Discussing "the secret"

[Will]

That's great for you, and that's easily explained by positive thinking, which allowed you to seize an opportunity when you saw one. It's insulting to anyone else who this doesn't work for, or anyone else who doesn't have the same opportunities as you. It has nothing to do with laws of attraction and frequencies or any such nonsense.

[Frankiejohnny]

How can you say it's insulting? I had a shitty job, with shitty hours, was passed over for promotions I was highly qualified for, and for some reason thought I deserved to stay there for 8 years. it wasn't until I woke up and started changing my own thoughts that I began to find the opportunities, and have the courage to seize them as you say... and anyone can have these same opportunities, if they just begin to believe it is possible. Your perception is your reality...so if you preceive this book as nonsense, then it will be. I believed it was worth a try, and my life got better.

[Will]

Frankiejohnny wrote: "and anyone can have these same opportunities, if they just begin to believe it is possible."

Again, tell that to a starving child in a 3rd world country. You're superbly biased by your own wealth of opportunities. It's very insulting. It's the same kind of insulting that rich people spew constantly: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-...

[Margaret]

I think the notion that positive thinking attracts positive outcomes is fine. My issue with this book is the focus on attracting "stuff" to make us happy. Picture your ideal life, make a vision board and focus on it and it will materialize and you will be happy. Perhaps, but for how long? Why did Oprah love this book? Hasn't Oprah attracted all the wealth and success most people could paste on 12 vision boards? Well, like everyone else,Oprah has an ego that is never satisfied, never good enough, never has enough, never thin enough, never successful enough. Until we can learn to be happy NOW, with what is now, any happiness we can achieve through attraction will be fleeting, and we will be back to attracting the next thing. Wrong definition of happiness.

[Marc]

Come on Xox,

You're better than this. You can write and reason when you choose to. There's no reason for the foul language, you have a more than adequate vocabulary to express yourself.

We both gave this book the same rating for pretty much the same underlying reasons. I'm starting to have second thoughts about my rating, not that I'm starting to believe in "The Secret", but rather this end of the spectrum is lacking class.

I don't know about you, but I'm here to watch and learn just a bit. I may not agree with most of what I read but as it's a perspective I don't understand I can't knock it too much either.

The book sold very well and appealed to a lot of people. It's worth getting to understand the appeal and reasons. Your comments don't help much, you're better than this.

[Will]

"There's no reason for the foul language"

Actually, there's plenty of reason for "foul language." This is the author that said that the tsunami in Japan in 2011 was because the people were projecting "tsunami-like" vibes and frequencies, implying they could have stopped it. This is SICK. This is no different than religious deluded blaming hurricanes, etc., on homosexuality.

[Marc]

Oh dear...

Why am I not surprised how this is turning out. For starters, I did provide the link to the tsunami video - I felt it was relevant to the discussion. My only personal gripe with "The Secret" is as I also mentioned before, I had a friend who had a sick child and he blamed himself for the illness after reading "The Secret." It was a very bad deal.

Reading the book only increased my concerns and skepticism, for me it doesn't add up and might be harmful in certain situations for some people.

However... and I want to very strongly say however, it does appear to have had a very positive impact on a very large number of other peoples lives. So there's something that defies our notion of rationale thought and behavior. Isn't this something worth examining in greater depth? It's not like we can just say, "Beam me up Scotty," and ignore the other views out there.

The quick easy reaction is to kill or ridicule it, but you'll never understand "why" if you approach everything that way. Crude language makes things so much clearer for everyone and really elevates the conversation.

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." F. Scott Fitzgerald

[Marc]

Xox wrote: "Time is a very limited resource. Why waste time with &%$* stupid people who read crap and bought it."

Because they have to live with us. Intelligence is a beautiful thing, but intelligence also comes in different forms and there might even be other human qualities that are of greater value. Tolerance, humility, honesty, loyal...

[Mischa]

I was single, never been married, and I moved everything out of one side of my closet. I began sleeping on one side of my bed and 2 years later I happened to run into my first boyfriend (20 years later) and we were married 2 years from then. Believe!

