But your original post didn't simply state that you were doubtful if he could be reasoned with; you made a stronger statement: "pence is not a man to be reasone

But your original post didn't simply state that you were doubtful if he could be reasoned with; you made a stronger statement: "pence is not a man to be reasoned with." I think that stronger statement is questionable for a few reasons: (1) It ignores the subjective element of your assessment regarding which of Pence's positions are reasonable or not reasonable. I very much doubt everyone on Hacker News would consider all of your strongly held beliefs rational, and vice versa. But that should be the starting point of our discussions, not the end of them. (2) You gave some examples of Pence's conclusions which you consider absurd, but you didn't give clear evidence that his reasoning processes are flawed that he's "not a person to be reasoned with". For example, if you could point to some discussions where he was unable or unwilling to adhere to basic, simple rules of logic, that would bolster your case.