Hmmm, about that arguing on the internet thing ... wining an argument on the internet renders you retarded only if you argue in a retarded fashion and with a retarded person. That's one's own private special olympics, it's a silent consensus "let's do this the retard way". The problem is this. When two people are arguing, there are three things in play: the two peeps of course and the thing they're arguing about. Now, if the other person is a retard and not subject to rational thought, that fact alone shouldn't restrain you from arguing for the thing you know is right. One should not sacrifice "truth" (time and time again, I feel it necessary to add: if the word truth has any meaning at all today ) just because the other one is unable to recognise it. So I say: fuck the retards. "Here's my point, there's yours. If your point is retarded, be my guest, but that doesn't take anything off of mine." When arguing with a retard, one must just know when to draw the line and not expect the cathartic "yeah you're right" from him. For that, one needs to work with his own ego.

well, an argument tends to be something that gets too "big" in a way
when two intelligent people are having a discussion, they usually take little time to understand each other's opinions and just leave it as it is.

Honestly, to me, the biggest issue about the way people behave on the internet is the same one that's been philosophically discussed for ages: what would one do if he/she was invisible, therefore, couldn't be punished.
Ya know what i mean?

That's the question of ethics and the correct answer is: nothing. You can't base an ethical decision on the fear of being punished. If you do, that ceases to be an ethical decision, instead it's a pathological one. The ones who think being invisible would make them powerfull to do what they want fail to recognize that only the weak pathetic little beings with absolutely no self esteem would want that in the first place. Punishment by law was constructed for pussies who don't have the guts and inner power to resist a pathological temptation. And yes, the world is full of them.

That's the question of ethics and the correct answer is: nothing. You can't base an ethical decision on the fear of being punished. If you do, that ceases to be an ethical decision, instead it's a pathological one. The ones who think being invisible would make them powerfull to do what they want fail to recognize that only the weak pathetic little beings with absolutely no self esteem would want that in the first place. Punishment by law was constructed for pussies who don't have the guts and inner power to resist a pathological temptation. And yes, the world is full of them.

my point exactly
that's where all the "OMG YOU TEH RUTARDED LOOOLL" people would fit, to me