[Elena]

Amit wrote: "I am in the process of reading "the secret", while reading it there are a lot of thoughts, doubts and counter arguments in my mind. I would really love to discuss about this book and in the process..."
Hello Amit. I have also read the book. The secret that the book is talking is not "positive thinking", is more like visualization. Thinking positive is good and healthy for your life but this is not what the book is talking about.
The book is going more into the direction of thinking in the sense of visualization. Visualization is not simple positive thinking. Visualization is more complicated. To visualize in your head it implies already that you have a very good sense and knowledge of the reality on Earth.

I know is hard to really think of what I am saying next.
A child from the poor areas of Africa doesn't know ("see it in his head") what abundance of food means. We see abundance of food every day around us (look at the supermarkets, are so full of food).
If we go to that child in Africa, take him on a trip, of a half of year, with us, all around the world to show him the abundance of food that is on Earth, then we take him again to Africa and leave him there, do you think he will still starve or do you think he will attract food in his life. My opinion is that he will not stay hungry anymore and will attract food.
Just that the child doesn't "see" in his head "daily" this abundance of food. Instead he "sees" in his head the lack of food abundance.
How surprised do you think a child from a very poor area from Africa would be if we take him to Carrefour, Metro, Auchan, Mega-Image or other big supermarket? He will think we are living in heaven, he will say is impossible for all this food to exist. He never "imagines" in his mind that such abundant places, with varied food, exists. We see the actual supermarkets weekly and we have the image of them clearly in our mind, therefore we have no doubt that abundance food is real for us, therefore we have access to it in our life.

Answer me this question: Do you really think that a poor child from Africa has precisely and clearly in his mind, daily, all the food that can be found in Carrefour?

God created the rules of life like this and there is no need to question why.

[[deleted user]]

So, kids in Africa are starving because they don't know what a grocery store looks like?

Do you understand how uneducated and ignorant this assumption is?

[Elena]

I did not say that "kids in Africa are starving because they don't know what a grocery store looks like". I do not have a solution for the starvation in Africa.

I asked if they know, if they see it in their mind daily? like we do

Like Mother Teresa said which I am paraphrasing, that she is preaching for peace, not war. Therefore she sees the abundance of peace in the world in her mind. She really was best in visualizing peace.

[Elena]

Margaret wrote: "I think the notion that positive thinking attracts positive outcomes is fine. My issue with this book is the focus on attracting "stuff" to make us happy. Picture your ideal life, make a vision bo..."

I fully agree with you that we must be happy and grateful now. And this is always applicable, always be happy. In the book it it said to "feel good" now. Always "feel good", be happy always now.

I disagree with you on the ego judgement. In my opinion Oprah attracted abundance in her life due to her being truly grateful and also for having an extraordinary mind that can create and visualize a lot. Oprah fully believes that she has more than enough therefore abundance is pooing more on her.

Most of the people believe that when they say to God: "Dear God is more than enough what you gave me until now, thank you, stop giving me more, I will just remain with what I have now", God stops. And is actually the other way around, God smiles and gives you more. Moreover He make it a constant and abundant river for your life.

How many people do you think they prey daily to God, realistically speaking, that they have "more than enough in their life, please God stop giving me more"? I can tell you that I don't prey like this daily. And I will also tell you that 1% from all the people in the world are preying like this, maybe more than daily and this is why 1% from total population are the richest and most abundantly people in the world.

Whatever you say you have more than enough in your life and you are grateful for it, you make it a constant and abundant flow in your life.

[[deleted user]]

Elena wrote: "I did not say that "kids in Africa are starving because they don't know what a grocery store looks like". I do not have a solution for the starvation in Africa.

I asked if they know, if they see it in their mind daily? like we do

Like Mother Teresa said which I am paraphrasing, that she is preaching for peace, not war. Therefore she sees the abundance of peace in the world in her mind. She really was best in visualizing peace.
"


May I ask what the point would be in them visualizing a grocery store?

Mother Teresa is dead, so I don't think she sees anything any more. But she historically broke bread with war lords and shook the hands of men who were responsible for mass genocide. She really didn't see much peace, so I'm not really sure what you are going on about.

Sounds like a bunch a first world, new age nonsense.

[Elena]

The point is that they are unable to picture it in their mind. And is not about a grocery with few food, is more about a supermarket with abundance of food, km of food on your right and left, shelves full of food more than your height. You walk among food in a hypermarket. If you say this to them they will be mesmerized by you but they could still not picture it in their mind, they think is unimaginable and impossible to walk throughout food.

