Quite a shame how people respond

[Gilgamesh]

Isn't it more satisfying to be calm and polite in the face of adversity, though? That is ideal for me. Imagine how badass it would be if a theist came in here, claiming victory by the end of his first post, caps-locking and talking all sorts of derogatory - while we're all "sir, before we move on, the premise of your argument has still yet to be demonstrated as true." Ah, well-

[ideologue08]

There are a lot of stupid things said in this forum out of ignorance, it's just the nature of the internet. Telling people to f off and read isn't going to win any arguments or educate anyone. In fact, that kind of attitude undermines asking the point of asking the questions in the first place.

[thesummerqueen]

No, I reserve the right to tell people when they're being twats. We're back to the language argument again. See, the thing is, you're right. You can't just tell someone they're being stupid...you should say why. And so many people on this forum DO. They deconstruct arguments point by point by point. But all people notice is "You're being a twat."

"You called me a name, so your argument is invalid." No it isn't - you were called a name because you're acting like whatever that name represented in the opinion of the person who called you the name. Please read the rest to find out why. If they don't say why, ask. If they refuse to tell you, call them a twat back.

[Rayaan]

"Dear Atheist Forums" ... R.I.P.

[Tonus]

Isn't it more satisfying to be calm and polite in the face of adversity, though?

Sometimes it is. If you know you're dealing with a person who just seems interested in flaming and tossing insults, taking the dry, direct approach can make them feel awkward. If it doesn't, then your only choices are to engage in a pointless flame fest or walk away. I tend to prefer the latter; too many worthwhile conversations to be had with people who aren't a waste of time.

[little_monkey]

And franckly, if I can't make my arguments without the cuss words or the insults then perhaps I don't have a good argument.

Possibly. But it's pretty easy to tell a good argument that's sprinkled with swear words from a bad argument which must be supplemented with them.

It's like putting just enough salt in a dish as compared to covering up the rancid meat with it.

You should know that salt is no good for the blood pressure.

I get what you're saying. Nevertherless, with insults and cuss' words, you open the door for your opponent, assuming you are arguing with this person, that your ad hominem attack doesn't prove your case. Of course if you enjoy the insults and the swearing, that's another matter - perhaps there should be threads just to perform that kind of stuff so you can relieve yourself, sort of verbal masturbation. But in a discussion, it's bad strategy. It's a red flag that you're losing the argument.

[thesummerqueen]

that your ad hominem attack doesn't prove your case

Don't do it without making your case. Pretty simple. It has nothing to do with proof.

---

Also, calling someone a twat doesn't automatically mean you're making a fallacy when speaking to them - simply that you insulted them. It depends on how you construct the thing and why.

I'd beg to differ on the loss of argument. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. The rest stands or falls on its own.

[Napoléon]

Telling people to f off and read isn't going to win any arguments or educate anyone.

That's funny. This attitude seems contradictory to what I've seen you actually post.

[Violet]

Can you imagine how happy I would be if EVERY post was flame, and I never had to hold back... not once? Not because I'd do much more than I do already, but because I'd be free to do a heck of a lot more than I do already

But hey, I like constructive posts too... ideally for me: every post is a beautifully constructive gem eternally aflame

[little_monkey]

that your ad hominem attack doesn't prove your case

Don't do it without making your case. Pretty simple. It has nothing to do with proof.

---

Also, calling someone a twat doesn't automatically mean you're making a fallacy when speaking to them - simply that you insulted them. It depends on how you construct the thing and why.

I'd beg to differ on the loss of argument. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. The rest stands or falls on its own.

Well, I have indulged myself in that. So, guilty I am. But just look at Dawkins, just because he often swears and uses cuss' word in his public discourse, theists have pounced on that to derail his message. It's bad strategy when you give your opponent live ammunition.