NationStates Jolt Archive

I know reposts of a thread are usually wrong, but I have curiosity on the subject, and the thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389699) was closed before I was allowed to air it.

It's 'highly unclear' and decided on a case-by-case basis, there is no 'if you say X it is a flame and one step lower is not a flame' magic line. What is hugely offensive to one may be totally benign to another. Nevertheless, the use of 'idiot' in the post was apparently extremely mild, and as a general rule it's simply not a harsh enough insult to be worth slapping wrists over.
Thanks for replying to the thread, GMC. I respect the laws of the site, and I only wish to clarify how they are undersood. To be honest, this one kinda has me scratching my head, so I'd appreciate it if the mods could help out my understanding.

As an addition, you can call someone an idiot logically via the line of reasoning 'your arguments are idiotic / therefore you are an idiot.'
First, here is the usage of 'idiot':
The Merriam-Webster dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=idiot&x=0&y=0) notes the use of idiot as
1 usually offensive : a person affected with idiocy (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=idiocy)
2 : a foolish or stupid person
The Oxford dictionary (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/idiot?view=uk) notes the use of idiot as: idiot • noun 1 informal a stupid person. 2 Medicine, archaic a mentally handicapped person.

No one, besides Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston, know why they broke up. No one knows that Angelina Jolie was involved in the break up. What is important, is that Dakini asserted that Nihilistic Beginners is an idiot, a conclusion made not from Brad / Jennifer breakup, nor from any evidence from the thread. Therefore, Dakini's use of 'idiot' was nothing more than an ad hominem attack on Nihilistic Beginners.

/I can't believe I'm discussing the Brad / Jen break up ;)

No one, besides Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston, know why they broke up. No one knows that Angelina Jolie was involved in the break up. What is important, is that Dakini asserted that Nihilistic Beginners is an idiot, a conclusion made not from Brad / Jennifer breakup, nor from any evidence from the thread. Therefore, Dakini's use of 'idiot' was nothing more than an ad hominem attack on Nihilistic Beginners.

I was speaking in general terms on the second point [hence why I tagged it 'as an aside'] and not intending to refer in any way to the case at hand. The difference between 'idiot' as an ad hominem and a reasonable assertation is:

Ad Hominem: 'You are an idiot, therefore your arguments are wrong.'

Logical assertation: 'Your arguments are idiotic, therefore you are an idiot.'

It wasn't intended to refer to whether Nihilistic Beginners' statements or methods of presentation were right or wrong at all, merely to note in reply to the question

but how is calling another player an idiot acceptable?

That there can be cases where it is logically reasonable to make that statement.

Thanks for continuing the converation, GMC.

I do not doubt the fact that there are cases where someone can be logically called an idiot. However, Dakini failed in providing any form of evidence that his assersion that Nihilistic Beginners was an idiot. The term was applied to harass him, and not what he thought were his beliefs in the Jen / Brad situation.

It is way past my bedtime. Hasta Manana?

Rar. As noted, I wasn't specifically talking about that when I made the point that it can be valid to call someone an idiot; in the case of Dakini / Nihilistic Beginners the insult was uncalled for, but on the grand scale of Bad Shit 'idiot' is a very tame insult and not one I'm hugely enthusiasic about issuing decrees against.