Moral: VA; Abstraction, Concept & Identity

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you like f-ing so much, why don't you go and f your ....
I don't respond to posts with f..

I see. So, you moral rule is
Start the insults. Insult and ad hom. That's fine. But don't use expletives.
Here's you following your morality and what pissed me off...

If you are still confused, you need to think more wide and deeply.

I can see why you wouldn't put up with a more honest post.
Undertand: I was expressive. You were insulting and ad hom with specific unjustified ideas about me.
I understand your preference for the latter, it being so ego-syntonic and all.
You are such a role model for morality. Inability to admit things. 'polite' insults and ad homs. Patting yourself on your own back.
And this from the moral realist who will help the world be a better place.
I am convinced you can lead the way with your wider knowledge.

Normally with complex ideas, my thinking is like juggling 10 balls in the air and expletives trigger my instincts to fight [diverting me to my animal nature instead of engaging the intellect], thus messing up my thinking [all ball dropped to the ground and I have to start all over again].

Whatever my moral theory [mere theory], it will only be effective in the next few generations [if we start soon] not in the present with the present psychological state of the majority.
If someone threaten to kill me, I will kill him first thus a variance from my ideal,
"no killing of humans by humans"
but I am always mindful of how to strive towards the ideal to reduce the variances, thus my thinking on how to establish a effective moral system that will be closer to the ideal in the future [impossible now].

[Iwannaplato]

Normally with complex ideas, my thinking is like juggling 10 balls in the air and expletives trigger my instincts to fight [diverting me to my animal nature instead of engaging the intellect], thus messing up my thinking [all ball dropped to the ground and I have to start all over again].

You need to think more broadly and widely. Then you might consider that you are bothered by expletives and other people might be bothered by condescending substanceless ad hom and insults such as the one I quoted. So, then they get distracted.

Given we can't see each other so the mirror neurons have nothing to mirror, you might consider that other people, who have in fact mentioned your substanceless ad hom/insults before, have given you enough information to realize they may decide to 'fight', when you use them.

[FlashDangerpants]

Normally with complex ideas, my thinking is like juggling 10 balls in the air and expletives trigger my instincts to fight [diverting me to my animal nature instead of engaging the intellect], thus messing up my thinking [all ball dropped to the ground and I have to start all over again].

I wonder if the permanent state of agitation you describe here is why you are so very very bad at basic philosophical reasoning? Or at least it may be one of the ingredients in that cake of nonsense.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Normally with complex ideas, my thinking is like juggling 10 balls in the air and expletives trigger my instincts to fight [diverting me to my animal nature instead of engaging the intellect], thus messing up my thinking [all ball dropped to the ground and I have to start all over again].

You need to think more broadly and widely. Then you might consider that you are bothered by expletives and other people might be bothered by condescending substanceless ad hom and insults such as the one I quoted. So, then they get distracted.

Given we can't see each other so the mirror neurons have nothing to mirror, you might consider that other people, who have in fact mentioned your substanceless ad hom/insults before, have given you enough information to realize they may decide to 'fight', when you use them.

My default is always to discuss contentious philosophical topic amicable in an ameable way.
Whatever that others seen as offensive from me is because it is due to the they initiating the offensive attack or violence [intellectual].
I would not risk initiating anything offensive because it would be self-defeating in my 'ball juggling' and the shift to the 'animal' brain.

I do highlight when the other is insisting dogmatically from a very shallow and narrow perspective, relatively like kindi. If the discussion is ameable, I will highlight [this is necessary] their shallow and narrow view more politely instead of crudely if they that dogmatic, arrogant and offensive with their ignorance [my assessment].

Show me one case where I initiated any offensive put-down if the discussion was going along ameably.

[Iwannaplato]

My default is always to discuss contentious philosophical topic amicable in an ameable way.

That's simply not true. You start threads where you insult people due to their philosophical opinion. Often when you misread or misinterpret a post, you'll call someone an idiot, even if they haven't called you anything. You by fiat decide that people who disagree with are ____________________some negative thing: they are more violent, for example, even if you can't produce empirical evidence of this.