I believe is amazing that Mother Teresa managed to keep her peace while and after she shake those hands that you are talking about. I can not do that. This was a wonderful ability of her.

[[deleted user]]

So, what you're saying is that starving Africans cannot picture a grocery store?

I disagree about Mother Teresa. She was a sadist, and I think she did more harm than good in her Catholic run murder clinics.

[Elena]

I just took a warm bath Paul, I am so relaxed that I can only say ok to your comment :) kiss

[Nancy]

Paul wrote: "So, what you're saying is that starving Africans cannot picture a grocery store?

I disagree about Mother Teresa. She was a sadist, and I think she did more harm than good in her Catholic run murde..."

Then you don't know Mother Teresa.

[Nancy]

I read the book, which I did not like, but what I am most amazed at in this discussion is the amount of bitter & vitriolic language vented by some of the participants. Kind of scary.

[[deleted user]]

Nancy wrote: "Then you don't know Mother Teresa."

Oh, and I'm sure you do? haha

[Will]

Elena wrote: "I just took a warm bath Paul, I am so relaxed that I can only say ok to your comment :) kiss"

I want a kiss! :'(

[Will]

Mother Teresa might have thought she was doing good, but who knows how many thousands of people died in her "clinics" with no medical care while Teresa flew around in private jets and received the best medical care that money could offer when she was sick. It's a shame she was so neglectful of everyone else. And who knows how many lives were destroyed by her rally's against condoms, in Africa of all places! Disgusting.

[Shireen]

Will wrote: "Mother Teresa might have thought she was doing good, but who knows how many thousands of people died in her "clinics" with no medical care while Teresa flew around in private jets and received the ..."


You obviously do not know very much about Mother Teresa or the life she led or the people she's helped. If you want to discuss Mother Teresa there are several books about her and her life. Such as...

[[deleted user]]

Shireen wrote: "You obviously do not know very much about Mother Teresa or the life she led or the people she's helped. If you want to discuss Mother Teresa there are several books about her and her life. Such as..."

Will is 100% correct. This supposed saint even went as far as taking a large sum of ill-gotten gains from Charles Keating and when she found out it had been embezzled, she didn't believe that she had to give it back. Had that been anyone else, they would have been jailed.

You might want to read the Missionary Position. There are a lot of facts in there that tell the real story and don't alter facts that would muddy her long marketed Sainthood. It's the one you're posting for everyone else to read that you obviously haven't read.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_an...

[Shireen]

I've not personally read the book, my point is there are plenty of books about Mother Teresa that are out there and you could open a dialogue about her on those book threads, not this thread which is about the book The Secret.

Also one book that places her in a bad light doesn't diminish all the good she did in the world. It also doesn't prove that it alone is correct and everything else about her is wrong.

However it's just like The Secret says. You attract what you want to see. Negative along with the positive. What you think about, you bring about. You want to believe someone is good you see the good. You want to believe someone is bad you see the bad. This is how the law of attraction works.

But there is far more to it, there is emotion behind this law as well. You can think positive all you want but if what you feel is negative then you will gain more negative. Emotion is the power behind the LOA.

The Secret was also first a movie with different teachers and the visualization to help bring across the teaching of the LOA. The book is great because it compliments what I saw visually and listened to. However I personally think The Secret is only a stepping stone to open up this whole reality of quantum physics.

[[deleted user]]

Thee is more than one book or paper written on this subject, I suggest you do some research before calling people wrong.

There is good and bad in people and both must be viewed to make an accurate account of a human being. To see only the good in anyone makes you a fool.

I will say that Mother Teresa's intentions were good, however, her religious beliefs and her rejection of modern medicine did far more harm than good. The bulk of the money she raised going directly to the Vatican and trickled out helped the poor and sick even less. Alas, the road to hell is a paved with good intentions.

And no, I'm sorry, your new age candy coated views have nothing to do with physics. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of quantum physics finds the "evidence" presented as laughable.

The fact is the secret defies how the universe and nature actually works. No one here has yet to prove any claim made by the author because there is no evidence to suggest there is any truth. And no, some one saying they bought this book and found a lover is not evidence of anything other than mere coincidence.

