[Anderkent]

>I've thought about it, one part of what "shocked" me about it was the hubris inherent in the statement: "...someone I could save by argument.". As though those that cannot be "saved" are merely a passing fascination, not to be bothered with for fear of liability.

I read a completely different meaning from that statement. "not someone I could save _by argument_". I.e. no point arguing, even though there might be other ways to help them.

[tekromancr]

"If someone has a false belief but is otherwise logical, for example someone with different political opinions that they merely haven't thought about, then it might make some sense to enter into a debate. After all, at least one of you must be wrong, otherwise you would agree. But in a situation where someone's false beliefs are a result of mental illness, delusions, no amount of arguing will bring their worldview to a place that could be considered consistent with what is commonly known about objective reality."

At least, that's how that sentience unpacked into my brain.