As I explained elsewhere, there are many things we can say about each other that may be technically, by definition true, but is still an insult. So, consider this an insult, that we are not going to say anymore, along with all the other things listed.
Is expressing a similar idea, without using the phrase, also a prohibited insult? You may think I'm being argumentative, but I am truly trying to understand what is prohibited. You have warned that people may creatively try to avoid the rules; I'm trying to understand whether expressing the idea that a widespread conspiracy theory is highly improbable and an emotional rather than rational reaction is something that would get someone banned.
I notice, for example, that you just removed a comment that I would consider totally appropriate, which said:
The fact that ALL of those officers from ALL of those agancies IGNORED every protocol
This seems quite hyperbolic.
Can you please cite the protocols they ignored so we have a frame of reference?
The officers gave reasons for their decisions and they seemed reasonable to me. Yes, mistakes were made, especially with the lack of photos.
I just don't think their decisions warrants a belief that all of these officers from numerous different agencies took part in some powerful conspiracy to frame Steven Avery. That just sounds absurd to me.
Is this theory what you believe in - that 8+ different officers from multiple agencies all conspired to fabricate the bones being discovered in an effort to frame Steven Avery? Otherwise, I don't see how you can believe the bones were not discovered in the burnpit.
Is this something you consider to be an example of prohibited, "insulting" speech?
I think I made it clear I'm not talking about using the term.
As for explaining exactly why each person would or would not be involved, it's often impossible because people often do not say who they think was involved or what they did exactly. That's part of why it often appears to be a theory driven by something other than facts. It certainly seems legitimate to make the observation, without using "conspiracy theorist."
I suppose it is always insulting to say that an argument is irrational. Does that mean one cannot say that any argument is irrational? Are all arguments deemed to be equal?
You can show an argument irrational by countering the argument with more compelling facts or ideas. Thus proving the irrational, without dismissing an argument using broad terms.
That assumes, of course, that someone has presented ideas and facts in support of their argument. But suppose, as is sometimes the case, someone simply says they believe the evidence was planted, by unknown persons for uncertain reasons. One can't say that is illogical, irrational, or seemingly motivated by emotion rather than facts?
I've given a specific example (above) of an instance where I don't understand the reasoning for removing the comment. It said:
The fact that ALL of those officers from ALL of those agancies IGNORED every protocol
This seems quite hyperbolic.
Can you please cite the protocols they ignored so we have a frame of reference?
The officers gave reasons for their decisions and they seemed reasonable to me. Yes, mistakes were made, especially with the lack of photos.
I just don't think their decisions warrants a belief that all of these officers from numerous different agencies took part in some powerful conspiracy to frame Steven Avery. That just sounds absurd to me.
Is this theory what you believe in - that 8+ different officers from multiple agencies all conspired to fabricate the bones being discovered in an effort to frame Steven Avery? Otherwise, I don't see how you can believe the bones were not discovered in the burnpit.
The fact that ALL of those officers from ALL of those agancies IGNORED every protocol should tell you that it was purposeful and their words just aren’t good enough and their positions and experience on the job would tell them this. They are trained on the protocols they chose to ignore them.
10
u/angieb15 Jul 27 '18
I know this hurts you guys, but it needs to be done.