Maybe not those two (that I can remember), but in the past I’ve had changes of heart on issues afer discussions with other posters (ExTank and Airman Doors, before I left in 2004, come immediately to mind; I’ve thoroughly reconsidered my views on gun ownership for starters) and I’m finding common ground with E-Sabbath in the very thread you link to.
The difference is that they didn’t start the discussion with the assumption that everyone who disagrees with them is a petulant moron. You do. Why should we bother talking to you when there’s no evidence that you’ll take anything we say seriously?
Some, but not nearly as many as you think. Pointing out that your arguments are poorly considered, dishonestly conducted and unsupported by reality is not the same as dogmatically holding the opposing position.
And yes, I mean “dishonest”. mhendo’s point here
…is entirely true. That you believe that you are conducting an honest (if somewhat scrappy) debate I have no doubt. If anything, that merely makes your equivocations all the worse.
Case in point: on the Crips and Bloods discussion in the other thread:
In fact, I suspect that due to media portrayals most people associate the Bloods and Crips specifically with South Central LA unless they live in an area with gang activity and thus direct exposure to them. As such, RT’s point is entirely relevant. So your point is rebutted, and your response is to claim that you were really talking about something different and that we’re all being deliberately obtuse and dishonest in not addressing THAT point. How is that a legitimate point of debate? Your argument is that you can read our minds? Of course your other option would be to accept either that you had been wrong or that you had been unclear in your original statement, something you never (or very rarely) do. That’s what I mean by dishonest.
If you want to play the victim card here (“Ooh, the mean widdle libwuls are picking on me”), go right ahead. But don’t expect us to treat you like an adult when you act that way.