>Stopping any scholarly discussion is, in my opinion, pure absurdity.
And yet you hypocritically just put an end to a conversation that would be about: "Whether or not stopping points for scholarly discussions can be useful".
How can you not even see how unfruitful your conclusions are?
Because I don't have any desire to prolong a conversation with someone who feels like a possibly poor choice of words on my part renders my entire argument useless.
Choosing to opt out of a discussion is not the same as attempting to prevent others from having one.
Having a discussion with someone whose principle argument is that the discussion shouldn't be had seems like folly to me. Call it unfruitful if you like, but I wasn't attempting to start an argument as much as do my duty and explain the downvote.
We could go on and talk about the hypocrisy of how your attempts to extend the conversation are being made in order to bolster your argument against having one in the first place, but truly, I was not, nor am not trying to be condescending, as much as expressing my outright rejection for the idea that there is ever grounds for preventing an intellectual discussion on the grounds that someone might not like it.
The original conversation is not the one being extended. And who chose to take a leap away from the original conversation? You did. Your entire comment: invalid.
I'll just amend your allegation to this, and leave it alone.
Stopping any scholarly discussion is, in my opinion, pure absurdity.