> I referred to "people who hold positions that are at least internally consistent", and then you started talking about fundamentalism? What does it mean to be "fundamentalist"? It sounds like it's one whose "belief trumps rational arguments". Those people are the worst. I don't think that they're the same people as who I was referring to, though.

Yes I agree with you, and I should have been more specific that by fundamentalist I don't necessarily mean religion either. Your characterisation of "someone whose belief trumps rational arguments" hits it quite well on the head.

> Anyway, I think we both agree on the nit I was trying to pick initially which is that broad labels aren't generally helpful to anybody trying to reach the truth, but they sure do get used a lot in our modern discourse.

I generally agree, but what I tried to say with referring to the book above, was that there are different types of debates.

That said, I accept the criticism, we should try to keep the debates here on HN more about exchanging views in an "honest" (for lack of a better word) discourse, and use less labels. I will try to do better in the future.