Why do we sometimes attack people rather than ideas?
We lack the mental reach to chase an argument further, or we just can't be bothered to, the issue clouds over, we begin to realise the limits of our capacity, and all we CAN see clearly is the person who brought us to this unpleasant place: so we lash out at them, our 'opponent'.
Ideas are difficult and people seem easy. The truth is that people are much more difficult, and when we attack them, it is not usually with understanding, rarely does it advance the debate. Why not? To reiterate, I think this is because we attack out of a sense of our own inadequacy. And we attack whatever seems weak, or odd about our opponent, be it intelligence, gender, age, status…
So is it helpful to attack people for nobler reasons? Yes, I think it can be. People have ideas and beliefs, but they also ARE them, and perhaps they need shaking up to release them. I'm not talking about seeking to offend although this will sometimes happen accidentally even with the best of intentions.
Personal attacks for reasons of social status I find the least excusable, and there is some of it here on the board. Even lower feeders like me have done it. I can't explain why I dislike it so much. I could argue in favour of it far more easily -- but I just don't like it.
Having said all this, I think this board is a great place of ideas, a real community. Also I feel the board's format keeps flame wars under control by packaging up the threads. This contrasts with old H2O where you had to scroll past pages of names trading insults to get to other places in the community.
Debate, here at JWD is in good shape. That's my 2 pfennigs. Much of the complaining about it is doom mongering (something we are all intimately aware of) and over dramatising. But where's the harm in that?
philo