Forum

I'm actually fine with everything. I decided not to read what he writes. I don't give a damn about his posts. I don't see them; he's been ignored for a long time.
I replied because this little hamster keeps nitpicking my words in my posts, which I happened to find out by accident during a conversation on ICQ.

The "Righteous One" is trying to troll. He can't use profanity, as he's not allowed to. Let him try. I've already answered everything I think of him in a PM and added him to the ignore list.

Maybe in half a year I'll read what he's been scribbling here.

Ay-ay-ay, so you do read after all :D

_____

One can use profanity, I simply don't want to; only a person can forbid something for themselves.

If you were fine with everything, why did you have to spew shit? You could have just walked past and that would be it!

I must have touched a nerve somehow, since I provoked so much malice and aggression, even though that wasn't my goal.

Although it's clear why: with views on life that differ from yours, the significance of which you belittle so as not to suffer from the feeling that someone might understand something better (deeper, more versatile, more correctly) than you. Because if an alternative point of view is correct and doesn't align with mine, then my point of view is incorrect, meaning I don't understand something, I'm missing something, I'm worse in some way—and this naturally brings suffering to a proud person filled with a sense of their own exceptionalism, so we defend ourselves through attack.

_____
behavior, answer, inform, unknown,
righteous person — a person trying to live in accordance with the knowledge compiled by the general designer of this material world; what's so bad about that? Should we study life by trial and error? At the cost of our own mistakes? Why reinvent the wheel? (Just to prove your own exceptionalism to everyone?). Everything has long been invented, discovered, and described (no scientist has discovered anything new; it's all just long-forgotten old knowledge)... why step on the same rake for the 1001st time, reinvent the wheel again?

The nature of the mind is such that we can imagine something that doesn't exist, but only on the basis of what does exist. For example: everyone has seen deer antlers, everyone has seen a hare, but no one has seen a hare with deer antlers. That is, the mind can only combine based on what is there, its own experience (the memory residing in the mind).

Religious texts (sacred scriptures) are the "traffic laws for life," they are the "map of the minefield we all live on," they are the "straw, and the knowledge of where to lay it," and so on.

Factually, you are trying to "sting," humiliate, and insult a person "building a submarine" because he is doing it according to the instructions provided by the general designer, which differ from your own.

Fine, you disagree, please do; I'm not challenging your beliefs. Write something constructive or walk past. Why respond with rudeness (to put it mildly), and in such a crude, cynical form? (Perhaps to protect the correctness, truth, and adequacy of your own perceptions by belittling others?)

What is it that you lack? Well, views diverged—that happens all the time in life, but why throw poop at each other? And they say: "Truth is born in disputes." No, here it only dies a painful death!..

I didn't touch him at all; I wrote in the forum about things that interest me. "Excrements" began arriving in my PMs from a "well-wisher," based on what is unclear, since the essence of his messages boiled down to insults. This means that prior to that, he saw insults addressed to him in my messages. The 1st and 2nd were ignored; I answered the 3rd (trying to find out the reasons) and received a "strong comeback" about how he is Chapaev and I am Petka at best, with details.

No one is forcing anyone to read... no... but one MUST read... and instead of trying to analyze or answer something constructively... one MUST be rude, shut the other person's mouth in a particularly cynical form, "crapped on" them, belittle them, and through that feel a bit better... but attempting to understand or even just leave it "unnoticed" — absolutely not, that's not our method.

The person simply has no happiness (unsatisfied feelings), otherwise there wouldn't be so much unmotivated aggression and malice; that's why he "barks" (I don't know what else to call his unmotivated aggression?), but here he's afraid to bark because he might get banned (it's a different story to quietly soil someone's PMs) — some kind of coward's psychology.

That is, a person is willing to observe some basic rules of decency if there is a whip, but if there is no threat of "getting smacked," they can do whatever they want and spit on everything — that's simply the level of culture.

____
Truth is neither born nor dies in a dispute; it can either win or lose depending on who represents it.

A real dispute is when the one who lost admits it and accepts the point of view of the person they lost to. But we are not only unwilling to accept a point of view different from our own, we aren't even ready to admit that we were wrong about something.