[Shireen]

"The Secret" is the "Law of Attraction" This book and movie is only an introduction to the LOA. The LOA is working whether you believe it or not.

This book is kind of like awakening to those who attracted it into their lives. I've read several books over the years that lead me to this one. It's odd though when I re-read a book and think wow this is about the law of attraction and when I read it six years ago I had no idea.

I think the book The Secret along with the movie and the Author's other books has only opened up the realm of possibilities in my life and others.

Watching The Secret literally was the key to opening up my eyes and life to new and old ideas. It's been a wonderful stepping stone to assist me to begin consciously creating my life. Reading the book only reinforced my desire to learn more about co-creating my life.

Call it New Age if that's the label you like. Call it metaphysical too and you can put any label you want. I don't care. I'm happy that I'm understanding and using it to co-create a great life.

[Will]

Shireen wrote: "I don't care."

This is the problem.

Too many people read the book, decide to take measures to act differently, see positive results, and then suddenly think Law of Attraction is an actual thing (it's not; it's pseudoscience, sorry). Truth doesn't matter to such people. Same thing with someone who is deluded by a religion. I hear frequently that people's faith gives them strength and makes them happier, but this has no correlation to truth. A lot of people don't seem to care so long as they see positive results. They don't even care how their faith (including faith in LOA) does actual harm to others so long as it benefits them.

[Shelby]

Will wrote: "A lot of people don't seem to care so long as they see positive results...."

So you are saying wanting to see positive results in your life is wrong? People should not want positive results? That does not make any sense dude.

I hear frequently that people's faith gives them strength and makes them happier, but this has no correlation to truth.

And what truth is that? If people's faith does give them strength and make them happier how is that not true? Like someone said earlier "your perception is your reality." That's just the way it is. Its up to you to decide your reality. And I think that it is evident even on this thread.

[[deleted user]]

Just because people are satisfied with wallowing in their delusions doesn't make them truthful nor does it make the products of their psychosis real. Certain people create their own realities all the time, we call them mentally insane.

[Shelby]

Paul wrote: "Just because people are satisfied with wallowing in their delusions doesn't make them truthful nor does it make the products of their psychosis real. Certain people create their own realities all t..."

Everyone creates his/her own reality. Including you. You are actually living it now as we speak. Even after so many sane people have told you that the book changed their lives you choose to ignore all that and claim that the book does nothing.Your reality has blinded you from the truth.

Its quite sad that you choose to live such a sorry existence. May I recommend some books:

[[deleted user]]

First off, I live by facts and logic, that in itself negates your claim that I am living in my own reality. You see, the facts that I base my logic on were discovered by others and proven with something called "evidence," which hardly makes the reality I live in my own. I share my existence with sound, sane individuals. Unlike you and your ilk who have the mind frame of one over all and fuck the rest.

Secondly, I'm not so sure you can call the people who have fallen prey to this book's selfish ideals "sane." There have been a lot of kooky claims made here and not one single person has offered anything in the way of substantial evidence. All they have given is coincidental scenarios and sideways talk.

[[deleted user]]

Way to ninja edit. I don't need you to sell me crazy, lady... I'm all stocked up.

And how dare you accuse me of living a "sorry existence" because I haven't bought some ignoramus' snake oil. What kind of cunt are you?

[Elena]

Paul have you even actually read the book that you are so heavily criticise?

The book is just a book Paul, it doesnt eat you and it doesnt change anything about you without your own decision. No need to be frightened by it. We give the power to every book we read, is not the other way around. A book is just some paper with some black things called words written on them, nothing else. Until we relate our life with something from the book. It seems nothing from your life can relate with this book.

I hope you dont feel all your writings because all that youve said can be easily categorised as mean maybe even evil. If you think saying mean judgements are logic and rational think again. Logic and ration makes you feel good, not bad and is never evil. Trust me I have gone on that side with my logic and sometimes I still go there and there is no truth on that side.

Move to our side Paul, is better here, look how many people are answering to your comments and as I see are good people, hope you are one of us and you say all this words to keep a conversation going.

[Shelby]

Paul wrote: "the facts that I base my logic on were discovered by others and proven with something called "evidence,"...

Really? I did not see you providing evidence that anything written in the Secret does not work

What kind of cunt are you? ..."

