If I may respond in the same way, but simpler: your (and I normally don't use these personal labels on this site but here it is necessary) mistake is that you t

If I may respond in the same way, but simpler: your (and I normally don't use these personal labels on this site but here it is necessary) mistake is that you try to respond to a concept by attaching labels to either the response or the responder. This kills any chance of having a sensible debate and there is no doubt it is very effective if that is the intended effect. It is a net negative in all other senses. So, apart from applying labels to my response - and with that showing proof of the original premise I was trying to make - do you have a more constructive response? What, in your opinion, is the good done by attaching negative labels to concepts or persons? Can this be used in constructive ways or is it, as I propose, just a way to silence critics? As far as I can see it only serves to polarise the discussion and will cause people to throw up (virtual) barricades from behind which they can throw epithets at each other. My position is that there is far too much of this labelling and epithet-throwing and far too little sensible discussion where people of differing opinions get to meet each other to try to defend their positions in the open, without those barricades. Anything which will lead to more polarisation is in my opinion a net negative and as such something to try to keep out of the discourse.