Insulting Idioms/Loaded questions

fran17

Hello

I was recently involved in a debate where after repeated attempts to receive an answer to a question from another poster,which I felt was very relevant regarding the issue,i was replied to with the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?".This was something,as you can imagine,i took issue with so I followed the relevant course of action as we are encouraged to do in this forum.The poster was issued with a red card infraction by the category mod and on appeal in the dispute resolution forum the infraction was upheld by the mod there also after he received additional imput from a multiple of other AH mods.However it was overturned by the admin afterwards.
My questions are twofold,
Firstly I have no issue with the use of idioms per say,however,should the use of a loaded question/idiom which makes light or little of a particularly heinous act be allowed in this forum?
Secondly,If a category mod issues an infraction and this infraction is upheld on appeal by the appeals mod,after consultation with a multiple of other mods before passing judgement,then what information is available to the admin which the category mods and appeal mods do not possess?

P. Breathnach

The question "have you stopped beating your wife?" is a well-established rhetorical one and can serve a useful purpose when properly used.

I think it was properly used in the case to which you allude.

fran17

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The question "have you stopped beating your wife?" is a well-established rhetorical one and can serve a useful purpose when properly used.

I think it was properly used in the case to which you allude.

I don't think it was but hell we all differ and that's what makes things interesting here.But there is many words or phrases here regarding race,the travelling community etc.etc which will get you in bother rather quickly so who differentiates?I feel nobody can distinguish what is or is not insulting in such a matter.Would a victim of spousal abuse brush it off,no.

Dozen Wicked Words

I'd never heard of this and when I saw the thread it did look to me to be an insult. Idiom or not, I don't really think it's necessary and is inflammatory, admin felt otherwise it seems.

Cuban Pete

fran17 wrote: »

I was recently involved in a debate where after repeated attempts to receive an answer to a question from another poster,which I felt was very relevant regarding the issue

You were asking a leading question and when it became clear Links wasn't rising to your bait you tried restricting it to a yes/no answer to try and trap her. You got a taste of your own medicine and now you're annoyed she had her red card removed. That's it.

"Have you stopped beating your wife" is a common example used to explain loaded questions and I don't believe for one second you're at all concerned about anyone being insulted. This is just switching the tack of your objection from personal to general.

Pat Mustard

fran17 wrote: »

should the use of a loaded question/idiom which makes light or little of a particularly heinous act be allowed in this forum?

Insisting on a yes or no answer can be a loaded question; but you already knew that because the idiom was used to highlight the logical fallacy that you attempted to employ in the thread. It is hypocrisy to complain about an idiom which has been designed to expose loaded questions, when you were asking those loaded questions yourself in the first place.

It's like turning out the lights and then complaining about the darkness.

EDIT: I saw this quote and thought it was relevant, in the circumstances:

fran17 wrote:

You remind me of the guy who murdered both parents with an axe and then based his whole legal defence on him being an orphan.

Link
Link

fran17

Cuban Pete wrote: »

You were asking a leading question and when it became clear Links wasn't rising to your bait you tried restricting it to a yes/no answer to try and trap her. You got a taste of your own medicine and now you're annoyed she had her red card removed. That's it.

"Have you stopped beating your wife" is a common example used to explain loaded questions and I don't believe for one second you're at all concerned about anyone being insulted. This is just switching the tack of your objection from personal to general.

Ah now Pete if only everything was as simple as that.I was simply looking for an answer to my question,thats all.You don't believe that then fine.I very much feel that the use of language which is of such an inflammatory nature deserves full scrutiny and idioms cannot be a get out of jail free card.Whats to prevent somebody using this as the template for future matters?

fran17

The Mustard wrote: »

Insisting on a yes or no answer can be a loaded question; but you already knew that because the idiom was used to highlight the logical fallacy that you attempted to employ in the thread. It is hypocrisy to complain about an idiom which has been designed to expose loaded questions, when you were asking those loaded questions yourself in the first place.

It's like turning out the lights and then complaining about the darkness.

Your right it can be used as a loaded question however in this case it was not intended as such.I was forced to simplify it to yes/no through sheer frustration.How can asking for a persons opinion be perceived as a loaded question?I wanted the persons opinion and nothing more.

