1) My main problem with your statement here is that you assume your definition of understanding will be the same, if not similar to the person taking the original position. Human nature & history has shown that this is not the case. Two people can have similar goals, read the same evidence and interpret it in completely different ways. Understanding is relative, and claiming your opponent “just doesn’t understand” is an indicator of poor reasoning & verbal skills. A cop out if you will. If you cannot articulate what you mean, you can at least direct the questioner to the resource(s) that best defines your reasoning.

To use Feminism as an example. Feminism has the goal of equality between the sexes, but with many divergent thoughts on how to achieve this goal. To narrow it down to one issue, some schools of thought believe men can be feminists and yet another believes they can’t. These two groups have seen the same situation and understand it differently. Each side has a position and it is up to them to convince the other of the truth of their understanding.



Yes, you do get to attack someone in an argumentative manner for their opinions. You can be polite or as ornery as you want, but you are still arguing a point. Asking questions will add further clarification.



2) This ties into my first point. With so many resources, with so many different interpretations, how do you know which were used to facilitate understanding? The world is not an echo-chamber, in fact we seem to disagree on everything, no matter how minor or major.



I agree with your point that self-education leads to greater understanding, but I disagree on the importance of questioning. His statement of “Do not ask questions” is my sticking point. You are correct that hand holding is not obligatory, however it is also not obligatory to accept something on blind faith. Make a statement, and no matter how self evident you may believe it is, everyone has the right to question it. To state otherwise (as he did) can be interpreted in ways such as, I can’t back up my statements or an arrogance in believing what you state is written in stone.



Now, I thank you for not resorting to ad hominem attacks. To me, this has been fairly productive and increased my understanding.

All because I disagreed and questioned.