What I see here is case where words were used that were received in a manner different than their intention. I think jonathan7's
post above is evidence of this. Some may have viewed the term "dishonest" as a the being the equivalent to "liar" and therefore an ad hominem. I believe Achilles
may have been using a short hand way of expressing disregard to illogical arguments that he believes are being presented as logic, or that arguer may not wish to acknowledge as illogical. In this sense, the term may not be intended as an ad hominem attack.
The problem here however is that Jae Onasi
did construe this as a personal attack. And now we have this thread to address the misunderstanding. This could've been handled within the Kavar's thread if either party would've taken steps to communicate their intended/perceived feelings over the issue. Achilles
, you could have expanded your reasoning for why you felt an presenting an argument in a certain was "intellectually dishonest" or pointed back to previous posts for clarification, or you could have gone out of your way a little to explain how you didn't intend this to be an ad hominem attack. Like Jae
, you could have questioned the reason for using such wording or explained why you felt the wording was personally aggressive.
In this matter, stoffe
, was responding to a reported post and took action to address the issue and call for ending hostilities (perceived or actual), which is precisely what a moderator should do. Following her post would've been a good time for clarifying the intent of "intellectually dishonesty" but I've already "woulda-coulda-shoulda" enough here.
It's worth remembering that the intended purpose of Kavar's Corner is to engage in friendly discussions. If all parties keep this in mind and try to maintain compassion towards each other without looking down on the other, I believe these issues will resolve themselves naturally without escalation.
As for the topic of this thread, the answer is yes. This is the right place.