I am having a hard time reconciling that with your comment downthread about banning people and the samples one might find - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern

I am having a hard time reconciling that with your comment downthread about banning people and the samples one might find - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Concern_troll --- the term "concern troll" focuses not on what the person is actually saying, but on some alleged agenda. Thus, if misused, it is the perfect refuge for someone who has no counter to the actual argument: simply ignore the points made, allege some other position, and then accuse the other person of lying if they deny that that is what they're really saying. It's a combination of straw man and argumentum ad hominem: make up something to attack, and ignore their actual points on the basis that since the points were made by someone acting in bad faith, they need not be addressed. --- So no, I wouldn't ban them. I might disagree with some burdensome "reform" on the basis of it being burdensome or of questionable value, but I would not hesitate to answer those concerns with argument rather than by questioning the motives of anyone who might question me. If the question comes up too often, it's a good candidate for a FAQ, not a ban.