Your thoughts on the source of drama and (aggressive) arguments between people?

TKDB

From my experience, some of those individuals who utilize the internet for their own individual purposes, or causes, will sometimes reply with, one sided opinions, or with similar websites, that mirror their previously expressed opinions?

For example, the anti religious, and their views on Religion, and the religious individuals, who peacefully go to a religious building, with their own families, and those parishioners are peaceful people, from my experiences.

But if you want to become educated on how some of the anti religious, view Religions in general, or how they view the religious individuals as well, the internet, has become an artificial barometer, on how, some of the anti religious, and the religious individuals, express their individual points of view?

The Abortion debate, and or conversation, via the internet, is another way to become educated from, both sides of the debate aisles.

The Legalization of recreational marijuana debate or conversation, via the internet, is another way to become educated on the subject matter.

And the Gun control debate, or conversation, via the internet, is another way to become educated on the subject matter.

I've read the interactions, and verbally witnessed, where some have attacked, other individuals with foul names?

Read, where some individuals have tried to "humanize," some criminals, or offenders, who have committed crimes, to the public, by trying to garner attention, or sympathy, for a criminal, or offenders illegal actions, while some of them, are incarcerated?

Especially, when it comes to some of the non violent offenders?

(hu·man·ize

/ˈ(h)yo͞oməˌnīz/

Learn to pronounce

verb

1. 1.
   make (something) more humane or civilized.)
   

The anti religious, going after a religious individual, who believes in God, Jesus, or the Bible, and hasn't done anything wrong to the anti religious individual? 

But some of the anti religious individuals, had gone out of their way, to make fun of them, because  of their choices to be religious?

Or their uses of their religious quotes, or sayings from the Bible?

I've read the word's from the pro gun extremists, and the anti religious extremists.

And those past debates, or conversations, took on entirely different tones.

Because their individual perceptions, became crude, and unkind.

But I haven't seen those extremists views on this website. 

ZeusAres42

@GeoLibCogScientist

Ah, would I be correct in thinking you mean the kind of heated row that two spouses might get into for example? I think that is what you are saying but I'd thought I just check to make sure I am on the same page.

ZeusAres42

Just thought of something as a result of this debate and that was when I was listening to a clip from a Philosophy teacher in a dialog with a student on a Critical Reasoning lecture and it went something like this:

Professor: "So what do you want to be able to get out of this course?"

Student: "To be able to find more faults in other people's arguments"

Professor: "But what about faults in your own arguments and your own possible thinking errors?"

Moreover, to me, pre-examining what you're about to say and do as well as post-examining what you did say or do (retrospection) seems a lot easier than self-examination on the fly (in real-time) such as when you're in an actual verbal face to face discussion that you've made no preparation for, albeit I do like to think I am getting better at this. That being said I am assuming you are probably talking more about face to face discussions that potentially lead to heated confrontations anyway? 

YeshuaBought

If it were legal to kick someone's A@@ for talking dumb, we would not have this issue.

TKDB

The internet has become a public classroom, being utilized by billions of Individual Internet Teacher's.

And these examples are what I've come across, through my learning about how some of the independently created teachers, go about teaching the public, through their independent educational lens, by using the internet, to casually fill their artificial classrooms.

Classes on Abortion.

Classes on Gun Control, and the Second Amendment.

Classes on the further legalization of Recreational marijuana.

Classes from the Athiest, Thiest, and the various Religion perspectives.

Classes on the illegal immigrants, or illegal aliens, who are coming into the U.S., illegally, via the Southern Border.

Classes on the Sanctuary Cities, and ICE.

Classes on Racism, Segregation, and Reverse Segregation.

Classes on Black Lives Matter, Blue Lives Matter, and All Lives Matter.

Classes on Opinion Journalism in comparison to Original Journalism. (Fact based news, verses Opinion based news.)

MayCaesar

I think there are two primary sources of this issue, the first one causing the disagreement in the first place, and the second one leading to aggression.

1) Whenever two people disagree on something, they really disagree not with some claim itself, but with the underlying assumptions behind it. If two spouses are arguing over who should go to the grocery store today, then likely each assumes that their time is more precious than their partner's. And if they never address this fundamental disagreement and keep throwing snarly remarks around, they will never agree on anything, and whoever gives up in the end will feel miserable and wronged.
Instead, a pragmatic approach would be for both to ask themselves, "Why do I believe that they should be the ones to go to a grocery store in the first place?" Then each could honestly say, "You know, for some reason I feel like my time today is more precious than yours. I do not know why this is the case, and please forgive me for valuing your time less." Now the negotiation goes from a completely different place, and, instead of trying to over-yell their partner, each party tries to understand their motives and find a common ground. Whoever ends up going to the grocery store, chances are both will feel extremely empathetic and warm towards each other, and regret having been so petty.