Dozen Wicked Words

So this isn't really feedback, just people reliving a thread they all had strong opinions about?

My point stands, using idioms like the one mentioned is not necessary and the fact, as the DRP shows, more than one Mod thought it was not appropriate and appears they didn't know the idiom either.

fran17

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

So this isn't really feedback, just people reliving a thread they all had strong opinions about?

My point stands, using idioms like the one mentioned is not necessary and the fact, as the DRP shows, more than one Mod thought it was not appropriate and appears they didn't know the idiom either.

I genuinely came here to get feedback from the powers that be as to when is the use of such idioms appropriate and when not appropriate.I recall threads where a mod would note that the use of certain words/sayings is deemed to offend certain quarters and are not to be used and that's fair enough.I believe that's right but when can you omit some while not others?

Turtwig

The use of idioms and analogies is always fraught with risk. The less familiar people are with dialectics the higher the risk is. There are many different modes by which analogies can be compared. There are many different ways in which idioms and examples of rhetorical fallacies can be illustrated. The problem is always that the audience experiencing such methods may not themselves actually grasp them.

To answer the OP's question. Yes, it bloody well should be allowed in this forum. It's an established rhetorical technique. However, the person using it should be considerate of both the audience they're using it in front of and other unintended interpretations of what they're saying. One would like to think that everyone on a discussion forum is familiar with such techniques but that's like thinking everyone posting on the Rugby Union forum knows all the rules of the sports. When you use analogies and expressions that carry a higher risk of being misinterpreted you should always explain with a bit of context what you mean. It only takes one or two more sentences.

Both parties should chalk it up to a learned experience and move on.

Pat Mustard

fran17 wrote: »

Your right it can be used as a loaded question however in this case it was not intended as such.I was forced to simplify it to yes/no through sheer frustration.How can asking for a persons opinion be perceived as a loaded question?I wanted the persons opinion and nothing more.

Well, that's just not true at all.

You were asking loaded questions in an attempt to corral posters into giving the answers you wanted, you got called on this nonsense by legitimate means and now you're here complaining.

oscarBravo

Turtwig wrote: »

Both parties should chalk it up to a learned experience and move on.

This.

I'm reminded of a kerfuffle once when a politician used the word "niggardly" in its correct context, and was forced to resign over a perceived racist slur.

I can understand someone feeling that the question "have you stopped beating your wife?" is an accusation of spousal abuse before they discover that it's a well-established rhetorical device; I'm puzzled that anyone would continue to think so after they discover it.

We could ban the phrase, in case it upsets people. We could also ban the word "niggardly", in case it's perceived as racist. I personally don't think that either would be appropriate.

Dozen Wicked Words

I would ban niggardly because I can't think of a genuine reason someone would use it, even in the supposed right context, unless they were stirring or trying to be cool on the internet.

I also think reading a thread should, on the whole, be a simple affair and not require Google to make sure something that's been read isn't in fact, a relatively obscure idiom.

Obviously I'm in the minority though so I'll swat up so I can be "in the know" too.

P. Breathnach

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

I would ban niggardly because I can't think of a genuine reason someone would use it, even in the supposed right context, unless they were stirring or trying to be cool on the internet....

It's a word that is part of my working vocabulary, and I use it when it is the most apposite word for conveying what I mean. The idea that I might use it for another reason is preposterous. Do you also want to ban niggle on a similar pretext?

Dozen Wicked Words

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's a word that is part of my working vocabulary, and I use it when it is the most apposite word for conveying what I mean.

Oh, I don't doubt you for a second.

Maybe you're right, and I shouldn't say I'd ban the word, I'd certainly doubt their motives for saying it, as I said, stirring or trying to look cool.

You'd be entitled to use it, and I'd be entitled to my opinion of why you used it.

fran17

The Mustard wrote: »

Well, that's just not true at all.

You were asking loaded questions in an attempt to corral posters into giving the answers you wanted, you got called on this nonsense by legitimate means and now you're here complaining.

I really don't know how this line of posting is contributing to feedback to be honest.I'll chalk it down to you not being fully aware of the contexts in which it was used.But really if your aggressive posting is on the basis of simply saying black when I say white then I don't have a response for you.

