How is that a lie, though? How do you know it's a bad faith argument? You know what bad faith means, right? That someone is not representing what they truly believe.
Again, you're shaming people that disagree with you.
> We should not misinterpret "be civil" as "don't use the word 'ass.'"
We also shouldn't misinterpret "be civil" as only allow certain sets of viewpoints to be conveyed.
How do you know anything? How do I know that you're talking about my comment and not, say, explaining the lifecycle of the sabre-toothed tiger? At some point you have to rely on individual understanding of language.
Should we allow all viewpoints to be conveyed? Should we allow the viewpoint that Hitler did nothing wrong? Or that your parents were chimpanzees? Or that you're a fuckhead? I don't see how "be civil" and "allow stating all viewpoints" can possibly be compatible.
I was talking about you being able to peer into someone's head and then label them mischievous and a liar. That's different from denying understanding of the semantics of language and how they apply to the real world.
> Should we allow all viewpoints to be conveyed? Should we allow the viewpoint that Hitler did nothing wrong? Or that your parents were chimpanzees? Or that you're a fuckhead? I don't see how "be civil" and "allow stating all viewpoints" can possibly be compatible.
If I express a viewpoint that has been proven wrong thousands of times, such as "Hitler did nothing wrong", I'm not seeking discussion, but rather seeking to annoy. That's obvious and not being civil.
If I hide insults in my argument, that's also not being civil.
However, if I express a controversial but novel opinion on a subject that is not closed, it shouldn't automatically be lumped into being the same as the first two categories.
Again, you're shaming people that disagree with you.
> We should not misinterpret "be civil" as "don't use the word 'ass.'"
We also shouldn't misinterpret "be civil" as only allow certain sets of viewpoints to be conveyed.