Maybe consider another word.

I've always found the best way to deal with fools is to stop being one and move on.

VM, you receive back what you emit. When you back someone against a wall, they will, every single time, come out fighting. Personally, I do not know a fool. Just a thought.

william

On this forum, slander and personal attacks should be reported via the "report post" option in the top right hand corner of the post.

In general, the best thing to do is laugh. When someone puts you down to build themselves up, laugh. Remind yourself of what a pathetic and petty tactic the fool is using and have a nice laugh.

I thank you for your advice.

I will take it to heart!

i cant laugh, it isnt really funny. i cant help but think that no matter how hard it is for people to deal with fools they are making things even harder on themselves than on us.

i remember reading a quote somewhere that a fool can only talk to fools-but a wise man can talk to anyone. to me that means that you can actually get through to a fool if you know the way. not only that, but you can even learn from a fool.

i remember meeting a bus driver one time who was swearing at all the people he called 'stupid' and having just got one of those insensitive guys (husband) out of my life i thought why not try and reason with this one and see what happens. i said 'you know, it isnt their fault they are stupid.' so he said to me, 'then whose fault is it, MINE?'

In general, if there is someone who debases you in anyway, there must always be some sort of recourse. And when I say recourse, I don't necessarily mean "revenge" or "withdrawal" by any means, just to outline the fact that for every negative instance, there has to be some sort of reaction in order to maintain equilibrium. Equilibrium is essential to our own personal lives and society in general and your reaction is important to restoring it in most cases.

The important part, however, is what your reaction will be. All I can say is that the reaction has to be dealt in such a way where it brings things back to equilibrium. No over-reactions or revenge should be taken, only a restoration to a standard level. Tying this is with philosophy, there are countless philosophers (Descartes, Plato, etc.) who outline the consequences of passivity. Passivity in the sense that what is active is good and what is not is bad and contains all of what it means to be negative. This has been a huge problem in areas such as woman's right for example, where prominent feminists (like Betty Freidan and Simone De Beauvoir) underlined the fact that because women are put in a position of subjectivity and attributed aspects such as passivity, they are perceived as the "weaker sex." But they aren't necessarily the weaker sex though, are they? It's a matter of perception and allowance that puts them in that position hypothetically speaking. That's why (in my opinion) women have such a hard time climbing the sexist ladder and achieving some level of equality. On this note, there are then interesting anecdotes which feminists extol, such as this gem; "women must try twice as hard to be considered half as good as a man." But on that note, take the important parts of the example, that if there is some person putting you down, you have to confront the person is some way or another to bring equilibrium into play. And in the case of feminists, though it's a severe uphill battle, little by little there is a climb towards equilibrium and it involves some sort of reaction and a defiance against passivity. If you understand that there is someone pulling you down, you are being put in a passive posture where they feel it is acceptable to do that to you. The problem is not only that they do that to you, but that you allow that to continue. In essence, you are as much at fault then they are because you let them do that. But also in the type of situations you describe, passivity is hurtful not only to you, but to the other person as well. When you allow another to attack against you, that person becomes ever so liable to their own faults in the process.

Key point, you are not a toilet? so don't take cr@p from nobody. But then, that's for life in general. You get pushed around, chances are you will either get used to it or over react and get into trouble. So don't let it happen to begin with? plain out call people out when it first happens or prepare to encounter that a lot more in your experiences. Make it known that you know what's going on. I am not one of those people who overly agrees with people who turn the other cheek, but then I do not possess the level of patience and wisdom that they possess in those regard.

On the level of the forum, I would full heartedly agree with Didymos when he says that you should report posts that you find offensive or violate rules. I would suppose this is a sub-form of social contract theory. Before you joined the forum, you had no obligations to philsophyforum or anything like that, you were free to romp and play in the fields of the intra-nets carefree. But when you signed onto the forum, you cut a deal in which for access to the threads and so on, you have to adhere to rules and regulations of the community, which involve forgoing issues like these to moderators. By all means, carry on the conversation with your adversary in an intellectual way. Heck, they may thank you for it later, but don't take it to the extreme? it never tends to end in a good way for either party.

When this happens, I bring to mind my favorite quote of Oscar Wilde, from the Picture of Dorian Gray:


"The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography."

Rich

Aristotle's advice is, as a last resort, only ridicule will do.

I think it depends of the situation. In an online forum, only words can hit you, so just ignore all posts of that person.

The result: The person will either quit whining because its no fun bothering someone that doesnt responds, or start making a big fuss. In the second case they are likely to be banned due to that. If they arent, then just report then yourself for making a fuss around you.

I generally find that the context makes the response. If there is some crazy musclebound biker with an uzi calling people stupid, I'd understand that it was only a matter of time before he did something dumb enough to get thrown in prison for twenty years, so there is no reason for me to initiate the response that sends him there.

Usually I divide the situation based on how much I value the person ,or if I am stuck with them. If i don't value them, and I am not stuck with them, I'll either make them think that I am stark raving mad, or just say things like "Oh my god, do you ever shut up?! I'm trying to get some sleep here!". If I do value them and I think that there is something I can say that will get through to them, then I say it. I always regret not responding to someone I value in a way that will reach them. If I don't value them and I am stuck with them and I can't avoid them, I crush them to the best of my ability. I will find out what will make them never bother me again (as long as it is not totally crazy or over the to, and it almost never is unless they have serious issues) and I do it.

Now, there is of course another situation I can think of: I don't value them, I am stuck with them, they have power over me. So for instance, a boss might fall under this category. Here you just ignore their stupidity and crack jokes about them with your coworkers.

There is really no limit to the various situations and possible responses.

No no friend, you must rid this illusion from your vortex of thinking. Of course the three fold action is of your free will doing, but you must decide whether falling into the trap of a forum troll is honestly worth it. So the proper way to deal with this is to first ask them politely tio stop and defuse them. If personal attacks ensue, report them and then ignore them. Hope this works friend.

Shhhhh Banana, stop giving away the anti-troll secrets, you will ruin mah fun

Dont worry, there will always be religion forums out there