When it comes to religious belief, or lack of, name calling is not dialogue.

[guillaumeb]

It is simply name calling.

And if one claims to be interested in actual dialogue, name calling is one way to shut down dialogue.

It is that simple. If you argument requires insults, it is not dialogue, it is attack speech.

[Still In Wisconsin]

1. I agree. I've come to understand that if I call an evangelical Christian a "Fundie,"

that's really no different than that person calling me (I am a Jew) a Hebe, a Hymie, a Kike, etc..

[guillaumeb]

3. Exactly.

And name calling never leads to actual dialogue.

[Croney]

2. Is name-calling the same as labeling?

I self-identify as an atheist. I try to call people what they want to be called.

[guillaumeb]

4. Name calling is denigration.

If you are an atheist, that is simply a descriptive term.

But if I said that atheism makes you bad, that is not dialogue.

[Major Nikon]

15. Not if the name is accurate

If you call a bigot intolerant, that’s not denigrating. If you call someone who isn’t a bigot intolerant, then you are going down the road of name calling, which is a lesson some are slow to learn, probably intentionally.

[guillaumeb]

18. A bigot is intolerant.

So that is a descriptive.

And calling Trump a liar and a con man is simply stating the truth.

But that is not the point of the post.

[Major Nikon]

21. You just described when name calling isn't denigration

Your assertion made it the point.

[guillaumeb]

22. What I said:

And if one claims to be interested in actual dialogue, name calling is one way to shut down dialogue.

It is that simple. If you argument requires insults, it is not dialogue, it is attack speech.

Calling theists contemptible because they are theists is not dialogue, nor is it intended to promote dialogue. It is simply preaching intolerance and disrespect to the choir for which it is intended.

[Major Nikon]

24. You are working way too hard to be offended

Tell us again how Russell’s “extreme intolerance” is so “well known” to anyone but you. I’ve asked you several times for a cite so at this point I’m pretty sure your non-answers are deliberate. Very telling that.

[Cary]

5. Dialogue for what?

I can point you to a man who insists he has absolute truth. He is Catholic and feels he is not bound by Vatican II. I would defy you to get a.straight answer out of him on anything. That is just one example of a religious zealot whom you cannot have any dialogue with.

If you wish to waste your time worrying about the sensibilities of people who are holier than thou, that is up to you. But I will tell you the same thing I tell them: unless and until you can provide reasonably objective arguments your proposition is pure faith. You are entitled to your faith but you are not entitled to impose it on me.

"Fundie" is a perfectly servicable term. No, it is not like "kike." Sorry. Not the same.

[guillaumeb]

6. Dialogue is multiple voices speaking.

And respectful dialogue is simply that, a process where we listen and respond respectfully.

But calling people names because of their beliefs is not dialogue. It is attempted intimidation.

As to your example, he may not wish to engage in dialogue about his religious beliefs. But if he does not try to prevent you from acting on your beliefs, where is the issue?

[Cary]

7. He is a racist and a homophobe trying to impose his relgion via politics

I get your point. I wish I could lay down general rules as seamlessly as you do, but there are evil people out there. Sociopaths. These are people who only understand rejection on the harshest of terms and they will use your general rule and your goodwill against you. Moreover they are now emboldened and resurgent.

[guillaumeb]

9. I doubt that I know the person,

but I have met many like that.

Dialogue depends on mutual respect, and a mutual desire to engage.

[Cary]

14. When they play insipid mind games and lie there can be no respect

And no civililty.

I gave up trying.

[guillaumeb]

17. I understand. eom

[Major Nikon]

8. Kinda sucks you don't follow your own advice

Let’s not forget how you called several folks in this group intolerant just this past week alone.

[guillaumeb]

10. Ths is one of your more enlightening ones:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=12711

[Major Nikon]

11. Kinda funny how you'd use your stalking tactics

...within an OP where you are trying to present yourself as a model for civil discourse.

[guillaumeb]

12. Afraid of your own words?

Perhaps you should research the meaning of the term stalking.

As to civil discourse, your own voluminous record is there for all to see.

