[Agema]

It's important to remember that people are not perfect and that shades of grey exist. A person can make a hypocritical argument, but not be a hypocrite, a person can make a stupid or bull**** argument without being stupid or a bull****ter. It is is fair to call an argument what it is, without extending the description of the argument to the author. Some more immature people will instantly transmute a criticism such as "That's a stupid opinion..." with "You are stupid". However, if on the receiving end, most of us I think could just take that for what it is - a comment on what we said, not ourselves.

However, an author could defuse even the possibility two ways, a nice idea with people he/she don't know. Firstly he can use non-inflammatory language in the first place, say maybe "I think there's an error in your logic". The second would be to remove the possibility of personal criticism or to compliment first, such as "I don't think you're an idiot, but that opinion is stupid" or "You've made some good points, but opinion X is stupid."

A final note is tone. If you call someone's opinion stupid in what is mostly a calm and balanced comment, they don't generally get bad feeling from the whole and are less likely think it is an attack. If you call someone's opinion stupid in a comment that's polemical, sarcastic, or mocking, it is likely to *feel* like an attack.

Some people can be flagrantly disrespectful of others in that sort of way, and I find such excuses as "I didn't call you stupid, just your argument" and "if you're offended that's your problem" just bull****. Tone and context are as vital to communication as the literal meaning of words themselves. People who don't seem to realise that can be split into two camps: those who are genuinely unaware, thus socially inept and need to learn; and those who are aware and want to troll with disingenuous claims of innocence.