[yarou]

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Skepticism doesn't entail blocking out viewpoints you disagree with. You automatically lose an argument if you refuse to engage with your detractor.

[Dylan16807]

> You automatically lose an argument if you refuse to engage with your detractor.

Nah. If someone who believes the Earth is flat is willing to spend 12 hours a day arguing on forums, your best move is to refuse to engage. You will never convince them, and they will always outlast you and feel victorious.

[cookiecaper]

I think it was meant more in the general sense, not the absolute. Naturally you have to ascertain the good faith and sanity of your potential counterpart, but in general, there's a difference between attempting to have a discussion and being unable to find common ground in a reasonable time frame and flat out refusing to engage with someone whose beliefs you've illegitimately labeled taboo.

The issue is not that people make a serious and earnest effort to understand the opposing side, but tire before they're able to understand the other POV. The issue is rather that they apply one or more of a handful of ethereal, unfalsifiable labels to their opponent, and then believe that gives them license to dismiss the opponent's POV out of hand without addressing or processing it.

When such people hear something challenging to their favored notions, instead of saying "Wow, I'll need to think about that", they say "You're a [bigot|racist|%phobe|redneck|yuppie|commie|socialist|...].", mutter additional insults under their breath, tell you not to try to show your disgusting ignorant face around here anymore or else, and pat themselves on the back for their righteousness while they walk away.

[Dylan16807]

Sure, you should try to pause and understand someone's opinion. But equally important is not doing that ad infinitum. Some people are just wrong. Rejecting someone's arguments entirely should be done very sparingly, but sometimes it's a valid option.

Also most of those labels are falsifiable.

[M_Grey]

Oh god ^this. There is a particularly broken specimen of human on a skeptical website who's username reflects his obsession, "Sfseaserpent". He believes that there is a sea serpent, essentially a biblical dragon, living in the San Francisco bay. There is no amount of debating or reasoning which can move him one iota, and the most you can achieve is to cause him to stop acknowledging your existence for a time.

I have had experience elsewhere with someone who trolls various forums in an effort to spread the "good word" about Jehova. Sometimes, "The only winning move is not to play." It's not always the case, and sure, that line can be used as an excuse by people in bad faith to avoid an argument; it's still the prudent course sometimes.

[thinkmassive]

This sounds like the textbook definition of trolling. If you honestly believe the sea serpent guy I think you're probably the one being taken for a ride. You're right with the Wargames quote in any case though.

[M_Grey]

I've never engaged with him personally, but having seen him over literally many years, I doubt that he's anything other than a sincere maniac. He's not good at getting a rise out of people... he always ends up being the one to lose his temper and flame OUT. Same with the Jehovah's Witness.

Trolls are there, all over the place, but there are "True Believers" too, and they're even more immovable and pointless.

[chetanahuja]

"You automatically lose an argument if you refuse to engage with your detractor."

You just described the battle cry of the eternal troll. Your freedom of speech does not equal me being forced to listen to you.