[Major Nikon]

13. When have I ever given you reason to believe that?

Why don’t you explain why you are desperately searching for completely unrelated posts made in a completely different forum made before you ever got here. Even more hilarious is posting this immediately after falsely accusing me of ad hominem. Why don’t you look up the definition for hypocrite because this OP is starting to reek with it.

Or just tell us again how you’re all about civil discourse. Soon there won’t be a dry eye in the house.

[guillaumeb]

16. Funny is you accusing me of doing what you did in a separate post.

And I mentioned you frequent use of ad hominem attack because it is so constant.

[Major Nikon]

19. If you're going to accuse me of ad hominem, you should have the integrity to explain yourself

Otherwise all you’re doing is making a half-fast unsupported claim as usual.

Meanwhile I’ve explained in detail why your personal attacks are nothing more than ad hominem. Instead of disputing you simply reply with a lame canned response, another ad hominem attack, or divert. I have no reason to suspect you’ll behave differently now even within your own thread where you self-righteously and hypocritically claim the high road.

[guillaumeb]

20. Anyone looking at your replies to me will see the constant references to

room temperature IQ, being butt hurt, and many other replies all centered around the theme of a lack of intelligence.

So that is sufficient explanation.

And we have this one of yours, were you accuse me of libel:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218297000


And after twice linking to one of my posts, you accuse me of stalking you when I linked to one of your posts. I fail to follow your reasoning, but that may be due to my room temperature IQ.

[Major Nikon]

23. Bullshit

It’s just like every other time you’ve falsely accused myself and others of name calling. I’ve asked you repeatedly what name you were called and received nothing better than nonsense snark in lieu of a reply.

The IQ response was an answer to who else, besides you is claiming Russell is intolerant which means yes there are some atheist hating anonymous morons on the internet claiming Russell is intolerant. This was in response to your ridiculous claim that Russell’s intolerance is “well known”. I made no assertion or implications to your IQ. That dog won’t hunt and you either know it or should know it because no, I just don’t think you are that stupid.

I accused you of libel because you are guilty of libel. Your ridiculous argument for “extreme intolerance” of Russell was because he called the behavior of those who cling to myths a “little contemptible”. Others who dared to call bullshit were called the same which I’m sure was your intention when you created the OP. That’s exactly what libel is. If you don’t like being called a libeler, don’t defame others. As we both agreed, it ain’t name calling if it’s true.

As far as butt hurt goes that has nothing to do with IQ and it’s more than a bit silly to claim otherwise. You have a long history of disingenuously claiming victimization in this group. You did it with this OP and again with this latest reply. You frequently dish out condescending replies, refer to many of us as the “choir” as a perjorative, and yes engage in creepy cyberstalking behavior against myself and MM if not others. You invent silly rules for this group and then whine incessantly when you think they are violated. When you’re called out for your bad behavior you pretend you’re getting personally attacked. So yeah, “butt hurt” is actually a pretty mild way of putting it and spot on.

Meanwhile pretending you’re even remotely interested in intelligent discourse is ridiculous. In addition to what was previously mentioned, you have a plethora of tactics that specifically avoid anything close to intellectual discussion. You demand answers for all sorts of things, yet almost never provide any in return. You have a handful of canned responses you repeat ad nausem that you pretend constitutes substance as if everyone is too stupid to realize otherwise. You author all sorts of logical fallacies repeatedly even after getting called out for it by several people.

All of this may seem harsh, but if you’re going to accuse me of something you’d better have something to back it up as I promise I will give better than I get.

[guillaumeb]

28. Yes, your reply was indeed.

And you admit to your ad hominem attacks in your response denying that they happened. Amazing.


The only positive from reading your response is that it convicts you of what was charged.

[Major Nikon]

43. Bullshit

I asked for your ad hominem evidence after your half-fast false allegations and just as predicted you refused to provide any which really tells anyone all they need to know about your lack of integrity.

Meanwhile you claim to have studied debate but either didn’t pay attention or willfully refuse to engage in meaningful discourse on pretty much anything with everyone while simultaneously claiming you are all about substantive discussion.

Had you paid attention to your alleged debate studies you’d know good faith debate obligates both sides to answer relevant questions. You reveal much about yourself when you simply waffle instead of answer, especially when you spend far more effort doing just that. What you really are all about is giving self-righteous sermons. If that’s what you really want to do, more power to you, but when you pretend what you are doing is debate all you really accomplish is proving your dishonesty.

