Difference between flaming and just being honest?

[quatona]

Intention.

Everyone who thinks X is wrong is stupid.
Everyone who thinks X is wrong is stupid.

One I said because I honestly felt that way.
One I said because I wanted to point out to an Xer that I thought they were stupid.

The problem? Which is which?

Intent cannot always be seen, and that causes problems.

Exactly.
And those problems are caused on the receiving end (by trying to do that which can´t be done). If we abstain from mind and intent reading altogether (or, at least, always keep to the most work from the most positive option available) there isn´t any problem.

 

[praying]

You can't discuss one without being cognizant of the other. It's a combination of what's being said, who's saying it, who's hearing it, where it's being said and a host of other dynamics that might be at play.

Yes I agree those things do play a part but they are secondary.

There is always a way of telling someone the truth without being intentionally insulting.

You just can't say that anything is 'honest' or a 'flame' ... every bit is situational to some degree or another.

I am not sure I agree with that, but I would need to see some examples.

 

[Beanieboy]

Intention.

Everyone who thinks X is wrong is stupid.
Everyone who thinks X is wrong is stupid.

One I said because I honestly felt that way.
One I said because I wanted to point out to an Xer that I thought they were stupid.

The problem? Which is which?

Intent cannot always be seen, and that causes problems.

Both "everyone who thinks X is wrong is stupid" may be a flame or truth.
The point is, even if it were truth, in a formal debate, you would lose points.

One should demonstrate WHY it is stupid (and probably not use that word.)
Then you don't have to worry about intent, but will demonstrate that if the claim is clearly false, and the poster still claims it to be true, to demonstrate themselves as stupid, with no help from you.

 

[plmarquette]

the condition of ones head and heart at the time
the view(beliefs) of the writer and reader
what is constructive criticism to one is flaming to another
a conservative view on a liberal site, probably is "flaming"
no one wants to hear comments, true or otherwise.....sad

 

[stan1980]

Jesus Christ himself was against flames:

First of all he said: "But anyone who says 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Jesus) Mat 5:22

Then:

"You fools!" (Jesus) Luke 11:40
"You blind fools!" (Jesus) Mat 23:17
"How foolish you are" (Jesus) Luke 24:25
"But God said to him, 'You fool!' " (Jesus) Luke 12:20
"You foolish Galatians!" (St. Paul) Galatians 3:1
"You foolish man" James 2:20

oh...

 

[Beanieboy]

Being Honest: Dude, um, you stink. Seriously. People talk about it. But if you would shower more, and use some deordorant, you could get it under control. I'm telling you this because I care about you.

Flaming: Girrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrl, yo so stanky, I would open the window in a Submarine. Yo so stanky, that your Sure deodorant is not Confused. Chillllllllll you could use Right Guard ANNNNNND Left Guard. Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay?

 

[jcook922]

I define flaming as being ad hominem attacks, where as just being honest has a focus on the issue at hand.

 

[mpok1519]

isn't saying "Youre going to burn in hell for all eternity" a flame? excuse the imagery! =P

I mean, if thats not a flame, what is?

And if it is a flame, doesnt that mean the Bible is pro-flame?

 

[TeddyKGB]

I define flaming as being ad hominem attacks, where as just being honest has a focus on the issue at hand.

I'm sure I can write an ad hominem attack without flaming. I would note that ad hominem is not equivalent to insult.

 

[Verv]

Matthew 5:22 is specifically something for fellow Christians, look at the full text:

But I say to you, anyone who is angry with his brother without a cause will be subject to punishment. And whoever says to his brother 'Raka!' will be subject to the Council. And whoever says 'You fool!' will be subject to hell fire.

It is to keep Christians as a united body...

But on the topic:

I have always disagreed with rules of flaming. I do not mind hostility in debates.

It doesn't bother me.

I thought we all learned the 'sticks and stones' bit when we were kids, didn't we? I am unaffected by the hostilities of others and I shrug.

 

[paug]

Lemme break this down.

Flaming has room for and almost always contains personal opinion/bias whatever.

Honesty cannot accommodate any personal/biased statement of any kind. Honesty is telling the truth. But telling the truth along with a sharp insult? Flaming imho.

 

[SallyNow]

Disrespectful:
Person A: I think strawberry sorbet is a great frozen dessert because it is healthy, low in sugar and fat, and yet still cool and refeshing.
Person B: What a loser, you're totally wrong. There is only one great one, and that's strawberry icecream

Respectful:
Person A: I think strawberry sorbet is a great frozen dessert because it is healthy, low in sugar and fat, and yet still cool and refeshing.
Person B: Sorbet is nice, but it lacks creamy texture and can contain too much sugar, depending on who manufactures it. Strawberry ice-cream, on the other hand, is creamy, fulfilling, and, if made with milk, low in fat and also be low in sugar, yet also provide a small dose of protein

 

[Beanieboy]

What about telling nonChristians that Jesus is the Way/Truth/Life and no one comes to the Father but by him, interpreted to mean that only Christians are saved, and everyone else is going to hell?

That could be said to be truth (for some Christians) and be taken as a flame by those on the receiving end.