Attacking someone personally for their life choices?

[_Nephi]

Not just on this board, but on many boards I have been on, I find many times individuals attack others on their personal choices and ideas as though these choices have somehow affected them and harmed them in some way. Why do this? What does it solve or help out in a discussion forum? Rarely do I find such comments outside of debate and discussion forums, and yet never do I see the benefit of such lines of attack. What are your viewpoints on such things and how does it effect your viewpoint or the viewpoint of the individual being attacked or the attacker?

[_Sam Harris]

Hello Nephi,

I'm surprised that no one has responded to this thread yet. Perhaps it's because those who purport themselves as so very intelligent and rational on this board are inwardly ashamed of doing just what you posted about. That's for irrational dogmatic people who believe in a higher power, they're the only people who have reason to do the above, so I guess actually stooping to such a level is embarassing for the ones who are the most guilty of it here.

Our worldviews define us, they're very personal. Beliefs are intrinsic, you can't escape what you believe, and many people have trouble separating who they are from what they believe. When I first started questioning the church, even though my questions were hardly harsh or incriminating, I got attacked a great deal. I became the Great Harlot in LDS' eyes, and they were convinced the problem had to be with me. Some think I'm a fool for openly admitting that theistically I'm shaped by the culture I live in. Why hide that? Why hide behind the belief that Christianity is all there is, when I don't actually believe that? I refer to the supernatural in the way I do because it's the only spiritual language I've ever known. Perhaps in time that will change, a lot already has.

I think that many people choose to look down on those who believe differently than they do simply because underneath all the "knowledge" and "assurance" they put forward, they're just as unsure as every other human being. You can have a beautiful life and still question things in it. The only weak and frightened people in the world are not those who cultivate a spiritual life. Me, I don't really care what you do or what you believe, so long as you harm no one and respect everyone. If you can't do this, then yeah, I have a problem with you. But some people see respect as allowing them to nitpick with and look down upon others.

If I were you, I'd just not worry about those who choose to attack your life choices. I deal with that just about every day, on both the mundane and spiritual level. I'm kind of amused by it now. But I have a sense of who I am, and even though I cannot see the outcome, I have a strong belief in where I'm going. I get tired of having to defend that as well as my intelligence to people who are determined to see only what they want to (stupid, negative, etc.). You just "let it be" and move on.

I also think that people are far more comfortable to say the nasty things that one can see in a debate environment online than in person. Me, if I don't like you or what you're doing, I say so online or in person. That's just who I am. I've let friends read my posts, and they just laugh, because they recognize the writing/speaking style. I think that as far as this board is concerned, some of the things I've seen (references to mental retardation, excessive insistence on swearing, the flagrant flaunting of religious symbolism, etc.), would not be done by the online posters in real life.

See the farce for what it is. It's easier to have a big mouth here. Don't worry about it. Respect those who respect you and pity those who can't. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, it's just that some have not realized that. Which is strange, because some of these individuals are supposed to be more rational than you and I.

Happy Saturday.

[_jayneedoe]

I think people are just plain mean.

Jaynee

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Not just on this board, but on many boards I have been on, I find many times individuals attack others on their personal choices and ideas as though these choices have somehow affected them and harmed them in some way. Why do this? What does it solve or help out in a discussion forum? Rarely do I find such comments outside of debate and discussion forums, and yet never do I see the benefit of such lines of attack. What are your viewpoints on such things and how does it effect your viewpoint or the viewpoint of the individual being attacked or the attacker?

Mormons become overly identified with the church to the point that it feels to them like a personal insult anytime anyone leaves the church or becomes critical or even just wants to discuss issues. This is encouraged by church teachings about loyalty and persecution. It puts a certain number Mormons into attack mode, some use insults and some use passive-aggressive little jokes. At least, there is an endless variety to the insults so they don't get so boring, but the jokes become tiresome very quickly. I try to use the Zen thing about all this, no matter where it's coming from: it's not good; it's not bad; it just is.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Not just on this board, but on many boards I have been on, I find many times individuals attack others on their personal choices and ideas as though these choices have somehow affected them and harmed them in some way. Why do this? What does it solve or help out in a discussion forum? Rarely do I find such comments outside of debate and discussion forums, and yet never do I see the benefit of such lines of attack. What are your viewpoints on such things and how does it effect your viewpoint or the viewpoint of the individual being attacked or the attacker?

I suppose they like to FEEL too.


Superior.

[_JAK]

Not just on this board, but on many boards I have been on, I find many times individuals attack others on their personal choices and ideas as though these choices have somehow affected them and harmed them in some way. Why do this? What does it solve or help out in a discussion forum? Rarely do I find such comments outside of debate and discussion forums, and yet never do I see the benefit of such lines of attack. What are your viewpoints on such things and how does it effect your viewpoint or the viewpoint of the individual being attacked or the attacker?

Nephi asked:
Why do this?

People who believe that some “personal choice” is wrong tend to use any means to make others comply with their view of right. The hypocrisy of those who preach family values and are themselves divorced multiple times attack others who do as they have done. Rudy Juliana, Newt Gingrich, and others are examples. They there are the men of God. People like Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, etc.

They want laws to force others to live as they preach is right. So they attack personally.

Nephi asked:
What does it solve or help out in a discussion forum?