[MineralMan]

27. I don't see any name-calling in that post from 2014.

Why did you use that as an example? How did you even find it? Odd...

[guillaumeb]

29. And the numerous other examples of name calling?

Perhaps more reading is called for.

[MineralMan]

32. Or perhaps less.

I read many threads here. I participate in many threads here. By here, I mean DU. I do not go searching about in old threads, though, looking for reasons to be offended. There are many such threads, of course, but each day is a new day.

There is a fairly good search tool on this website, but it's not something I use, except rarely, and only to look up something I have written in the past.

If you are looking for examples of someone doing something you do not like, they can certainly be found, no doubt. But, to what end, Guy? The only thing that comes from digging around in old threads and posts is opportunity to engage in ad hominem attacks.

There have been some here who have delved into my writings that were posted over a decade ago on other websites. Taking something I said that long ago, completely out of context, they have attacked me from time to time. I simply dismiss such nonsense for what it is.

You linked to a post someone made before you were even on this website and claimed that it had to do with name-calling. I clicked the link and found no name-calling behavior at all there. Perhaps you saw something I did not see, but it was the act of linking to some old post you somehow found that is disturbing to me. Why do that at all? That's the question that comes to my mind? Of what possible good use can that be, I wonder?

And now, I'm replying to a post from you that is devoid of actual content. It references nothing and asks me to consider evidence that is not even presented. What do you suppose I am to read? I read as much as I possibly can here, and am not going to go on a pointless chase after information that might possibly meet your description.

I'm not even sure why you wrote the post to which I am now replying. It makes no sense at all. You have answered my question about a specific thing with a question about nothing at all. That is not communication, nor is it discussion.

[guillaumeb]

34. Try reading #23.

It is a good example of what passes for analysis among a few here.

[MineralMan]

35. No, thank you. Instead, please try

sticking to the point of this thread. I will not be led on wild goose chases by you.

[guillaumeb]

36. #23 is a prime illustration of the point of the thread.

But you can ignore it if it serves you better, and then claim to not see what my point is.

[MineralMan]

37. Oh, Guy...

Truly, I don't think you see what you are doing here. You began this thread with a vague accusation, but presented no evidence of it. When I asked questions of you in more than one post, you did not bother to answer them, but simply asked another question.

Dialog requires participation. When you don't participate, there is no dialog.

And, with that, my participation in this thread is finished.

[guillaumeb]

38. You refuse to look at the proof before you.

So yes, your participation, such as it was, should be finished.

But other readers can and will read #23, and perhaps arrive at the obvious conclusion.

[MineralMan]

39. I read #23. Did you?

[guillaumeb]

40. And what did you see in it?

I am curious to know what you saw, and what you did not see.

[MineralMan]

41. I saw something you should read for understanding.

[guillaumeb]

49. Deflection. I understand.

[Major Nikon]

44. By other readers do you mean your imaginary fan club?

[Mariana]

25. Jesus's message covers this topic.

He told his followers exactly what they're supposed to do when they're called names because of their religious beliefs. Unlike some of his other lessons, his instructions about how to respond to insults are very clear indeed.

He said, "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you." (Matthew 5 : 12-13)

[Red Raider 85]

26. Jesus probably never existed.

[Mariana]

42. The book exists.

The poster I responded to claims to be a Christian. So, that person probably believes Jesus existed, and that he did at least some of the stuff the book says he did.

[guillaumeb]

30. The topic is dialogue.

And the lack of it when insult takes the place of argument.

[Major Nikon]

45. Are you really claiming you don't insult others on a daily basis here?

Pot, meet kettle.

[MineralMan]

48. Surely not.

Such a claim is unsupportable.

[Major Nikon]

54. Hilariously so

[Mariana]

47. Yes, everyone knows the kind of dialog you want to see in this group.

You want to have conversations like this:

OP: "The human mind is a pale reflection of the Creator..."
Good: "You're absolutely right!"
Good: "That's so profound!"
Good: "Praise the Lord!"

