What sort of moral cowardice does it take?

Given that I don't block anybody (and I think I know who you are referring to; he either recently unblocked me, or he made a new account with the same name), you're right: people should not be afraid of the truth, and they should examine their own assumptions before they try to point out the assumptions of others..

But this is the Internet. This isn't an information superhighway, where people come to learn and share. This is where people come to yell their opinions as loud as they can, and ultimately ignore anybody who doesn't think they're right.

By the simplest definition of morality, I would agree that it is a moral issue. This sort of action is lacking in integrity and is dishonest, often seemingly as a defense of the ego. While some may refuse to acknowledge that they asked a question and had fallacious reasoning, others seem to simply not understand what the other person is saying. Let's face it, not everyone is all that bright. The questioner will see what the responder sees, nonsense, and then they may in the process ignore, fault, or block the responder, perhaps due to an unsavory disposition brought upon for any number of reasons; not all are capable of having a civilized and inoffensive discussion, especially when the two sides disagree.

Sadly, many times it seems to be an ego war of winner takes all and victory at all costs instead of a true mental disposition towards finding answers, learning, and listening, even if that means you could be wrong and have to change your thinking. In the very least one should give someone due reciprocation of consideration of what they have to say and the time for them to say it, as you would expect from them. How many times have you seen here and elsewhere someone will be thinking of a rebuttal before they have even considered what the person is saying or even heard them say anything at all, especially from their point of view; it's a rather moot exercise to engage in such an exchange if one is unwilling to consider what the other person is saying, even if it's just because of an underlying feeling and not because of a sound judgement. So often it amounts to little more than mental masturbation.

I personally wouldn't always say that this sort of action is due to moral cowardice. There are many reasons someone may behave in this fashion and they're not necessarily all controllable. I'm sure we've all also been in this position before as the human ego can get the better of us and I wouldn't want to say that someone is a moral coward because of a few instances or that they aren't going through a time in their life that they will grow out of and become a better person, though that doesn't negate that they may currently be behaving in an immoral fashion according to fairness and sensibility.

As with most anything in life, I find that it isn't clear cut and easily definable. Situations and people are fluid. It seems foolish to generalize everyone engaging in such behavior as the same and for the same reasons with no chance for change; lumping everyone as such is likely to be construed as derisive and will only further scorn, this isn't the path to amicable understanding.

It depends on who you block and why.

If you disagree with me in a polite manner using careful consideration, I can handle it, and I will accept your arguments as a differing opinion.

If you are using derogatory language, or mocking that which I argue, whether you have facts to back your claim or not, I may block you, and will disengage.

Showing your hatred for that which does not fit your world view, as many bigots here do, will get you blocked by me regardless of your accuracy or inaccuracy.

Liam has no courage, he's just barely intelligent to realize when he's being outgunned, but not intelligent enough to pick up on it until after it's too late.

When he displays honesty, he'll get politeness and courtesy from me. Until then, I'll eviscerate him for his blatant dishonesty whenever I see one of his questions - assuming of course, he's unblocked me, which I don't think he has the balls to do.

I am the vanguard of his destruction.

I only block those that friend me without asking, or those I know or suspect to be monkeys, its such a pain starting new accounts and I have done it so many times. Blocking works, though I find it sad to need to do so.

The type of askers you describe don't ask to find answers; they want confirmation of their opinions. A reasonable discussion on a level playing field, as you put it, takes honesty with oneself, which many people avoid. Moral cowardice goes hand in hand with not being honest with oneself.

I consider that the difficulty we face as contributors can feel repetitive or as if there is evil on the planet. When actually there is real a root to the quandary that was once created on your life. Folks who constantly make bad selections or consider there mindful trip on them query good and evil, matters like charma. Just do the right factor, and deliver up these around you to your existence. I think as if we can simplest manipulate are attitude with reference to the matters we face in our life and try to make the quality decisions we are able to

I watch Liam's questions and In all honesty, I think Liam's accusations and assertions are generally correct. Nevertheless, if Liam is criticizing people [you?] and then blocking them so they can't respond as She Devil claims, that's pretty prickish.

1. who blocked you?

#2. there is a way to answer people. It takes less moral cowardice to insult, be nasty, be hateful and condescending than it does to just answer the question in a respectful way.

energy can be wasted with someone who wants to act up rather than answer the question. I've had to block people who took it to extremes. Otherwise I just thumb them down and ignore them. Or fire back if they start it.

Do you mean.... if you ask a question that goes for 12 lines without a linebreak, and rambles on in a way to try and sound intelligent but just doesn't get near to doing so, should you block the person?

A:.. YES. welcome to block