Wow sir, you really know how to express yourself with such an extensive vocabulary.

The problem with this is you and your friend Xox have only managed make your side look like irrational, narrow-minded people who are not intelligent enough to make a good argument.

This is beyond sad.

[Shelby]

This comment was written on a different discussion of a different book. I was just struck by how this rang true on this discussion

Some of the rudest and most virulent critics of this book haven't read it, which I find interesting. They'll usually talk about it in very general terms and fill their posts mostly with how stupid the author, book, and fans are and then make small mistakes that let you know they haven't read it and haven't a clue about details. These people are mostly adults and are usually writers themselves. In this instance, I don't think they're here because it's fashionable. I think they're here to vent. I think they're here to live out a fantasy that many unsuccessful writers have of haranguing the public for its low and wayward tastes.

[Will]

Shelby wrote: "So you are saying wanting to see positive results in your life is wrong? People should not want positive results? That does not make any sense dude."

You must not have understood what I said. I'll forgive and move on.

"And what truth is that? If people's faith does give them strength and make them happier how is that not true? Like someone said earlier "your perception is your reality." That's just the way it is. Its up to you to decide your reality. And I think that it is evident even on this thread."

The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and by no means a necessity of life
-George Bernard Shaw

"Really? I did not see you providing evidence that anything written in the Secret does not work"

The burden of proof is on you and the author of the book. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

[Nancy]

Paul wrote: "Nancy wrote: "Then you don't know Mother Teresa."

Oh, and I'm sure you do? haha"

Perhaps not personally, but I know 2 people who have been in India working with her ministry, one of whom knew her for a short while during their time there. The stories they have shared certainly paint a different picture of Mother Teresa's work than what you are proposing.

[Shelby]

Will wrote: "The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and by no means a necessity of life..."

Funny enough I actually agree with you and Mr. Shaw. Problem is I am probably interpreting it differently than you are.

If you have read this book (and I am saying if because I have noticed that some people on this discussion haven't) Then you will know that there is a passage that actually asks you to put the theory to the test.

The burden of proof is on you and the author of the book.
I think the book answers this question but to satisfy your argument may I refer you to http://www.fredalanwolf.com/

I have many other resources but I really do not have the time to list them all here

[Will]

Yeah, an opinion isn't evidence, even if that opinion happens to come from a PhD professor.

[Will]

If your other resources are opinions too, you don't need to bother listing them.

[[deleted user]]

Elena wrote: "Paul have you even actually read the book that you are so heavily criticise?

The book is just a book Paul, it doesnt eat you and it doesnt change anything about you without your own decision. No need to be frightened by it. We give the power to every book we read, is not the other way around. A book is just some paper with some black things called words written on them, nothing else. Until we relate our life with something from the book. It seems nothing from your life can relate with this book.

I hope you dont feel all your writings because all that youve said can be easily categorised as mean maybe even evil. If you think saying mean judgements are logic and rational think again. Logic and ration makes you feel good, not bad and is never evil. Trust me I have gone on that side with my logic and sometimes I still go there and there is no truth on that side.

Move to our side Paul, is better here, look how many people are answering to your comments and as I see are good people, hope you are one of us and you say all this words to keep a conversation going."

To answer your question; yes, I have read the book and I also watched the "movie." My mother got caught up in its nonsense back in 2002 and EVERYONE in the family just had to read it. Some of us did, and we laughed about how anyone could buy it. Then she forgot about it less than a month later and moved on to feng shui or in English; "move your husband's shit into the garage."

And I really have to stop you, because I'm not sure I can carry on a conversation with an adult who uses the word evil as freely as you do. Nothing I have said is malevolent or could be categorized as such.

[[deleted user]]

Shelby wrote: "Really? I did not see you providing evidence that anything written in the Secret does not work."

You basically just asked me to disprove bigfoot's existence and didn't even think about the contradiction before pressing post. Bravo.

Shelby wrote: "Wow sir, you really know how to express yourself with such an extensive vocabulary."

I know. I have been told that before. Thank you, though.

Shelby wrote: "The problem with this is you and your friend Xox have only managed make your side look like irrational, narrow-minded people who are not intelligent enough to make a good argument."

Funny, because I think many points have been addressed here by naysayers and they have largely been ignored or answered with crazy suggestions like Africans starving because they aren't able to picture grocery stores.

