I think this is a good idea

[Dill]

(06-29-2020, 11:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I already did change.  I posted it here in this very thread.  I editied a post to remove a pesonal attack against you.
And you immediately responded with another personal attack against me.
Are you saying that YOU don't have to change anuything about the way you post?  Why should I change if you refuse to?
I don't really understand what your point is.

Don't go there. Don't lower your standards because another poster won't raise his.

This isn't just an ethical recommendation. It is a practical one for anyone interested in making and following quality political arguments.

People who resort frequently to personal attacks* are usually more comfortable with that.  Every debate ends in a "tie" that way. 

But they are not comfortable if you don't take the bait and continue making rational arguments on topic. That requires more patience and skill. 

So the moment someone begins a personal attack against you is exactly the moment you don't want to return it in kind.

That's the moment the other guy has reached the limit of his ability to explain/defend claims, and senses things won't go his way if debaters stick to rational discussion kept on topic.  If you return a personal attack, that's his out. His input suddenly good as yours.

If enough posters on this MB recognized and agreed with these points, personal attacks would soon be a thing of the past. Personal attack is not the only means of deflecting arguments, but it is the most damaging to civil discourse and easiest to flag. No threads would be shut down. People might still leave if they could not effectively defend their political views, but that's not the same as being driven away because they could never sufficiently articulate them without drawing personal attacks.

*I am excluding here people who rarely engage in personal attack, but may do so if they suddenly feel, or are, attacked. In such cases it is a verbal "flee or fight" response.