Re:Biomedical companies bleed 500k horseshoe crabs a year
by shortimer on Monday April 17, 2017 @01:56PM
(#14132980)
The guideline doesn't say "don't call people names"; they say "don't call names." Here's the text:
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Re:Biomedical companies bleed 500k horseshoe crabs a year
by Baeocystin on Monday April 17, 2017 @02:33PM
(#14133263)
That is my point of view as well. I changed it to your paraphrasing, though.
Re:Biomedical companies bleed 500k horseshoe crabs a year
by dang on Monday April 17, 2017 @02:40PM
(#14133303)
'Intellectually dishonest' is still name-calling in the sense of being a generic pejorative that adds no information. So it still breaks that guideline. As shortimer pointed out, it isn't about personal attacks. Personal attacks are certainly not ok here, but other things are not ok too.
The guideline contains practical advice for how to edit the name-calling out of these things: simply shorten them. In this case, "Comparing X to Y is intellectually dishonest [or asinine]" can be shortened to "X is not Y".
Re:Biomedical companies bleed 500k horseshoe crabs a year
by msandford on Monday April 17, 2017 @03:01PM
(#14133496)
Ah, that makes much more sense then! Thanks for the clarification.
Re:Biomedical companies bleed 500k horseshoe crabs a year
by Baeocystin on Monday April 17, 2017 @02:45PM
(#14133348)
Is there a rate limit on editing? I can no longer change my post, but I will keep this in mind.
[edit] - Appreciated.
"Comparing this to a minor inconvenience is intellectually dishonest" <- rough paraphrasing of the comment
vs
"I read what you wrote, you are intellectually dishonest" <- a true attack against a person
The comment may not have been terribly civil (and that's a good reason for criticism) but I honestly don't see it as name calling.