Pat Mustard

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

I would ban niggardly because I can't think of a genuine reason someone would use it, even in the supposed right context, unless they were stirring or trying to be cool on the internet..

'Niggardly' is a perfectly acceptable word with a clear meaning. It shouldn't be banned just because it sounds like a bit like a different word with a different meaning.

If some words have more than one meaning, then surely context should be key. It wouldn't make sense if the word 'dyke' was banned from use in its formal meaning as an embankment to protect from flooding, just because it is also a derogatory slang word for a lesbian. Who can know whether the words 'culvert' or 'bridge' might not take on some slang meaning in future years, too.

Just because people may become offended does not mean that they are right. I don't think that we should ban words and phrases for fear that people might make incorrect guesses as to their meanings.

EDIT: I see that you have clarified your point in the meantime. Okay, fair enough.

fran17

oscarBravo wrote: »

This.

I'm reminded of a kerfuffle once when a politician used the word "niggardly" in its correct context, and was forced to resign over a perceived racist slur.

I can understand someone feeling that the question "have you stopped beating your wife?" is an accusation of spousal abuse before they discover that it's a well-established rhetorical device; I'm puzzled that anyone would continue to think so after they discover it.

We could ban the phrase, in case it upsets people. We could also ban the word "niggardly", in case it's perceived as racist. I personally don't think that either would be appropriate.

Yes I concur with large portions of what you are saying however in the context of how it was used in this instance all mods who gave input agreed that it was used to inflame a situation,it was unacceptable and it was used to push it and get a rise out of myself.Does that not have any credence?

BD45

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Oh, I don't doubt you for a second.

Maybe you're right, and I shouldn't say I'd ban the word, I'd certainly doubt their motives for saying it, as I said, stirring or trying to look cool.

You'd be entitled to use it, and I'd be entitled to my opinion of why you used it.

You want to ban non-offensive words because they're offensive?? That's some mental pc **** right there.

Dozen Wicked Words

BD45 wrote: »

You want to ban non-offensive words because they're offensive?? That's some mental pc **** right there.

No, I said I was wrong to suggest a ban, in fact why not read the post of mine you've actually quoted.

oscarBravo

fran17 wrote: »

Yes I concur with large portions of what you are saying however in the context of how it was used in this instance all mods who gave input agreed that it was used to inflame a situation,it was unacceptable and it was used to push it and get a rise out of myself.Does that not have any credence?

...and I disagreed, and still do so.

I get that you were offended when you didn't understand what the phrase meant. I don't get that you're still offended now that you do understand what it meant. It seems to come down to "I was offended, which can only mean that offence was intended", which doesn't make any sense to me.

The Hill Billy

fran17 wrote: »

Yes I concur with large portions of what you are saying however in the context of how it was used in this instance all mods who gave input agreed that it was used to inflame a situation,it was unacceptable and it was used to push it and get a rise out of myself.Does that not have any credence?

I dealt with this issue in the DRF. I will not discuss the whys & wherefores of a specific appeal in Feedback, however, I wish to point out that the above bolded statement is incorrect.

oB's post above about lessons being learned sums it up.

Pat Mustard

fran17 wrote: »

Yes I concur with large portions of what you are saying however in the context of how it was used in this instance all mods who gave input agreed that it was used to inflame a situation,it was unacceptable and it was used to push it and get a rise out of myself.Does that not have any credence?

It was already explained to you that the phrase is a rhetorical device, not to be taken literally.

So, now that you understand that the phrase is not to be taken literally, why do you persist in the assertion that it was used to get a rise out of you?

kneemos

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

I would ban niggardly because I can't think of a genuine reason someone would use it, even in the supposed right context, unless they were stirring or trying to be cool on the internet.

I also think reading a thread should, on the whole, be a simple affair and not require Google to make sure something that's been read isn't in fact, a relatively obscure idiom.

Obviously I'm in the minority though so I'll swat up so I can be "in the know" too.

Niggardly is a common expression,never even copped the possible offensive nature of it.
Saying threads should be kept simple to read is painfully ridiculous.

Dozen Wicked Words

kneemos wrote: »

Niggardly is a common expression,never even copped the possible offensive nature of it.
Saying threads should be kept simple to read is painfully ridiculous.

