[Superman]

Indeed. As I may have mentioned, the typical "Logic" class at a university will train the students (at least the ones who are paying attention) to identify what's called the informal fallacies. These are arguments that hook some people, but which have limited logical value. Often the way students are trained to identify these, is by reviewing a series of actual arguments, presidential debates, whatever, and strike through those arguments that are not logically compelling. It's striking the small amount of compelling argument that remains. When I took the class (several centuries ago), the arguments reviewed were contained in a series of letters back and forth between a women's libber and a catholic priest.

So, even when the backstabbing and name-calling and vitriol is not present, the arguments may or may not be sound. When you add the name-calling, whatever actual rational argument you could have had is probably discredited. One of my favorite remarks is "All generalizations are false." I also find that the most common correct answer is "It depends." So, when a poster seems circumspect, finding truth in various other posters' offerings, I tend to respect that guy. When a poster seems to be assuming that an entire group of other posters is FOS with nothing whatsoever of relevance to contribute, I should just use my "ignore" button since that poster is not the one I am here to engage. It's a credibility thing. Life is short. I want to have a real discussion about public policy. I can get that elsewhere, but what saddens me the most is the wonderful sense of community I have enjoyed here over the years. That very possibly is going away now.