Being a skeptic means you are someone who is skeptical. It does not come with a membership to a club. Just because you dislike some other people who are skeptical, does not mean skeptics are bad and you need to stop being one. I am sure you dislike some people who wear pants too, but you continue to wear pants anyways.
All that said, his assessment of the people he dislikes is incredibly superficial and childish. What exactly was the point that you hoped to make by posting it?
"Everyone who disagrees with my point of view must be ignorant or evil" is a terrible argument and only strengthens his point.
What a juvenile and reductive way to view people and relationships. Have you ever self-reflected and considered maybe you might be wrong about anything, ever? Have you ever extended any generosity of argument?
Okay but I also question the real motive behind posting something like “this is what I believe and I’m not interested in debating it”. Why post something like that in a space that is meant for debate and discussion?
Skeptcism can be good, but not in excess. If you decided to respond by saying "In your opinion(s), what led them to close shop?", folks would have responded more kindly.
I say, "well, I have a certain notion." I then go out and look for evidence I might be wrong: I do find this evidence. So I add, "my earlier notion is contradicted by evidence. Being skeptical of that evidence, I would like to gather more, but I don't have the time presently. Being an empiricist, I accept the best available evidence, at least provisionally."
You then go on a rant about how I'm a stupid idiot who ignores evidence. In my mind this is coming from nowhere, it's a reaction to a comment where I specifically sought out evidence I might be wrong and accepted it. My reaction is, "wow, this guy is being a jerk, I don't really want to engage with them anymore."
You then proceed to say, "doesn't the fact that you don't want to engage with people who are acting like jerks prove you're a stupid idiot who ignores evidence?"
As for your specific criticisms, they're founded in misreading what I had to say, and since I imagine the reward for discussing them further will be more rude remarks, the only thing I'm really interested in discussing anymore is why I'm heading for the door. Anything else would just seem to be handing you ammunition to use against me. I would be happy to explain myself further and to admit where I was incorrect if this was a good faith discussion, but it isn't. Note that doesn't mean I haven't privately changed my mind about things.
No, there is another option: this person is here to potentially learn what they were overlooking, from a thought-out debate with others who have a different viewpoint. That would be more constructive than pontificating or looking for sympathy, which was rather uncharitable of you to assume as the only options.
unnecessary ad hominems aside, This definitely reads as someone who has never taken the time to work through why they (and others they agree with) have an opinion on a thing, and so is prone to believe whatever persons they spend the most time with.
I have been more frustrated in the past talking to people like this who agree with me, than anyone who disagrees with me. Because they don't have a reason they believe what they do.
"He made a very public post saying, I'm happy to discuss my views - reach out to me and I'm happy to do it in private."
That is a severe mis-characterization of what he said, and I pointed out your error.
I agree that him debating pseudonymous internet commentators, or even engaging in private email threads with interested but unknown people, would be counterproductive. Given his seeming unwillingness to change his views, there's nothing better he could have done.
--
I'll note that the tone of what he wrote (e.g. saying "if you have good-faith assumptions" as if most people who disagree with him wouldn't) comes off to me as a one-sided offer. It reads like "if you want me to explain my beliefs and let me try to change your mind about why they're so bad, then let's talk". There's no willingness to accept that he might be wrong, no "I'd like to give you an opportunity to change my mind". Perhaps that's reading into it slightly, though.
They don't have to be aware of the fact that they might be
doing it to signal social standing
Here you say 'might', while it once again becomes 'usually' here:
People usually go for status
I repeat: I find this last assertion incredibly annoying. I'm a regular guy and I think that I don't argue for status or social standing, but because I'm interested in 'the truth', insofar as that means 'what works best for us', where 'us' includes everyone I care about. I'd like to see someone making a convincing argument to the contrary, that doesn't involve supposed historical and psychological facts about 'human nature' that are, without supporting argument, extended to include individuals like me that that someone are having a discussion with. It's a logical fallacy to make some vague accusations like "you are just arguing this because of concern for your social standing". I will have none of that. I can easily invert the reasoning: if you doubt my motives, then you are the one that seems to be looking for an ad hominem way out of the argument, because you are losing and don't want to lose your standing. This kind of argument leads nowhere.
It isn't about "not wanting to be enlightened." That person wanted to share a fun fact--they were trying to be social. And you shot them down and essentially called them stupid.
There's a difference between a "conversation" and an "internet exchange".
In person, I agree completely. Skepticism towards your friends/ family/ acquaintances can easily poison the discourse and ruin relationships. If I have a discussion with a person I know, then I should absolutely give them the benefit of the doubt, and take what they say at face value unless they say something I find literally incredulous.
When you're having a discussion online though, it's a completely different story. People say stupid stuff on the internet, and "stupid" is a spectrum that goes all the way to "well-intentioned and seemingly-logical but poorly-researched and false". Online, and on a site such as this which aims for a certain level of discourse, every claim should be backed up. There's always somebody who disagrees that is going to read your comment, and you should give them a reason to reconsider their initial position.
This is not an easy thing to do. I believe a lot of stuff without knowing immediately why. This forces me to better account for my ideas, which helps structure my thinking. I'm not a strong enough logician to make infallible arguments, but by trying to convince an eternal skeptic, I only make my own arguments better.
[EDIT: I gave you an upvote, since you were in the gray. Some others had downvoted you, but that was undeserved, since I think your disagreement was in good faith. Other people, please don't downvote stale's comment.]
Honestly, I’m here because I want to hear from people smarter than me (on certain subjects) what they think on those subjects, and in so doing maybe I’ll become a little more smart. I do not care what those people think about me thinking about their discourse, quite the contrary, I wish they’d state their opinions/facts like I wasn’t even reading. The same goes for me, of course, I really don’t care how my opinions/statements are received by those reading them, they might be seen as true, false, or a combination of the two, but I do not really care what impression they (the statements made by me) leave on the persons reading them.
Of course, I’m writing all these assuming the discourse is quite neutral, i.e. that it doesn’t involve personal attacks or the like.
You do it because talking involves little effort, and you want to share your knowledge. That might be due to a variety of reasons; from trying to prove someone wrong, to a general feeling of wanting to display knowledge.
But none of those motivations require that you be, in fact, correct.
I've lost track of the times people overheard me discussing something with someone and piped in to tell me the virtues of homeopathy or how GMOs are a plot to destroy the food supply or that there's no actual proof of evolution.
I'm most skeptical of people who are least skeptical of their own knowledge and how they acquired it. Yet it seems those are the people most likely to offer an opinion.
If you (rightly) skeptical of my claims go find a newspaper and read the letters to the editor. These are people sufficiently convinced of their rightness that they took the time to send a letter or an E-mail.
All that said, his assessment of the people he dislikes is incredibly superficial and childish. What exactly was the point that you hoped to make by posting it?
reply