You are right that attacking the content of an argument can be perceived as a personal attack if the person has invested their ego into their positions (that was the message in Post 1). If the person X is interested in knowing what is right , a debate is possible. So the cause to which the person has spent hours may be wrong. If the challenges are with logic then a reasonable person can examine if there are issues with their cause. Most often it becomes ego play in which case facts and logic are out the window,
I didn't use the word 'ego' deliberately, due to it's negative connotations. All said and done, we are emotional beings. In the case of person X, even if his statements are devoid of logic, if you know where he is coming from, you might refute them with just that little bit of respect for the investment that he had made for the "cause". In my view, it's this bit of respect that makes all the difference. It's not that the moment X is out of words and cannot argue, he directly jumps into name-calling. Where this respect is maintained, there is lesser chance of either party getting into name-calling.
(My views are not related to the recent events of name-calling in the forum or with the concerned individuals. I was responding to the topic in a general sense)
If someone plays 'fool' and is not sincere in the questions then one can call that out. There is no need to respond. If a person is sincere in learning then based on your time availability you can choose to respond. Why feel victim hood?
Right, but in my view, along with name-calling, these other tactics also need to be discussed and condemned. There are many forms of 'personal attack', of which name-calling might be a direct one while an attack on his time is not the least important. All such tactics that derail a debate are to be condemned.
Btw, the word 'victim' is not to be taken literally