I intentionally meant "unreasonable" to be open to wide interpretation. The responses from 'Catters show how "reasonable" most of us are, most suggesting to just walk away from a dopey conversation (which is fine, as far as it goes).

I meant it from simply discussing, oh, say,
"Is there an FSM?" or
"What IS 'folk music?'" alltheway up to

"We are going to 'inform' large numbers of people with whatever we think are 'facts,' nevermind what they actually 'are.'" to
"We are going to make public policy for which your tax dollars are going to pay and we will use what we deem to be facts to make that policy, irrespective of what the facts actually are." to
"Not only do we 'know' you are wrong, but we are going to take your house, your horse, your land, and your life to prove it."

Leaving the conversation in the first two examples and going for beer (make mine Dogfish Head 90-minute IPA) or a pipe (Tinsky classic billiard with Maltese Falcon) is fine. But in the other encounters, the opponent/enemy forces the reasonable one to accept some degree of personal injury. Sooo, at what point does the reasonable one cock a fist or a trigger? That is my wondering.

And not to hijack "my own" thread. But this question also goes to the root of Libertarianism, which most people who today call themselves such would not recognize if it bit them on the nose, and when does "unreasonableness" become outright fraud or force?

Saul