If you're unable to put up a falsifiable description of how to classify a random person as a charlatan or not, then its an attack. I shan't be holding my breath for such a description to appear....
First question: Yes. "Personal attack" does not mean "untrue."
Second question: Depends on context. If it's in response to a post on this forum, yes. In other circumstances, perhaps not.
I emphasize that this is my personal opinion and not said as anything relating to my moderator role.
Boy, you sure selectively edited that, didn't you?
How about the full quote? What were the seven words after "advantages" that you intentionally left out?
se
No, it doesn't. And in the absolute broadest sense, saying someone is a charlatan is a "personal attack." But just as "personal attack" does not always mean "untrue," neither is it always "inappropriate." Certainly it's inappropriate when used as an attempt to dismiss legitimate argument. But I have not used charlatan to do that and feel my use of the term has been appropriate.
se
Because you've already addressed that part - a definition of something means that all the parts have to be in place, for the thing to be actually so - you know, logic, and all that sort of rubbish ...
Reading se's rationalizations is entertaining for now, so signal, not merely noise....
Calling somebody a charlatan doesn't really advance the argument, but it does act as a placeholder for a more considered objection in the face of a blizzard of assertions characteristic of charlatanry.
I do appreciate se's determination not to be swamped by the sheer repetition of these determined cargo-cultists.
I do appreciate se's determination not to be swamped by the sheer repetition of these determined cargo-cultists.
When the name calling is over and tantrums subsided, we can ask and answer technical questions like adults.
THx-RNMarsh
- Status
- Not open for further replies.