No, of course you didn't and you are quite right, I feel your pain.

fran17

The Hill Billy wrote: »

I dealt with this issue in the DRF. I will not discuss the whys & wherefores of a specific appeal in Feedback, however, I wish to point out that the above bolded statement is incorrect.

oB's post above about lessons being learned sums it up.

Point taken tHB,I was coming from the point of view that in the dispute resolution forum this was the stance for upholding the infraction.But yes of course I could not know that all mods who gave input on the matter would agree with this.I withdraw that.

fran17

The Mustard wrote: »

It was already explained to you that the phrase is a rhetorical device, not to be taken literally.

So, now that you understand that the phrase is not to be taken literally, why do you persist in the assertion that it was used to get a rise out of you?

Because this was the reason for upholding the infraction in the dispute resolution forum after it was accepted that the phrase was not deemed to be taken literally.

NachoBusiness

oscarBravo wrote: »

I get that you were offended when you didn't understand what the phrase meant. I don't get that you're still offended now that you do understand what it meant. It seems to come down to "I was offended, which can only mean that offence was intended", which doesn't make any sense to me.

With respect, you have completely sidestepped the point the user made, which was that "mods who gave input agreed that it was used to inflame a situation,it was unacceptable and it was used to push it and get a rise out of myself". You seem to have difficultly with the user's opinion that the rhetorical question was posed (at least the second time) to get a rise out of the user. I'm not sure why, as it seems quite clear to me that it was:

Links234 wrote: »

By the way Fran, have you stopped beating your wife? Ans pls y/n

fran17 wrote: »

Hmmm what do you feel would be the outcome if I made a defamatory remark against a fellow poster in this forum regarding spousal abuse? You being a moderator,I'm curious to get your input?

Incidentally, Fran also extrapolated on the question he had been asking throughout the thread, in what I believe was an effort at getting away from the accusation that he was asking a loaded question, when he made the following comments in that same reply:

Your two points are well understood Links,you've now stated it three times.My question though,which you continue to evade,has not been answered.Do you accept that if a prepubescent child shows symptoms of GID and a parent refuses to give concent to any form of treatment,then the matter should end there? Or do you feel there should be a mechanism available to contest the parents decision?

Yet despite this respectful reply he was again met with:

Links234 wrote: »

Fran, have you stopped beating your wife? Stop evading and answer yes or no!

Now, I don't agree with Fran's position in the debate. I think it's wrongheaded but he was badgered beyond belief in that thread (of which I've just read in it's eternity). Accused of lying and being a liar a few times, said that he was not worth conversing with etc etc and under the circumstances, I think he showed great restraint without rising to any of it.

I can't understand how it has not become politically incorrect to use the rhetorical question 'Have you stopped beating your wife?. I know it goes back to 'Have you stopped beating your father? in Aristotle's time, but even so, less crass and provocative terms have bitten the dust. Be nice if that one had also. I'm sure there are many other loaded rhetorical questions which are less inflammatory which could easily be used in it's place.

tl;dr Links had every right to use the idiom on the thread and a dozen times in the one thread if needs be. However, once it was clear that the user didn't appreciate / understand it's use and that it had in fact riled them, directing it at them a second time can really only be seen as doing so in an attempt to get a rise out of them. I mean, if they didn't get the idiom (and clearly they didn't) what's the purpose of repeating it?

Pat Mustard

fran17 wrote: »

Because this was the reason for upholding the infraction in the dispute resolution forum after it was accepted that the phrase was not deemed to be taken literally.

This was not the result of the DRP. The card was not upheld. This is an attempt to avoid the question.

I asked why even though you know that the phrase is not to be taken literally you persist in asserting that it was to get a rise out of you.

You might answer that question, please.

fran17

The Mustard wrote: »

This was not the result of the DRP. The card was not upheld. This is an attempt to avoid the question.

I asked why even though you know that the phrase is not to be taken literally you persist in asserting that it was to get a rise out of you.

You might answer that question, please.

Your just plain wrong,the infraction was upheld in the dispute resolution forum.It was overturned in the admin review.Have you read the appeal thread?This line your taking would have me conclude you did not.