange and debate."

Taking the definition of derogatory at its broadest interpretation is just that and would stifle exchange and debate.

By the terms set in the CoC, this broad brush interpretation is not appropriate.

Furthermore it is not required that an "Ad hominem" be offensive, insulting, critical, or disrespectful. It is simply an illogical connection between a person's character and their argument.

Derogatory - showing a critical or disrespectful attitude

Nothing about the statement:

"You've only ever lived in the city, so your arguments about farming are invalid" meets any of those definitions.

In fact, the trait identified by an ad hominem fallacy could very well be positive:

"You're always fit and healthy, so your advice about what to do when a person is sick isn't valid."

I hope this clears things up for you.

It is not impossible to communicate with someone who avoids all derogatory personal-attacks.

I agree, using a sensible interpretation of the word. But a sensible interpretation of the word does not necessarily include ad hominem statements.

I do it all the time, and I actually find it quite pleasant.

<br>

Liar.

A statement like, "You've only ever lived in the city, so your arguments about farming are invalid" is, by all rights, a "DEROGATORY remark aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse".

Incorrect.

My issue there needs to be a scale of what is considered severe and light personal attacks.

It also needs to depend on the scenario that occurs

e.g: Calling someone a dumb donkey in the middle of nowhere should not be treated equally than calling someone a flipping n-word homophobic word, or saying OK BOOMER!

There needs to be clear lines.

I don't want get punish eqaully for calling someone an idiot for making a bad argument vs someone getting the same time calling someone a fussy n-word

...as to make all communication impossible.

Insulting someone for mocking a serious mental illness deserves a flip you piece of schmidt because someone who does that is a piece of schmidt but yet you get banned for calling someone that when they insulted someone first. Bullhocky

I don't intend to argue to this level of semantics. My main point in my conversation with you is that "ad hominem" statements are not, and should not be, violations of the CoC.

If you are suggesting that critiquing people is against the CoC then I disagree that you are using the word "derogatory" in the manner intended by the CoC. Regardless, something like, "You've only ever lived in the city, so your arguments about farming are invalid" is an ad hominem.

It really isn't looking at some of the things that have been said overall and what actions have been done

Calling someone a "liar" is a DEROGATORY remark aimed at a site user, and is therefore verboten by the COC.

I disagree. Or at least it requires such a vague and broad use of the word "derogatory" as to make all communication impossible.

Is calling someone an idiot thought really a punishable. Maybe if it is repeat then you can soft warn, but still, this why we need to discuss this

Ad hominems are not required to be abusive or derogatory, merely a critique of the person, rather than their arguments.

Referring to the inaccuracy of a statement requires counter-factual evidence and even if inaccuracy is determined, whether or not the inaccurate statement was "knowingly false" (or not) is moot.

Incorrect. If you have lied, I am allowed to call you a liar.

Forum comments are subject to COC.

I don't dispute that. I'm simply noting that forum commenters are not required to focus on arguments to the exclusion of opinions, personality, habits, or identities.

A personal attack is only against the CoC if it is a personal attack as defined by the CoC.

IMO the COC should start with the golden rule (perhaps under slightly different wording),

Another special case I believe would be warranted is No Contest debates. When someone spews off topic gibberish without addressing the topic but doesn't technically forfeit, I see no benefit in demanding voters put in significantly greater effort than the losing debater.

So how can you call it good if good lacks an identity?

As I said, why would or should I believe you?

You are the blind leading the blind.

You lack what is necessary to make sense of morality.

Your views are not logical and you are welcome to them.

Finally, I do not believe you live experiential (in practice) with what you state publically. 

I think you KNOW some things are definitely wrong and others are definitely good.

I hope you do. Thus, inconsistency is evident and I do not trust or believe inconsistent thinking.  

The same way a hurricane can destroy a house.

You assume there is no intent behind it or intent to put it into place or create the process of storms. 

Murder for fun is like a core value all cultures share for example. If murder does not serve a good purpose than cultures are typically against it.

I have not explicitly taken a position, but I think you have some confusion over what objectivity truly means. 

...how can something without intent or purpose do anything?

If it refers to the latter, how can something create itself?

My standard for evidence is what is true, reasonable, and logical to believe and know.

Citation please.  You appear to be making a distinction without a difference.

It's in the definition you cited.

This is a debate website.  Debaters should focus on the arguments as they are presented and not on your opinion of, or the personality of, or the habits or the identity of the individual making those arguments.

Forum comments aren't debates.

Citation please.  Calling someone a liar would seem to qualify as a "derogatory remark aimed at a site user or site users".

"a personal attack is any abusive or derogatory remark aimed at a site user or site users rather than the content of what those users say or espouse." [LINK]

I believe that calling someone a liar necessarily refers to the content of what they have said: specifically that said content is knowingly false.

Im fairly certain anyone who knows anything about me for longer than 4 minutes could probably interpret the sarcasm in the first half of that comment 

I think people who are easily confused about what ad hominem means should be eradicated from the planet or at the very least not allowed to reproduce.

We inherit that sinful nature.

An ad hominem isn't merely a personal attack. It is a specific kind of personal attack used to undermine a person's arguments. That is, a person's arguments are wrong because of some undesirable quality in the person.

Without the attempt at refutation of an argument, it doesn't amount to an ad hominem, nor would every kind of ad hominem involve a personal attack according to the CoC of this site.

For example, if I catch you in a lie, and then try to argue that because you've lied once, no one else should trust any future argument, that would be an ad hominem attack, but not a personal attack according to the CoC.

It is obviously objective and any moral principle can be boiled down to it's essence to show every single culture to ever exist shared that same principle

I think you just went off course.

The point is that, it isn't an insult to say deism is similar to atheism or proof that no gods exist.

I think you stated that it is functionally the same as atheism in order to feel good that you disproved god by noticing that. 

I would be willing to debate this topic with someone. I can see subjective or objective morality being a thing, based mostly on if God exists.

It doesn’t advance your ideas, nor does it attack mine. It doesn’t challenge any of the points made...

This is such a hilariously ridiculous set of rules. Like, arson, murder, jaywalking.

? You complain people can use any agenda and twisting of things beyond axioms to make something against the rules and then arbitrarily declare what I said as indirect OBJECTIVE AD HOMINEM AXIOMATIC ABUSE!!!!

Where do you draw the line between asking questions to poke holes for the sake of it and asking questions to actually help the site foster the best environment for the user based on the outcome of feedback on these CoC changes?

Sometimes RO's are a good thing depending on it, I lean lassiez fair, and have stated my lassiez fair policy, but I think RO's can be a good thing when it starts to derail threads

My main concern is that those who wish to abuse the rules, or simply have impossibly thin skin are likely to be able to exploit these rules to impose their will on others.

For example, if I am not a great debater, or I wish to game the system - I could demand that those I don’t like, or that I think could vote against me if I had a bad debate don’t vote on my debates. MAR did this a lot.

Likewise, someone with exceptionally thin skin who is unable to accept any criticism could very well use these rules to claim harassment in the most innocuous scenarios where other users are criticizing them, their actions or their positions.

Then, "goodness" has no identity. It can mean whatever you (or the social group) want it to mean.

If you are not sure then your statement itself fails to meet an objective standard in its own right. Why should I believe your opinion?

Ethical laws are subjective opinions of morality enforced by the will of those who have the means to do so unless there is an objective, unchanging, absolute, universal source and reference point to ground good and evil upon. 

So are you saying that 2+2=4 is not always true?

...then I will punish you until you see things my way (objective fact).

But there again, a subjective opinion can line up with what is actually the case --> thus objective fact.