Na man, it's fine. The vast majority of the time it's pretty childish and establishes no point.

But it can be amusing. As when Schopenhauer talked about his contemporaries, I think it's fantastic that he felt so strongly about his views.

This will be quite familiar to you, as he says such things many times:

"But the height of audacity in serving up pure nonsense, in stringing together senseless and extravagant mazes of words, such as had previously been known only in madhouses, was finally reached in Hegel, and became the instrument of the most barefaced general mystification that has ever taken place, with a result which will appear fabulous to posterity, and will remain as a monument to German stupidity."

This too, is fun to skim:

https://www.flavorwire.com/469065/the-30-harshest-philosopher-on-philosopher-insults-in-history

;)

Is unnecessarily poisoning the well a legitimate argument tactic? — schopenhauer1

I agree with your position completely. Although, admittedly, I also agree with your second statement. I have responded on occasion with what would be considered an insult. Not as an opener, but mostly from exasperation when dealing with someone who refuses to consider an alternate perspective, despite numerous attempts to reframe it in various ways. I find insults always detract from the discussion. In my mind the one that first falls to insults has, in effect, admitted defeat: I can't out think you, so I will simply hurl insults as a cover.

So if there was no real insult thrown at you personally, is it legitimate to use insults, puts-downs, sneering sarcasm, fake exasperation and the like as part of your argument? — schopenhauer1

At a forum like this, a part (or sometimes most) of one's verbal performance is about performing for an audience, not for the poster one is replying to. So the insults etc. aren't necessarily part of one's argument, just part of one's performance, depending on who one is trying to impress.

I think there are a few instances where insult is appropriate in debate. Insult can make debate enjoyable and accessible when it is used as a rhetorical flourish or to provide pathos to an otherwise boring argument. It can be used as a form of banter and camaraderie between two opponents. It should be used, without exception, whenever it is used against you—one cannot give a snide little bully the satisfaction. But on its own and without argument, insult is the basest propaganda.

A drop of wine in a vat of sewage is still sewage. A drop of sewage in a vat of wine is also sewage — Outlander

:100:

The problem is that if you don't want to do it, you either take the abuse or go to their level, both are bad options. — schopenhauer1

I don't want to shock you, but I am imperfect in this regard. Like you, I am mostly responsive rather than aggressive. Mostly, but not completely. I've been working on being more civil for years. Decades. When I'm being all mature and everything, I address uncivil posts by calling them out directly. I usually say something like "that's not a valid argument" and then repeating it till they get sick. That's civil disobedience passive-aggressiveness.

I think sometimes it's perfectly acceptable to call a spade a spade. If someone's being stupid then they ought to be told they're being stupid, and sometimes an effective way to get that point across is by shaming them and making them feel bad. It may not always be the nicest thing, and sometimes it could be considered bullying, but I think there are legitimate cases in which it is 100% deserved and what should be done. "That was stupid, and you should feel bad" works when they realize it really was stupid.

I think sometimes it's perfectly acceptable to call a spade a spade. If someone's being stupid then they ought to be told they're being stupid, and sometimes an effective way to get that point across is by shaming them and making them feel bad. It may not always be the nicest thing, and sometimes it could be considered bullying, but I think there are legitimate cases in which it is 100% deserved and what should be done. "That was stupid, and you should feel bad" works when they realize it really was stupid. — darthbarracuda

I think in a regular conversation this make sense, but if we are all trying to be "philosophical" to some extent, then it is rhetorical flourish to simply state this. I think it just poisons the well. Explain it with an argument.

I think sometimes ideas are tangled up with the way people are, sometimes you can explain (or try to explain) why someone believes what they do based on who they are as a person, which circumvents the play-by-the-rules logic you mentioned. "Only a loser would believe xyz," etc.

Ultimately it does seem that the majority of the time, insults are just bullying, just people making themselves feel superior by putting other people down.

Yes this seems to make sense to me for reasons why people do it. People's personalities, rhetorical tactic for an audience, throw someone off their game, straight up just aggressiveness, trying to feel superior, all these are good candidates.

If you start from a place of "I'm right because it's obvious", then you give yourself the appearance of being right from the start. Often one way to do this is to say, "Are you fucking kidding me?" in not so many words.. seething condescension, and other styles to wrap what you are trying to say. I just think it all poisons the well. Does disagreeing with someone automatically call for poisoning the well? I mean there are certain lines of thought I can see it being appropriate to respond with immediate disdain and all the rest, but most debates probably don't fall under this. I can see clearly racist ideas and calls for massive violence for example falling under this.

Perhaps antinatalism seems to be this way for people, but it's not. There is no forcing of anything (actually quite the opposite). I liken it to veganism. If I want to eat a hamburger, I don't treat vegans with disdain for their strong views.

I frequently skim discussions, without really paying attention to all the points being made; but I stop when I see an insult, not just because it's usually funny but because it indicates that someone feels very strongly about this particular point, and that perhaps I should examine it more deeply. I think insults are useful in that regard, they aren't always just rhetorical flourish, they direct our attention to important details.

If there was a sticker that let people label their ideas as important, everyone would use that sticker on every single idea they had and it wouldn't mean anything. But a well-crafted insult demonstrates intelligence and makes people pay attention.

I stop when I see an insult, not just because it's usually funny but because it indicates that someone feels very strongly about this particular point, and that perhaps I should examine it more deeply. I think insults are useful in that regard, they aren't always just rhetorical flourish, they direct our attention to important details. — darthbarracuda

Cutting remarks are always made to bring a person a few notches down. It is hurtful and always personal. Insults, when done cleverly, can make another listen intently and agree. Other insults are delivered to "win" an ongoing battle of personalities: Consider the following (a well known exchange):

"You're drunk!" -- cutting
"Madam, in the morning I will be sober but you will still be ugly." -- insult

I avoid these types of exchange. It saddens me when people go this low. Otherwise, I, too, enjoy reading insults and sarcasms.

Insults? No usually not, it's best to just start throwing things.