I know how they responded and it's something I have to consider when posting anything that could be considered as an attack on the poster. I don't start off that way, but I admit that after a while it does become an attack, not because I think that they are stupid, but because I believe they deserve it. If you're going to post something I believe that criticism and questioning are fair, even if they are coming from the OP. If one is not mature enough to handle the questioning and criticism and starts using insults, I do enjoy bothering them more. If I think about it further maybe it won't give me joy, but right now it does. However, I have to ask myself if the information I might gain by questioning and criticism is worth the possible isolation from them down the road. I'm not 100% sure to be honest. Maybe I'll get a better feeling of that in time.
I had to look up obdurate and obtuseness. Combining the two you think I'm too slow and stubborn to change my opinion. I change my opinion when my opinion is disproved or the evidence significantly shifts in the other direction. The opinion of a few people on a message board is not likely to change my opinion. I like logic and facts. Those things are normally what changes my opinions, not blind faith of what people are telling me on a message board.
That's not my persona. That's myself. I find it interesting that you think I'm socially challenged, have no street smarts, and are autistic. Maybe you're right. I don't know for certain, but I don't think I'm as bad at understanding people as you think I am. However, I think that we would both agree that it is much easier to read people in person. I get the impression that your post here is very serious and I'm being very serious, but you could actually be laughing your butt off at me right now. I don't know. You could question other things, but you specifically attack my social intelligence. Do you consider empathy part of social intelligence, because you could attack that? You could also attack other people for not reconsidering their thought processes when they can't back up their statements. However, it seems like you're making the assumption that, because I'm ticking a lot of people off that I'm the one at fault. So is majority rules now the basis for emotional intelligence? However, getting hot headed over the fact that you've been called out for not being able to defend your position is reasonable? That seems very emotionally weak to me. Maybe I should take another angle, because this thought process is a total contradiction to my intuition.