"Zinging" those who you have determined to be "charlatans" simply puts you among their numbers. Unless the "zinging" is good natured and not intended as insult or perceived as insult then it becomes a "cheap shot".
As you are aware, flaming, cheap shots, personal disputes and feuds are against guidelines and not conducive to civil discourse.
I, myself, often wonder why, oh why, these conservative people don't simply listen to reason and throw aside their ridiculous right wing or libetarian or whatever beliefs they may hold in light of my superior arguments. But their failure to do so is no excuse for me to begin "zinging" them rather than continue trying to convince them they are wrong. Maybe the next well reasoned, well structured and logical argument will be the one that turns the Ma_Republican into a Ma_Democrat.
or not... :/
Ah, yes, the cherry picking approach to dialogue. Have deployed it myself. Don't find it useful or rewarding and thus the dissatisfaction. It advances nothing.
The problem we have is that the level of insult to which one must descend before the post is purged as such has reached the same level as the level of vitriol to which one must sink in political attack ads before it is deemed out of bounds: almost a non-existent foul.
Splitting the hair between "ignorant" as an attribute of a post and "ignorant" as an attribute of the poster is perhaps a fun game of mental gymnastics but it does nothing to support an environment of reasoned discourse.
And lest you become too concerned, there is a large gap between "thinking about" zingers and posting them. Relax. I won't be making your job harder.
