How to respond spiritually to rude or aggressive behavior

Since you all seem to be such brilliant minds on here, I was wondering if anyone would care to weigh in on a little thought of mine... personally, when it comes to communicating in this digital space, using ad hominem attacks is basically the online equivalent of getting slapped in the face in real life, and we all know people resort to that kind of low blow the second they run out of actual arguments and just want to force their own narrow perspective on everyone else as the absolute truth.
So, what does that actually say about those kinds of users? Does it mean they lack basic social etiquette, or are they just aggressive types, or maybe—and this is my guess—they’re just deeply insecure people? Because it seems incredibly easy to sidestep that whole mess by just ignoring them, yet so many people refuse to take the high road. I get it, not everyone is going to click with everyone else, but I truly don't grasp the desperate need to turn everything into a violent confrontation...🤷

rustymaker5 said:Since you all seem to be such brilliant minds on here, I was wondering if anyone would care to weigh in on a little thought of mine... personally, when it comes to communicating in this digital space, using ad hominem attacks is basically the online equivalent of getting slapped in the face in real life, and we all know people resort to that kind of low blow the second they run out of actual arguments and just want to force their own narrow perspective on everyone else as the absolute truth.
So, what does that actually say about those kinds of users? Does it mean they lack basic social etiquette, or are they just aggressive types, or maybe—and this is my guess—they’re just deeply insecure people? Because it seems incredibly easy to sidestep that whole mess by just ignoring them, yet so many people refuse to take the high road. I get it, not everyone is going to click with everyone else, but I truly don't grasp the desperate need to turn everything into a violent confrontation...🤷

.. the topic isn't really well-defined .. .. this one of yours ..
.. are you looking to debate five or ten different things .. ? .. about which ones .. ?

.. what I'm interested in is this .. why don't they just leave .. .. if they don't fit in .. why not just go .. ?

.. I understand the need for a forceful response ..
.. sometimes someone pushes so hard that you have to shut them down ..
.. but why don't others just brush it off .. ? .. that's the question ..
.. nobody can kill you or burn your house down here ..
.. you know .. ?

The whole point of this forum is to actually debate. Most of my time is spent talking to people I completely disagree with, because what’s the point of a discussion if we’re just nodding along and patting each other on the back? 🤷

True, there used to be plenty of people here who were just looking for a group hug. Fortunately, they don't show up much anymore.

I honestly don't mind if someone tells me exactly what they think, even if their approach is ad hominem. I don't see how that could ever be considered an "equivalent" to a physical confrontation in real life. And even if it were, I can hold my own...

Ignoring someone is the best move when you realize there's simply nothing worth discussing, they aren't interesting enough for any kind of dialogue, and you truly couldn't care less about what they have to say.

They could just as easily burn your house down.

rustymaker5 said:Since you all seem to be such brilliant minds on here, I was wondering if anyone would care to weigh in on a little thought of mine... personally, when it comes to communicating in this digital space, using ad hominem attacks is basically the online equivalent of getting slapped in the face in real life, and we all know people resort to that kind of low blow the second they run out of actual arguments and just want to force their own narrow perspective on everyone else as the absolute truth.
So, what does that actually say about those kinds of users? Does it mean they lack basic social etiquette, or are they just aggressive types, or maybe—and this is my guess—they’re just deeply insecure people? Because it seems incredibly easy to sidestep that whole mess by just ignoring them, yet so many people refuse to take the high road. I get it, not everyone is going to click with everyone else, but I truly don't grasp the desperate need to turn everything into a violent confrontation...🤷

Comparing an ad hominem to a slap in the face? Where on earth did you get that notion? 🤷

For instance, if I were to assert that George W. Bush and Joe Biden are exceptionally narcissistic figures, and therefore their actions and statements should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism, I have technically leveled an ad hominem against those two... however, I might then proceed to build a perfectly legitimate line of reasoning upon that observation, arguing that one simply shouldn't trust people of that temperament...

It really hinges on the context. If we are engaging in a debate regarding a specific topic within the hard sciences, then an ad hominem is, without question, a completely invalid way to structure an argument...

.. here are the questions ..

.. if you actually enjoy arguing .. what would be off-limits for you? .. and if you don't .. what on earth is driving you to do it?

.. and besides .. what do those Neanderthals and cavemen gain from any of it?

The real question isn't why you argue when you don't care—it's why you aren't arguing when you actually do.

Why does a bee sting?
It certainly isn't because it enjoys it.

Having some trouble wrapping your head around the physics here?

Sean Cruz said:The whole point of this forum is to actually debate. Most of my time is spent talking to people I completely disagree with, because what’s the point of a discussion if we’re just nodding along and patting each other on the back? 🤷

True, there used to be plenty of people here who were just looking for a group hug. Fortunately, they don't show up much anymore.

I honestly don't mind if someone tells me exactly what they think, even if their approach is ad hominem. I don't see how that could ever be considered an "equivalent" to a physical confrontation in real life. And even if it were, I can hold my own...

Ignoring someone is the best move when you realize there's simply nothing worth discussing, they aren't interesting enough for any kind of dialogue, and you truly couldn't care less about what they have to say.

Look, I get it—ignoring someone when there's zero common ground or they’re just totally uninteresting to you makes perfect sense. But then what's the whole point of all the fighting and the constant need to throw insults?
Does that mean the person being attacked and insulted instead of just being ignored is actually considered worth communicating with somehow?

rustymaker5 said:Look, I get it—ignoring someone when there's zero common ground or they’re just totally uninteresting to you makes perfect sense. But then what's the whole point of all the fighting and the constant need to throw insults?
Does that mean the person being attacked and insulted instead of just being ignored is actually considered worth communicating with somehow?

