I love ALL of this.

@JeffMurray I just up dated it and added another.

That’s my policy. I’m happy to discuss ideas with people who hold opinions that are very different from mine, as long as I think they’re acting in good faith and they think I’m acting in good faith. But the minute I become convinced either of those criteria are broken, I can’t think of any reason to continue engaging that person. I’m not going to change them, and they’re not going to change me. Any further engagement is a waste of both party’s time.

A good-faith actor has no need to denigrate the other person’s character or motives.

One notable extract from Wikipedia: Valid ad hominem arguments occur in informal logic, where the person making the argument relies on arguments from authority such as testimony, expertise, or a selective presentation of information supporting the position they are advocating. In this case, counter-arguments may be made that the target is dishonest, lacks the claimed expertise, or has a conflict of interest.

Gee, so like promoting one's pet agenda (Like Yvilletom) using fallacious arguments backed by quasi-scientific articles.

@racocn8 Yes, that, and more simply that someone is wrong and a douche bag, not wrong because they're a douche bag.

Speaking of religion, when does a subject of interest become a cult? People advocate an agenda even though the science is BS, or has no real science behind it, and refuse to admit their cause is obviously wrong on various points. The dogmatic dismissing of objections goes from dishonesty to disrespect, even bullying. That's when the douche bag aspect becomes apparent.

@racocn8 I imagine the definition of cult is pretty subjective and likely similar to the SCOTUS statement on hard-core pornography that I paraphrase as: I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it.