This is the case virtually in every disagreement. In political debates, for example, people rarely disagree on the logical validity of a certain claim; instead, they disagree on the basic values, on what is more and what is less important. Two people disagreeing on abortion see the importance of human life differently, and instead of arguing whether abortion itself should be allowed, they should talk about a more fundamental issue - what human life is and how valuable it is in various cases - and then they can find the sources of the disagreement and understand each other's point.

2) We are irrational creatures, and we have an extreme difficulty accepting things for what they are, when we really want something to be different. If there is any way we feel that we can achieve the immediately desirable outcome, we will go to great lengths to manipulate other people into delivering it to us. And even if there is none, sometimes we will cling to illusory possibilities out of desperation.
It is common to disagree on something, and it is just as common to desperately want the other person to agree with us, when the subject is a serious issue for us. If we very deeply believe that a person dear to us is good, and someone disagrees with it and starts criticising them, then we are very likely to be unable to accept such an opinion and try to change their mind, no matter what it takes - and if they do not bulge, we may snap and start berating them.

I find that, every time I feel becoming angry and aggressive towards someone, an easy two-step process allows me to immediately jump back to the rational state. First, I tell myself, "It is not a big deal. Relax." Now, feeling slightly calmer, I ask myself, "Why are you not okay with this outcome?" At this point, I always realise that I have some unrealistic and/or unfair expectations of the outcome of the situation, and once I choose to accept it, the anger goes away.

In the example from 1), where two spouses argue over who should go to the grocery store, each can ask themselves, "Why is this such a big deal? Why can I not just go to the grocery store?" And they will always find that the problem is in themselves: they feel lazy, or they have an inferiority complex, or they hold some subconscious grudge against their partner... Once they recognise that, they can apologise and either just go, or tell them that they do not know why, but they would feel much-much better if their partner chose to go instead. No matter how the situation resolves, most likely both partners will feel a strong bond with each other and want the other to be happy.

---

Aggressive arguments and dramas are very avoidable, but that requires the ability to let go of one's ego. We must always be conscious about what happens in our minds, and every time our minds succumb to one of the "negative loops" enhanced by our deep insecurities, traumas and irrationalities, we must be able to catch ourselves, let the other party know that we are being irrational, and try to find a common ground with them, even if they refuse to do the same. It requires a strong degree of humility and integrity.

It is not easy to tell someone who, in the heat of the argument, throws hurtful insults at us, "I am sorry for being so unfair. My emotions are getting the best of me, but I really respect you and would like for us to find a common ground here." Try to do this even in a heated argument over the Internet - it is very hard. It is that much harder still to do so in an argument where a lot of things are at stake.
But once you start practicing it in your everyday live, you soon realise that this is a surprisingly effective strategy, and almost always it immediately breaks down any aggression on both sides and makes both parties feel guilty over how they have been behaving.

I believe that almost any pair of people who understand and can practice these things can form a very strong relationship, no matter how different they are. And even if only one party does, the other is likely to catch up with them eventually.

I hope this has been insightful!

GeoLibCogScientist

ZeusAres42 said:

Ah, would I be correct in thinking you mean the kind of heated row that two spouses might get into for example? I think that is what you are saying but I'd thought I just check to make sure I am on the same page.

Yes, that's what I mean.

all4actt

GeoLibCogScientist

What I think you are talking about are heated arguments that happen between friends or spouses. 

If I am correct in my experiance when people start yelling at one another both parties pretty much stop really litsening to the other person and start to dig their heels in about their side of their argument.

ZeusAres42

all4actt said:

GeoLibCogScientist

What I think you are talking about are heated arguments that happen between friends or spouses. 

If I am correct in my experiance when people start yelling at one another both parties pretty much stop really litsening to the other person and start to dig their heels in about their side of their argument.

This just reminded me of a joke that goes like this:

"In the first year of Marriage the woman speaks and the man listens. In the second year of Marriage, the Man speaks and the Woman listens. In the third year, they both speak and the neighbors listen."

WinstonC

One's pathos drives their logos; emotion drives logic. We believe the things we believe in part because we have some stake in them being true, or in them being perceived to be true. Perhaps believing what we believe has some functional use, such as with religion, or perhaps what we believe allows us to act in a way that we enjoy, as with moral relativism.

A challenge to these beliefs are a challenge to our entire value structure which may mean we need to entirely reassess how we view the world and ourselves. As such, when people challenge our beliefs, in a way this is an existential threat. Moreover, we may think that if people believe something different then there will be real world negative repercussions. This means that intellectual discussions can potentially trigger the same emotional reactions as a fight for survival.

대왕광개토

I think one of the reasons why people make aggressive arguments is due to tendency to dominate their opponents.