What are the aspects of Buddhism and it's scriptures that a Buddhist might not like to comment on?
You're asking this question on meta so I'll interpret it as,
"What aspects of Buddhism should I not comment on, on this site?"
The principal comment you should avoid here is, "Buddhists" (or "some Buddhists") "are wrong".
There's a parable, which I want you to know:
Examples of acceptable or useful questions (about dhamma) ask about the elephant:
- In what way is an elephant like a sail?
- In such and such a sutta it says that an elephant is like a tree trunk. I didn't understand that, could you explain it a little further?
Examples of unacceptable questions imply that (all and/or some) Buddhists are wrong:
- The "plowshare" school of Buddhism implies that an elephant is like a plowshare. Modern scientists has never seen an elephant plowing. So why is the plowshare school so stupid? Don't scientists know now a lot more about it than they do?
Some people say this is a site "about Buddhism" not necessarily "a Buddhist site". However I think that if it's not a site "for Buddhists", or "which includes Buddhists", then I wouldn't see the point of this site. The 'community' (i.e. users of this site) want to teach Buddhism, and they want to learn Buddhism. Most people don't come here to argue about Buddhism, and if that (i.e. arguments) is what this site offers them then they may not accept it.
The difference between 'a discussion' and 'an argument' may be subjective and therefore difficult to legislate. However, if arguments and negativity cause expert users to become dissatisfied with the site, then the difference between discussion and argument is a material difference even if it's subjective, and I think moderators should intervene accordingly.
I think it matters, especially, how you ask a question, and why. It's less a matter of what ("which topics" or "which aspects") to avoid and more a matter of how you ask it. When I asked about 'rebirth' for example I didn't ask, "Why did people used to talk about 'rebirth' and more importantly why is anyone still talking about it, have scientists ever proven it even exists, isn't that just some superstition (and I'm asking because I despise superstition)?" Instead I asked, "Even if 'rebirth' isn't quite the most central doctrine it's still mentioned frequently, and I don't understand it, maybe I'm missing something important (and I'm asking because I want to some experts' understanding of the doctrine)."
One of the "without which, nothing" of this site is the good will of experts who are able and willing to answer question. I assume that most if not all of these experts are Buddhist themselves.
Therefore, anti-Buddhist (or even 'apparently anti-Buddhist' or 'possibly anti-Buddhist') propaganda is unwelcome.
On a mature SE site with dozens of users who vote regularly, unwanted (however 'unwanted' is defined) are downvoted, flagged, and deleted by the community. On a "Beta" site like Buddhism.SE the moderators may need to intervene a little more.
For example here are some recent comments which I find unacceptable:
The reason I suggest "Critical Reasoning" is that Skeptic is a label that some people attach to others. If you have a Skeptic tag, then maybe you should consider having a tag for a diametrically opposed quality, such as "Fundamentalist" or maybe even "Superstitious"?
That's unacceptable: because it implies that we should label various Buddhist beliefs i.e. the beliefs of various Buddhists as superstitious. It's also a silly and useless suggestion, because it implies that we'd even consider doing that. If you had a better or a longer experience with this site I hope you'd know that such a suggestion is at best useless, and at worse hostile and insulting.
And I firmly hold that by lancing superstitions and by promoting rational thought, one renders a very real service to society. By doing this, one defends the common man who cannot defend himself.
You use the word "superstition" again but I think this comment is 'wrong' in another way too. The word "lancing" as a metaphor claims you're acting as a medical doctor (or, perhaps, acting as Saint George fighting a dragon, because Saint George too had a "lance"), but imo you're not licensed to do that here, nor invited to. It also implies you do everyone a favour by defending the common man (however instead of your "defending" people some people see your posts as divisive or even "offensive").
Note that this Help page imply that your questions and answers may be edited (but please don't take that as license to write offensively and to count on the community to edit away offensive excess). When necessary I hope that experienced users will edit your posts so that the 'tone' of your posts will match the tone which other users enjoy on this site. I hope you'll also learn quickly, perhaps by example, how edit your own posts to that effect.
Apart from the content of a post (i.e. "what am I posting about?") and the tone of a post (i.e. "how am I posting that?") there's also the intent behind the post (i.e. "why am I posting?"). Some users have interpreted your posts as trolling.
It's difficult to be sure about motive or intent, but I think it's true that some of your posts are difficult to distinguish from that of a so called called "concern troll" (e.g. when you say anything like, "I'm concerned that some aspects of Buddhism are superstitious and thus misleading the common man").
In summary a working definition of divisive might be:
- A post which a lot of users object to
- A post which takes a lot of time to moderate