I claim that blocking behavior in response to dissent has clear relevance to your willingness to have smart dissenters challenge your beliefs and does, at a minimum, invalidate the rhetorical implication of the question 'so what?'.

As usual, I don't understand what your point is, except it seems you have evaded my question.

One 'so what?' is that I think you could sincerely assert six mutually contradictory things before breakfast. The concept of 'bad person' involves philosophy I've never really sunk my teeth into. Virtue ethics I think they call it. But simplified deontology labels that a bad behavior and my preferred consequentialist model assigns all sorts of negatives to the expected utility thereabouts.

I don't understand your point here either, except it seems you are trying to insult me in a roundabout way by accusing me of some kind of dishonesty.

Indeed, it seems your comments towards me are more informed by personal animus than any desire to actually discuss or debate anything. It seems to me you are still annoyed that I pointed out a contradiction in your argument a few threads back.

In any event, I generally don't engage with people who are consistently incoherent or with people who consistently insult me. It's just a waste of my time. If anyone else wants to explain what Wedifred's point is in a polite manner, I'm happy to listen. But as for Wedifred, I'm not engaging with him anymore.

Bye.