.. or maybe you're just proving something about yourself .. .. making yourself look small ..

feralranger said:Comparing an ad hominem to a slap in the face? Where on earth did you get that notion? 🤷

For instance, if I were to assert that George W. Bush and Joe Biden are exceptionally narcissistic figures, and therefore their actions and statements should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism, I have technically leveled an ad hominem against those two... however, I might then proceed to build a perfectly legitimate line of reasoning upon that observation, arguing that one simply shouldn't trust people of that temperament...

It really hinges on the context. If we are engaging in a debate regarding a specific topic within the hard sciences, then an ad hominem is, without question, a completely invalid way to structure an argument...

I was talking about addressing a specific person on this forum directly, not some random third party...

.. you might think someone is one thing... but they turn out to be a complete jerk... and honestly, there's no point in even trying to talk to them or hang out
.. whether I should just say that to his face..
.. or if I should stay quiet and just walk away..

.. that’s the hard part of life..
.. especially if you're a minority living in a deep-red stronghold like rural Alabama..

...and honestly, using an ad hominem attack in court can actually be a valid legal strategy. It’s a simple fact that someone with a prior criminal record isn't going to receive the same level of benefit from the doubt as someone with a clean slate when they're facing the exact same charges.

For instance, if a witness has been proven to be a perjurer in a previous trial... it's standard procedure to move for impeachment by using an ad hominem approach to establish that they are, quite simply, a liar.

redtinker36 said:.. or maybe you're just proving something about yourself .. .. making yourself look small ..

So, what I'm hearing is that you try to boost your own ego by stepping on everyone else?

rustymaker5 said:Look, I get it—ignoring someone when there's zero common ground or they’re just totally uninteresting to you makes perfect sense. But then what's the whole point of all the fighting and the constant need to throw insults?
Does that mean the person being attacked and insulted instead of just being ignored is actually considered worth communicating with somehow?

I honestly have no idea why people feel the need to lash out at others. I've always been on the "other" side of that dynamic.

The assumption behind arguing with someone who holds completely different views is usually that the topic itself is interesting, not necessarily the person you're debating.

But we're human. Sometimes there's this undeniable urge to push back against something that feels intuitively wrong. It doesn't always mean you dislike the individual; it just means their core stances hit a nerve that you find fundamentally unacceptable.

rustymaker5 said:I was talking about addressing a specific person on this forum directly, not some random third party...

At the end of the day, a fellow member is just a human being, so I fail to see why we should bother with such tedious double standards—as if there were some distinct moral code applied to "members" versus everyone else.🤷>

rustymaker5 said:So, what I'm hearing is that you try to boost your own ego by stepping on everyone else?

.. screw everyone else .. they don't matter ..

.. but for yourself .. yeah .. that's how you try to bolster your own standing ..

.. you .. you're doing even more than I am in all of this .. you're strengthening your whole circle .. your neighborhood ..

rustymaker5 said:So, what I'm hearing is that you try to boost your own ego by stepping on everyone else?

Not necessarily. One might argue that if you simply pop the oversized balloon of someone whose ego has become somewhat unmanageable, you aren't just being petty—you're actually restoring a sense of balance and providing much-needed support to those who are being overshadowed by such an inflated personality.

rustymaker5, is there anything about you besides being fake?

First, you were whining about lack of education and illiteracy—but honestly, it’s pretty clear that stuff doesn't bother you at all (your attitude doesn't suggest it does, anyway)

Then you moved on to complaining about people acting like know-it-alls who are always right—I highly doubt those types actually annoy you (I didn't see you call out a single post where someone explicitly claimed "I know everything," despite plenty of them popping up)

Now you're attacking someone's ego—even though you just dropped twenty posts in a row following one specific person, all starting with some variation of "you're beneath me, but I'm superior (and magnificent)."
Clearly, an inflated ego wasn't your problem, since you had zero issues with it.

As for hurting others—it would be a lot wiser if you didn't bring up that topic.

Anyway, I don't really care.
Heading back to my own thread.

(And why did I even reply? Probably because it hits a nerve. )

This pseudo-spiritual nonsense is nauseating. Truly disgusting.

feralranger said:At the end of the day, a fellow member is just a human being, so I fail to see why we should bother with such tedious double standards—as if there were some distinct moral code applied to "members" versus everyone else.🤷>

Honestly, I don't even think it’s about double standards... I mean, in the real world, it’s sometimes just harder to dodge those awkward, face-to-face confrontations because you can't exactly walk away or take a breather, but in a digital space like this, that shouldn't be an issue at all... unless it is, which seems to be the case more often than not.
It just comes down to the individual... people can't really escape who they are, I guess... 😁

feralranger said:...and honestly, using an ad hominem attack in court can actually be a valid legal strategy. It’s a simple fact that someone with a prior criminal record isn't going to receive the same level of benefit from the doubt as someone with a clean slate when they're facing the exact same charges.

For instance, if a witness has been proven to be a perjurer in a previous trial... it's standard procedure to move for impeachment by using an ad hominem approach to establish that they are, quite simply, a liar.

The thing is, that isn't even technically an "ad hominem" logical fallacy. For something to be a true "ad hominem" fallacy, it has to be irrelevant. If a witness makes a claim and you prove they are generally a liar, that's not a fallacy. It would only be an ad hominem if you tried to argue their point was wrong just because their socks smell. 🤣 The whole point hinges on irrelevance, not just because the argument is directed "against the person." It is perfectly fine to use arguments "against the person" if those points are logically tied to the matter at hand.