Shelby wrote: "This is beyond sad."

It really is sad that grown human beings will believe anything just have a belief in something that grants them wishes.

[Shelby]

Will wrote: "Yeah, an opinion isn't evidence, even if that opinion happens to come from a PhD professor."

The fault with this discussion is that you are not here to listen to the other side rather you are here to criticize something you do not believe in and judging from earlier posts something you have not read.

I could give you all the resources I have, I can even bring in a lot of people who have read the Secret, have had their lives changed by it, have thousands of testimonies of how the LOA has worked in their lives. I can even tell you of my own experiences but you probably will not believe me.

This because you choose not to believe or at least you have chosen not to see the other side. People like you Paul and Xox are not even contributing to the original purpose of the thread, not even discussing intelligently why you think the book "is stupid" but just giving reasons such "wishful thinking is stupid. It does not work" (again another testament that the majority of the negative side of this discussion did not read this book).

By the way, to answer again your earlier post, the proof is in you opening your mind, removing all the negative thoughts and doubts in your mind and trying it in your life. I could tell you how to remove all the negative thoughts and doubts but I don't think it would fit in this limited space. The best I can do is to ask you to read the book.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

Its only extraordinary if you believe it is. I think its quite simple really.

[[deleted user]]

Shelby wrote: "I think the book answers this question but to satisfy your argument may I refer you to http://www.fredalanwolf.com/"

Fred Alan Wolf. haha

For those who don't know, the guy is a crackpot who has been trying to sell his own brand of pseudo-physics off as a religion. He's another snake oil salesman trying to take advantage of desperate people.

[Will]

Shelby wrote: "Its only extraordinary if you believe it is. "

HAHAHAHA

Sorry, but if you read through the thread, no one is denying that thinking positive often produce positive benefits for those lucky enough to live in a wealthy country. This is no mystery.

The part that is being contested is "thought frequencies to the universe" and "Law of attraction" which has absolutely no basis in reality.

[Shelby]

Will wrote: "Shelby wrote: " no one is denying that thinking positive often produce positive benefits..."

Ummm... you may want to read Xox's and many other comments from people with the similar frame of mind

The part that is being contested is "thought frequencies to the universe" and "Law of attraction" which has absolutely no basis in reality.

Again something which you choose to believe. Like I said earlier, this discussion is going nowhere.

[[deleted user]]

Shelby wrote: "The fault with this discussion is that you are not here to listen to the other side rather you are here to criticize something you do not believe in and judging from earlier posts something you have not read. "

No, the problem with this discussion is that there is no discussion. Unless we're fawning over the author or the book, we are labeled as "negative" and told that we need to read the book to learn how to be "positive."

This is how a conversation works when you are confronting a cult member.

[Will]

Shelby wrote: "Ummm... you may want to read Xox's and many other comments from people with the similar frame of mind"

Xox isn't denying that if you have opportunities, approaching them with a positive frame of mind is helpful, but I'll let her speak for herself. Regardless, I'm not denying this.

"Again something which you choose to believe. Like I said earlier, this discussion is going nowhere."

Evidently, because belief isn't substantial - reality is. I don't "believe" in those things in the same way that I don't believe in faeries or Santa Claus; while they might have positive benefits (kids, you better be nice--->presents!), that has no bearing on reality.

[Marc]

"People like you are not even contributing to the original purpose of the thread, not even discussing intelligently why you think the book "is stupid" but just giving reasons such "wishful thinking is stupid."

I agree completely with the statement above, this could be a fun conversation. However the vulgarity and combative style employed by some no doubt keeps many from participating. Why share if you are going to be roasted within seconds?

In watching this discussion unfold I have come to see who I would want as neighbors, friends, or as my leaders. There is clearly one group here that seems far more happy with their lives, plays well with others, and has shown a lot more tolerance for other points of view.

I once heard that the problem when arguing with a fool is that before long no one wil be able to tell the difference between the parties. We also cannot control the behavior of others and I think most of us here really don't even care to control the beliefs or thoughts of others.

With all the above in mind, I'm going to try the following. If you are vulgar, rude, or personally attacking people versus contributing to the conversation- I'm just going to ignore you. More than anything you want a response or reaction, which I can clearly deny you.