These kind of exchanges are unacceptable:

OP: "The human mind is a pale reflection of the Creator..."
Bad: "Please describe this creator."
Bad: "Whose human mind?"
Bad: "How do you know this?"

There are several groups on DU that were set up specifically so religious people can have the first kind of conversation, and avoid the second type altogether. This one lone group permits the second kind, and you don't seem to like that one little bit.

[guillaumeb]

51. My own posts disprove your weak assertion.

And my observation about the 11th Commandment and the claimed desire for dialogue is still very relevant.

What some few really want here is an opportunity to attack theism and theists with no dissension allowed. And any positive posts are immediately attacked by that same few.

And if those same few wish to attack theism and theists, they also can post in a protected group. But they do not. Why is that?

[Mariana]

52. Poor, poor persecuted Gil.

This one group on DU permits discussion of religion that includes disagreement and criticism and awkward questions. How unspeakably awful that must be for you.

[guillaumeb]

53. Poor deflecting on your part M.

No comment whatsoever about the obvious.

I understand, it is hard to defend against the obvious. The 11th Commandment is a demanding one for the choir.

[Major Nikon]

61. Bullshit

Meaningful discussion happens with theists and atheists within this group. Just not with you. Who do you think is to blame for that? Please tell us you bear no responsibility because that shit is hilarious.

[guillaumeb]

62. Point to some.

Link to some.

Link to even one recent thread that you feel proves your assertion.

I will wait patiently.

[Major Nikon]

64. I will later

Right now I’m on a mobile device and linking is too much trouble. Meanwhile I’m still waiting on a number of similar requests from you with zero hope of fulfillment.

Kinda telling about alleged debate skills from those who demand citations, yet never provide any when asked, don’t you think? Oh wait, that’s another question you predictably won’t answer. Add it to the list.

[guillaumeb]

67. I will wait for the later.

And ignore the ad hominem.

[Major Nikon]

73. I will not ignore your libel

If nothing else it provides more evidence of duplicity, as if more were needed. I’ll remind you of it from time to time.

Just sayin’

[guillaumeb]

74. You need to research what libel is, and what constitutes evidence.

Speaking from 30 plus years representing union members.


And I will wait for the evidence. MM failed to provide any. But it must be out there, correct?

[Major Nikon]

77. Says the guy who doesn't know the difference between slander and libel

[guillaumeb]

80. Indeed. eom

[MineralMan]

68. Here's a thread that just started, Guy.

It's like that. You can jump right in if you wish:

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1218297295

[guillaumeb]

71. You obviously misread the claim.

In this thread, there is a response by a Buddhist and 1 by an atheist.

You will have to demonstrate better skills.

[Major Nikon]

96. Condescension from someone who's allegedly all about respectful dialog

Ironically in the very thread that same someone gives a sermon about respectful dialog.

[Major Nikon]

81. Several

Here’s a short list of avowed theists who have added to the discussion in this group on more than one occasion and do not share your complaints...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/~vlyons
https://www.democraticunderground.com/~Karadeniz
https://www.democraticunderground.com/~Dale%20Neiburg
https://www.democraticunderground.com/~sanatanadharma

Going past theism there’s been several other non-atheist posters who have contributed to this group over the years without the issues you have.

So please do continue with you 11th commandment argyle-bargle and playing the victim.

Now I’m going to remind you of two recent occasions when I asked for a cite and you provided nothing. There’s more from me and several more from others I could reference if I wanted, but these will do for now. Don’t worry, I’ll keep reminding you. Since you are all about the civil discourse and the debate skills, I’m sure you’ll get right on it.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=295987
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=296900

[guillaumeb]

82. 3 of your links are empty. Ironic, I think.

The only journal active is vylons.

[Major Nikon]

83. All are active posters

But do keep diverting as it shows you are all about stubstantive discussion.

Meanwhile I’m still waiting on those cites and predictably you are failing to provide any while demanding them from others. Can we stop pretending you are all about stubstantive discussion yet, or do I need to keep reminding you?

[guillaumeb]

84. I asked fro a specific post, or posts,

demonstrating your claim. MM failed to provide one.

[Major Nikon]

85. Moving the goal posts is a common tactic of those uninterested in civil discourse

I asserted there were other theists in this group who participate without problems. I named them.

