Coincidence or convenience?

That whenever someone has a differing opinion, they’re also stupid?

…only if the differing opinion is ignorant of the available facts that oppose it?

If facts were sooo great they’d be convincing.

it would be the wilful ignorance that earns the epithet

Is “ignorance” an argument in itself, against itself?

Value considers fact, and fiction, equal hosts.

You’ve lost me…

Is “ignorance” an argument in itself? I.E. “You should be aware of the facts otherwise you’re ignorant.”

And, I say facts aren’t “all that” otherwise they’d be convincing because it is not whether or not they are facts that people are interested with but with where they hold their value and value can be placed in either fact or fiction. They may then consider their valued fiction as “fact” and call you “stupid” for not recognising it as such.