Unnecessary arguing

Question

For reference I think (based on an earlier comment of Alex's) that it was this question ...

• If Buddha had unconditional love, why did he "kill" some of his monks?

... or its answers, which was at least one example of the "unnecessary arguing" which @Alex refers to in this answer.

In context that question (about "unconditional love") had been subsequent to this answer -- and to these comments under an earlier version of that answer, which were later moved to chat.

As a moderator I "allowed" that question (about "killing" and "unconditional love") because it seemed to be within the norms of the site, and it was upvoted.

But if that's an example of unnecessary arguing which you'd like to stop somehow, then you could maybe explain here how you see that -- for example ...

• Am I too permissive about allowing (or myself participating in) arguing?
• Is there a specific pattern of posting -- answers, comments, follow-on question -- that I should watch more closely?
• A specific type of content or use of language (I'm already wary of people using the word "you" for example)?
• A specific nuisance user account (though I'm loathe to ask this question because personal dislike if any might be quite problematic especially as a basis for moderation, and is arguably against the Code of Conduct which says, "Focus on the content, not the person")?
• Or is the status quo (i.e. "the way it is now") kind of good enough or "couldn't be better" even if it is imperfect?

... or whatever else you can say.

Answer 1

"A quarrelsome bhikkhu shrouded by delusion, does not comprehend the Dhamma taught by the Awakened One when it is revealed. Annoying those practiced in meditation, being led by ignorance, he is not aware that his defiled path leads to Niraya-hell. Falling headlong, passing from womb to womb, from darkness to (greater) darkness, such a bhikkhu undergoes suffering hereafter for certain.

"As a cesspool filled over a number of years is difficult to clean, similarly, whoever is full of impurity is difficult to make pure. Whoever you know to be such, bhikkhus, bent on worldliness, having wrong desires, wrong thoughts, wrong behavior and resort, being completely united avoid him, sweep him out like dirt, remove him like rubbish. Winnow like chaff the non-recluses. Having ejected those of wrong desires, of wrong behavior and resort, be pure and mindful, dwelling with those who are pure. Being united and prudent you will make an end to suffering." Snp2.6

I think that if this arguing has a single person for a common denominator then it is kind of obvious what the problem is.

I think it's apparent that usually questions get a variety of answers that are contradictory. There is also not much of an opening to scrutinize an answer one doesn't like other than voting it down.

Afaik the community doesn't really vote down disagreeable answers. If posters voted down answers they do not agree with then my answers i expect would have a lot more downvotes . It seems to me that for the most part people don't really care if someone posts an answer they do not agree with and feel no need to get into an argument over the legitimacy of an answer.

There are clearly some who do instigate these arguments and imo that behavior is good for nothing because i can't remember it solving anything and usually ends up with patronizing insults 'you dont understand the dhamma, you aren't buddhist, you don't have jhana or ascetism bla bla'