I support my assertions.

You don’t
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=295987
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=296900

Meanwhile I’m still waiting on those cites and predictably you are failing to provide any while demanding them from others. Can we stop pretending you are all about stubstantive discussion yet, or do I need to keep reminding you?

[guillaumeb]

86. Your own claim.

Meaningful discussion happens with theists and atheists within this group. Just not with you. Who do you think is to blame for that? Please tell us you bear no responsibility because that shit is hilarious.

I asked for proof. You have provided none.
MM tried and failed to provide any.

Not one post, much less the claim that discussion happens. There is none. There is only an endless series of psots attacking theists and theism.


So I do understand the difficultly you are having. You are searching for a unicorn.

[Major Nikon]

87. 62. Point to some.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=297288

Pointed to some
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=297316

So please do continue with you 11th commandment argyle-bargle and playing the victim.

Now I’m going to remind you of two recent occasions when I asked for a cite and you provided nothing. There’s more from me and several more from others I could reference if I wanted, but these will do for now. Don’t worry, I’ll keep reminding you. Since you are all about the civil discourse and the debate skills, I’m sure you’ll get right on it.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=295987
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=296900

Meanwhile I’m still waiting on those cites and predictably you are failing to provide any while demanding them from others. Can we stop pretending you are all about stubstantive discussion yet, or do I need to keep reminding you?

[guillaumeb]

88. #1 on your list is my own question asking for proof.

#2 is not proof either. I already showed how it is not in another reply.

#s 3 and 4 are off topic of you proving an assertion that you made.

4 strikes.

[Major Nikon]

89. I proved my assertion

Keep playing your diversionary game of moving the goalposts all you want, but you’ll have to play alone.

Now I’m going to remind you of two recent occasions when I asked for a cite and you provided nothing. There’s more from me and several more from others I could reference if I wanted, but these will do for now. Don’t worry, I’ll keep reminding you. Since you are all about the civil discourse and the debate skills, I’m sure you’ll get right on it.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=295987
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=296900

Meanwhile I’m still waiting on those cites and predictably you are failing to provide any while demanding them from others. Can we stop pretending you are all about stubstantive discussion yet, or do I need to keep reminding you?

[guillaumeb]

90. No, you failed, and now you wish to define failure as success.

So far, you have not pointed to one exchange between a theist and an atheist that is respectful. And your claim is that respectful dialogue does take place.

Alice in Wonderland.

[Major Nikon]

91. Not

Playing

Your

Game

Anymore.

Now I’m going to remind you of two recent occasions when I asked for a cite and you provided nothing. There’s more from me and several more from others I could reference if I wanted, but these will do for now. Don’t worry, I’ll keep reminding you. Since you are all about the civil discourse and the debate skills, I’m sure you’ll get right on it.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=295987
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=296900

Meanwhile I’m still waiting on those cites and predictably you are failing to provide any while demanding them from others. Can we stop pretending you are all about stubstantive discussion yet, or do I need to keep reminding you?

[guillaumeb]

92. A wise decision.

But I will look for examples of respectful dialogue. At one point, I posted some examples from 2014 of disrespectful dialogue, and I was accused of stalking.

Imagine that. Apparently linking to a previous post is considered by some to be stalking.

[Major Nikon]

93. Not....

...

....

Playing

....

...

Your

....

....

Game

...

...

Anymore


Now I’m going to remind you of two recent occasions when I asked for a cite and you provided nothing. There’s more from me and several more from others I could reference if I wanted, but these will do for now. Don’t worry, I’ll keep reminding you. Since you are all about the civil discourse and the debate skills, I’m sure you’ll get right on it.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=295987
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=296900

Meanwhile I’m still waiting on those cites and predictably you are failing to provide any while demanding them from others. Can we stop pretending you are all about stubstantive discussion yet, or do I need to keep reminding you?

[guillaumeb]

94. I complimented you on making a wise decision.

With that, have a good night.

[Major Nikon]

95. I'll still wait patiently with the proof you reject good faith discussion

While pretending otherwise.