It may “solve” nothing, but it solves nothing in the political/religious arena either. I’m not sure there is any real intent to “help.” It’s a forum which gives people visibility in religious groups, political groups, or other special interest groups such as right to lifers who condemn anyone who favors a woman’s right to choose.

The Roman Catholic Church officially opposes any form of artificial birth control or family limitation. Roman Catholics are admonished to refrain from any artificial birth control.

Of course the Roman Catholic Church just paid $650,000,000 in CA to victims of priest abuse.

Nephi stated:
Rarely do I find such comments outside of debate and discussion forums, and yet never do I see the benefit of such lines of attack.

Really? You have not been watching all religion all the time TV. Personal attacks are not limited to discussion forums.

From your picture, you may be too young to recall the attacks on John Kerry’s patriotism and his character by the well-financed campaign against him personally.

Hillary Clinton is currently being attacked personally by other democrats who want to be President.

Nephi asked:
What are your viewpoints on such things and how does it effect your viewpoint or the viewpoint of the individual being attacked or the attacker?

Well, it won the election for George W. Bush in 2004. If one likes/liked Bush, the attacks were great. In 2000, the election was decided by the Supreme Court and the personal attacks were on people who wanted to count all the votes in Florida. Politicians attack one another in books, magazines, and on television.

One effect of personal attack is that it manipulates public opinion. On a bb, an effect may be to drive someone off the bb. It depends on the level of that “personal attack.”

Reagan said of his Democratic opponent: I won’t allow my opponent’s youth and inexperience to be a part of this debate. Everyone laughed. It was both funny and an attack on Walter Mondale. Mondale was born in 1928. Ronald Reagan was born in 1911.

That clever line benefited Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election.

JAK

[_richardMdBorn]

Well, it won the election for George W. Bush in 2004. If one likes/liked Bush, the attacks were great. In 2000, the election was decided by the Supreme Court and the personal attacks were on people who wanted to count all the votes in Florida. Politicians attack one another in books, magazines, and on television.

The notoriously (sarc) conservative CNN disagrees with you.

A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

What the US Supreme Court did is prevent the Florida Supreme Court from defying Florida election law.

[_Nephi]

It puts a certain number Mormons into attack mode, some use insults and some use passive-aggressive little jokes. At least, there is an endless variety to the insults so they don't get so boring, but the jokes become tiresome very quickly.

This is correct, except I am a member of the church with very liberal and non-church specific viewpoints. I do not identify myself as being a Mormon, moreso that I am a member of the Mormon church (subtle difference with substantially different outcomes). I find that many times on message boards, individuals (regardless of religious affiliations, or lack thereof) resort to personal attacks quite often while adding no substantial substance to the debate or discussion at hand. Its interesting to see them continue to do this when you do not engage in the banter back towards them.

Regardless, I understand what you are stating here, and I agree to a large extent. Many people act this way regardless of religious affiliation.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

It puts a certain number Mormons into attack mode, some use insults and some use passive-aggressive little jokes. At least, there is an endless variety to the insults so they don't get so boring, but the jokes become tiresome very quickly.

This is correct, except I am a member of the church with very liberal and non-church specific viewpoints. I do not identify myself as being a Mormon, moreso that I am a member of the Mormon church (subtle difference with substantially different outcomes). I find that many times on message boards, individuals (regardless of religious affiliations, or lack thereof) resort to personal attacks quite often while adding no substantial substance to the debate or discussion at hand. Its interesting to see them continue to do this when you do not engage in the banter back towards them.

Regardless, I understand what you are stating here, and I agree to a large extent. Many people act this way regardless of religious affiliation.

I was talking only of a "certain number [of] Mormons (woops, left out the word "of"), but it seems that you took it personally regardless and found it necessary to defend yourself, so you might want to look at the possibility that you are on the path to being over-identified, not necessarily that you will ever be one to go completely on the offensive as that doesn't seem to be your personality.

[_Nephi]

It puts a certain number Mormons into attack mode, some use insults and some use passive-aggressive little jokes. At least, there is an endless variety to the insults so they don't get so boring, but the jokes become tiresome very quickly.

This is correct, except I am a member of the church with very liberal and non-church specific viewpoints. I do not identify myself as being a Mormon, moreso that I am a member of the Mormon church (subtle difference with substantially different outcomes). I find that many times on message boards, individuals (regardless of religious affiliations, or lack thereof) resort to personal attacks quite often while adding no substantial substance to the debate or discussion at hand. Its interesting to see them continue to do this when you do not engage in the banter back towards them.

Regardless, I understand what you are stating here, and I agree to a large extent. Many people act this way regardless of religious affiliation.

I was talking only of a "certain number [of] Mormons (woops, left out the word "of"), but it seems that you took it personally regardless and found it necessary to defend yourself, so you might want to look at the possibility that you are on the path to being over-identified, not necessarily that you will ever be one to go completely on the offensive as that doesn't seem to be your personality.

No. I did not take it as that I was personally being attacked. I was just pointing out that the door swings both ways. That both Mormons and non-Mormons do this sort of thing. I am not sure if I have seen you in threads I have been in before, and wanted to make sure I was talking about how both sides do this sort of thing, and not just Mormons (or fundamentalists).