Hm, let me see how well I fit the criteria...
1. I try not to deal in absolutes, and I do recognize a valid argument when I see one. The problem is that a great deal of the arguments generated (both for and against things that interest me) are flawed.
2. If one considers pointing out a flawed argument as an attack, then I suppose this could apply. Not very well, but still.
3. Not really; people can choose whatever they want. I'm more interested in process than end results.
4. This is very much not my style. The more points (positive and negative), the better the discussion.
5. I rather detest using labels like that, and frequently retract them quickly on the rare occasions I use them. Labels are convenient, but also rarely accurate.
6. While I do get tired of people reiterating the same (flawed) arguments all of the time, I am willing to listen if they have a valid point. Which is disappointingly rare...
7. Quite the contrary, I tend to have rather lengthy discussions and arguments. How can one not when analyzing process?
8. The end results don't concern me much, so I can't really see any point in doing this.
9. I try to avoid reducto-ad-absurdium and other such dramatic flair, for as trendy as it is, it ultimately just makes the person who uses it appear to have a very extreme and narrow view of reality.
10. This isn't exactly something I can make a personal judgement call on; I don't think it applies to me, but then, who would openly say that such a thing did?
Not very well, overall, it would seem... Though this is a fairly decent list of how closed-mindedness works in extreme cases regarding video games.
Sky Render - Sanity is for the weak.