Now I’m going to remind you of two recent occasions when I asked for a cite and you provided nothing. There’s more from me and several more from others I could reference if I wanted, but these will do for now. Don’t worry, I’ll keep reminding you. Since you are all about the civil discourse and the debate skills, I’m sure you’ll get right on it.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=295987
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=296900

Meanwhile I’m still waiting on those cites and predictably you are failing to provide any while demanding them from others. Can we stop pretending you are all about stubstantive discussion yet, or do I need to keep reminding you?

[Major Nikon]

63. Actually I don't even think he wants the first type

If I were to speculate it appears more like an attention gathering exercise for the benefit of an alleged fan club.

[Mariana]

65. Yes, of course. Gil's Groupies.

As he has told us more than once, he receives numerous personal messages asking him to continue doing what he is doing, and praising his efforts in this group.

Fans can be fickle, you know. Maybe the numerous personal messages aren't so numerous anymore. When that happens, the performer's desperate attempts to rekindle their devotion look very pathetic indeed.

[Permanut]

31. The point of this OP is not clear..

The Religion Group does not require dialogue:

"Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome."

[guillaumeb]

33. Dialogue is not required.

All that is required is to post something.

But dialogue and discussion are not productive or possible if name calling and group insults are the preferred tactic.

[Major Nikon]

46. So don't do it

And try actually engaging in discussion rather than refusing to answer relevant questions and back up your assertions when asked. Otherwise whatever you think you are doing ain’t productive discussion and pretending otherwise just makes you look hypocritical.

[guillaumeb]

50. Does the beam impede your vision?

[Major Nikon]

55. Displaying more of your alleged debate skills I see

Kinda funny how you keep proving you ain’t about meaningful discussion in a thread where you whine about the lack of meaningful discussion.

[guillaumeb]

57. No, asking a legitimate question.

In the quote from my post, Einstein talked about the limitations of human understanding.

[Major Nikon]

59. Condescension is what passes for a legitimate question in your book?

Please continue to impress with your alleged superior debate skills.

[MineralMan]

69. Does the entire tree trunk impede yours?

[guillaumeb]

72. tu quoque fallacy in evidence.

[MineralMan]

75. Tu quoque et tu quoque et tu quoque in infinitum...

It's a non-terminating series...

Silliness...

[guillaumeb]

78. Silliness indeed.

[Major Nikon]

56. 18th Commandment violation

Just sayin’

[guillaumeb]

58. There were only room for 11 on the tablets.

Yours is a counterfeit version.

[Major Nikon]

60. Blasphemy doesn't suit you all that well

[Act_of_Reparation]

66. Neither is performance art.

But it does amuse the ambulance chaser, doesn't it?

[MineralMan]

70. Par exemple?

[Mariana]

97. Merci beaucoup, MineralMan.

I don't think I've ever seen anything so ... appropriate in my entire life.

[MineralMan]

99. De rien...

Appropriate is a good word, I think.

[Bradshaw3]

76. No it isn't, yes it is

[guillaumeb]

79. Exactly.

Or not.

[trotsky]

98. How about smearing everyone who disagrees with you as being part of a "choir"?

Does that promote or hinder dialog, gil?

[MineralMan]

101. Nothing applies, you see. Some people are sui generis,

and are not to be held to the same standards as others. They are special. Unique. No rules apply to them, but they apply whatever rules they see fit to everyone else.

If they think they hear harmony, there is a "choir." If they dislike how a point is made, it uses the wrong "framing."

They do not seek dialog, since they clearly have all the correct answers - in their own estimation. Sui generis.

There are such people, almost always self-defined, in every discussion forum I have ever visited.

Rules and standards do not apply to them. They are the givers of rules and standards, see? Or, so they believe, anyhow.

[trotsky]

102. Classic pattern of narcissists, too.

We see it in Trump to the extreme, but basically everything he does and thinks is automatically true. No one can have a legitimate disagreement with him - they're a "hater" or funded by Soros.

Others express the sentiment differently, by using terms like "choir" to try and discredit others as being part of some faceless group conducted by someone else.

At any rate, a lecture on namecalling from guillaumeb is quite comedic.

[marylandblue]

100. There are lots of ways to avoid dialogue

I could name some of them, but I fear you'd miss the point by either agreeing with me or using Latin.