Gareth Owen wrote:
"Poor, Edmund W"
<Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com> writes:
I'm saying that it's /especially/ because
of examples like this, where
one person is so sure of the 'truth' that he asserts only a
"delusional"
person could disagree, that we /must/ adhere to the NPOV when writing
Wikipedia articles.
I know.
I was trying to ridicule the previous writer by
stating *my* opinions as if they were fact.
Impugning someone's sanity if they don't believe is a common bully tactic.
Moral relativism is a fact. Moral standards change,
and have changed over time.
For example : Suppose a US politician said this in a debate --
"There is a physical difference between the races which I believe will forever
forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality"
I can add that to his page in two ways : I can write
"In debate, he stated that he believed
`There is a physical difference between the races ...'"
or
"He held a number of racist and racial separatist views, stating that
`There is a physical difference between the races ...'"
There are three ways. You have given an indirect quotation and a
characterization, with the latter being a clearly inferior option.
Direct quotation is also a viable option, and is preferable if the
statement is at all controversial. Thus "On this date and at that place
he said 'There is ...'" The reader would have the opportunity to
relatively easily check the facts.
Now, by Fred's "logic", and calling a
spade a spade, I'm going to call this
politician on his racism, as only someone delusional could believe those were
the opinions of a man who wasn't a racist.
But the rest of us, who know who moral standards differ between
places and eras, are going to think that looks pretty odd in the
middle of [[Abraham Lincoln]].
The presumption that heroes can say nothing wrong, and that villains can
say nothing right is often very strong.
Ec