I don't know what this is.

I know in the internet forum context it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

What is flaming?
What is a flamer?
Is there a psychological term for it?

It does not have anything to do with post length does it?
(length of something else perhaps?)

A flamer is someone who uses abusive language or comments as their argument for why an argument is not valid in their opinion.

An example would be instead of responding to you how I just did. I would say something to the effect of.

"You are a moron for asking that question, why don't you go look it up, you dumbs***."

The response doesn't really solve anything and it just causes conflict to arise when it's not even necessary.

Just in case you do think me a dumb whotsit for not looking it up. I thought a discussion could be made from it, just in case.

Just giving you an example of what a flamer might say. I agree, it doesn't help the conversation to flame. Typically a conversation will end up in a flame fest if one of the members refuses to admit they were wrong, so instead of having a valid counter argument, they resort to abuse because they are afraid to admit they were wrong.

I would rather see people admit when they are wrong but for some reason in human psychology we have a huge barrier to admit to it. We feel that we will be ridiculed for admitting we were wrong, but usually people are much more accepting of a person who can admit they were wrong. If there happens to be a flamer attacking a person who has admitted they were wrong, it would only backfire on the flamer. It would only reduce the validity of the flamer to attack that person.

Yet I have rarely ever seen someone admit on a forum that they were wrong on a subject or topic.

Yet I have rarely ever seen someone admit on a forum that they were wrong on a subject or topic.

A thread for the best philosophical flame would be entertaining

Fires are hot, and fires can flame up and out of control. Like fires, some people are hotheaded and can become inflamed (or enraged) by mean spirited comments.

A note and warning from your humble (well not really humble) Administrator.

Flaming is the posting of personal insults, usually with the effect of provoking retributive insults from others who are drawn into "flame wars" to the detriment of the community of Members.

In a philosophic discussion, they are a kind of intellectual violence that replaces the clarity of thinking with the shouting of emotions, of the discussion of positions and ideas with that of assumed personalities. And, in a very real sense, flaming is not only an attack upon a individual but on the idea of philosophy itself. It is always an admission by the flamer that he is unwilling or unable to treat others in an authentic manner as persons or their thinking with the respect and dignity one person owes another. The anonymity of the internet allows undisciplined individuals an opportunity to pamper their character flaws much like hoods or masks allow people to rob or kill others when they can do so with impunity.

I don't know about the rest of the Members of this community, but I am utterly tired of reading flaming posts HERE of all places. I am utterly tired of a few people attending the forums just to make condescending or unkind remarks to others. I am utterly tired of logging in to find the posts of two or three Members repeatedly reported and having to read their childish remarks and issue warnings, infractions, or send out PMs. This is shared by those few Moderators who still remain and have not been driven off by these trolls , and this disgust is also shared by many Members who desperately want a forum where Philosophy is important.

By posting this, I am warning that I am not going to tolerate Members who repeatedly, sometimes daintily to be sure, indulge in flaming. Do not, my friends and colleagues, be surprised one morning to find them absent from the forums, even if by my actions I am also gone.

John
Administrator

Yes, and if they are grown-ups they should be able to handle it. And if they are intelligent and witty, they should be able to return what they received, or even better. Remember, it is always better to give then received. The trouble with the flaming I have seen is not that it is flaming, but that it is so witless and stupid, and falls so flat.

I hope it is not dangerous of me to ask this but although I think I now briefly know what flaming is, could someone point me to a thread here that has been an example of it. Thanks.

---------- Post added 06-01-2010 at 12:38 AM ----------

A thread for the best philosophical flame would be entertaining

Well, it seems that if it is suggested that someone does not have a clue as to what he is talking about, that is considered flaming. Even if it is clearly true. And such a suggestion makes someone up there very unhappy. Particularly when it turns out that it is he who has no clue.

This is just what I am afraid of not being able to express.
You can do it nicely though,
but then even I know you cant do all the time everything nice.
AS long it is the writing not the writer you are being not nice to.
As long as it is the thought not the thinker.
As long as the not nice is intelligent and practical.

Again this all is coming from someone who has not been the victim of overt flaming or has been and not able to be easily dented, I am ignored and personally I dislike this more than when some one has outwardly told and shown me why they disagree with me, it takes me to task, as long as it is kept to my criteria above.

But you should not be flamed, since you do not pretend, ostentatiously, to know what you clearly do not know, and neither are you a name-dropper. And neither do you disparage what you know nothing about.

That is basically who and what I am.
Asking of the world everything I can because I know nothing of the world. (well I do a little)
And I would rather have it come out of my mouth than someone else's ass.
If you haven't experienced it you cant hate it.

I hope this is not the last time I meet you.
I really do not like feeling this way.
Something feels unfair uneven.
And I don't like it.

It is always an admission by the flamer that he is unwilling or unable to treat others in an authentic manner as persons or their thinking with the respect and dignity one person owes another.

This is the essence of his post, in my opinion. We all have our opinions. We all think other opinions are more or less silly or confused. Is that news? But you don't spit on someone for respectfully disagreeing with you in the real world (I hope) and I don't see how it's justified here.

It's just ugly. If someone says that I or you should just counter-attack, this is my simple objection. It's ugly. It's a disgusting way to spend one's time. To kill the joy in the intellectual quest for others to indulge one's vanity/envy is sad. Those who have it all figured out should in theory be pretty happy about it, and maybe even eager to share it. By all means, more ideas, more theories. Surprise me! Surprise us all!

But enough with insult as a substitute for persuasion or simple exposition of one's own opinion. Is anyone here so blind as to expect their version of the truth, their notion of reality, to be accepted as the official version of reality, as the final truth? Who here will outwardly claim this role? And yet condescension and insult imply this arrogance, or don't they?

I went to grammar school too, even if I dropped out of 2nd grade and was raised by unusually sympathetic rats. Insults on this forum are just not-so-sophisticated versions of "you have the cooties!" or "you smell like poo-poo."

:detective:Wisdom makes a man's face to shine. If they aren't happy, they aren't as smart as they think they are...perhaps....