Comment rules

Every post on Love of All Wisdom has a comments section which extends a welcome to all who wish to reply. I hope you will feel free to post and speak your mind; dialogue is an essential part of philosophy. There are just a few simple rules I ask you follow, in the interest of keeping the comments welcoming to everyone.

1. No personal attacks – aka no flaming, no trolling. As in many other moderated Internet fora, it is not acceptable to insult those with whom you are having a discussion. This includes insulting people by logical implication (such as telling a self-proclaimed atheist “Every atheist is an idiot”), and describing someone’s position in a way that implies an insult about the person holding it (such as calling the position “wicked” or “stupid”.) Criticize only the position, not the person, and do so in a way that does not imply criticism of the person. Repeat violators of this rule may be banned, though there will always be warning offered before it comes to that. I understand that conversations can get heated from time to time, and prefer just to remind participants to cool down.

2. Please post under a single user name, whether it’s your real name or an alias. (You’re welcome to start posting under a new name if you decide you didn’t like the old one; just announce that you are doing so.) Posting under multiple names creates the impression of ganging up.

3. No spam. You’re welcome to advertise books you’ve written related to the topic at hand or the like; but no unrelated unsolicited commercial comments. The vast majority of comments I delete are for this reason, but you shouldn’t worry too much about this rule: most spam comments come from automatic posting programs, or other people who’ve never read a word of the blog. If you’re actually taking the time to read this page and wonder whether this rule applies to you, the odds are that it doesn’t.

Happy commenting!

2 thoughts on “Comment rules”

  1. A doctor of philosophy once said to me in an email: “ad hominem is the most underated form of argument”. Isn’t there some merit in this?

Leave a Reply