user254: In a comment or further question under this answer,

[...] One part that I still don't understand, is why there should be no distinction between types of "wrong"? No doubt a persons belief system should not be declared wrong. Even an inconsequential opinion, I clearly see it as counter productive to declare someone wrong. But objective facts are different. If someone denies the Holocaust, how are we not ethically bound to call this out as wrong?
That's extreme of course, this is not Nuremberg. However I have noticed one real example that is ethically troubling. Feminists are offended by Buddhism. With no qualification, this is not opinion, it's objectively false. When declared as a blanket statement, it can actually harm others. A young girl maybe chooses a different life path. A person on edge is nudged toward bad behavior. In other words, calling something wrong cannot all be the same. Kindness and acceptance should not conflict with moral imperative.


user11762: "Ethically bound" sounds like a rule. Acts of compassion are defined by compassion rather than by rules.
So we can strive to remain compassionate (unlimited) rather than to be bound by rules (limited).
Helping to correct wrong ideas is natural. Seeing a false statement about Dharma, I would likely say: "Is this so? What are the reasons to say so? Can you provide quotations or explanations for that view?"

254: <p>In a comment or further question under <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2146/254">this answer</a>,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[...] One part that I still don't understand, is why there should be no distinction between types of &quot;wrong&quot;? No doubt a persons belief system should not be declared wrong. Even an inconsequential opinion, I clearly see it as counter productive to declare someone wrong. But objective facts are different. If someone denies the Holocaust, how are we not ethically bound to call this out as wrong?</p>
<p>That's extreme of course, this is not Nuremberg. However I have noticed one real example that is ethically troubling. Feminists are offended by Buddhism. With no qualification, this is not opinion, it's objectively false. When declared as a blanket statement, it can actually harm others. A young girl maybe chooses a different life path. A person on edge is nudged toward bad behavior. In other words, calling something wrong cannot all be the same. Kindness and acceptance should not conflict with moral imperative.</p>
</blockquote>
 11762: <p>"Ethically bound" sounds like a rule. Acts of compassion are defined by compassion rather than by rules.</p>

<p>So we can strive to <em>remain compassionate</em> (unlimited) rather than to be <em>bound by rules</em> (limited).</p>

<p>Helping to correct wrong ideas is natural. Seeing a false statement about Dharma, I would likely say: "Is this so? What are the reasons to say so? Can you provide quotations or explanations for that view?"</p>
