Nevermind. Not having this discussion.

Good call.  I'm done as well.

I'll just say that I'd never go around calling people "stupid" as is many peoples wont. There is a distinct difference between willful ignorance (which is what I find most often) and stupidity, which is actually rather rare. I get very irritated when I read stories about communities, in this modern age of ours, ripping out scientifically verified and valid pages in biology textbooks. These are the sorts of people that probably would have roasted marshmallows at the fires of Alexandria if they had the chance. This sort of mentality is borderline criminal in my book.

Give it time.

I think such groups, who paradoxically enough usually have a strong local popular support, are one of the greatest threats that our society has ever known. An agenda that not only promotes ignorance but actually makes it a virtue is a sure recipe for an irrational and unfair society. (Another grave threat is an increasingly unequal redistribution of wealth, but that's another matter entirely).

In the late 80s, Legion of super-heroes had these bad guys, the dark circle, who considered knowledge to be evil. Its members would learn things in very small doses, and only so they could further their group's agenda. I thought it was an interesting concept, but also thought it pretty unworkable in the real world. However, today, I have to reconsider that opinion; there are to many examples of groups that promote that idea. (Not in those exact words, normally, but in the case of Boko Haram in Nigeria the group's very name proudly proclaims its hatred of education). 

I fear that our greatly enhanced capacity for disseminating and accessing information has proven to be a double-edged blade: yes, it is now theoretically possible for anyone to access more facts and to get a clearer picture of what's going on than ever before… but the background noise of uninformed opinions, bad information and outright disinformation makes it harder for us all to distinguish the wheat from the weeds. There are "debates" on whether we should vaccinate children, for crying out loud! What's next? "Oxygen: for or against"?

Talking about Frank Robbins might have the same effect, Fred! 

As someone who advanced the possibility for such a thread, I think it's possible to discuss issues while avoiding personal confrontations.  

The only way to do so, though, would be-- in addition to Shaxper's rules-- to concentrate on each statement as a proposition that is or isn't supported by someone's experience.  

Now, the admission that an opinion-- let us say that it is an unpopular opinion on this board-- has some grounds in experience does not admit that the opinion represents anyone else's experience. It's just an admission that nothing comes out of nothing. 

Shaxper says, argue particularities. Okay, here's my example of one such:

Poster A says that all scenes with the crows in DUMBO are racist.  Poster B takes the opposite position.

Do either one convert to the other to his POV? Probably not. But is it possible to exchange experiences on this level without getting into personalities, or, perhaps just as bad, extrapolating from particulars to generalities?  

I think it's theoretically possible, but I must admit, it was only rarely accomplished, even partly, on the old CBR board.  

On a side-note, I contemplated making a post on CBR entitled, "'If this goes on' is always wrong." This too might have dealt with the downside of abstracting from the particular to the general. Still not sure if I'll take the trouble.