We ignore them because at the end of the day their opinion is senseless - it exists in a realm apart from that which is reasonable.

There are two arms to your response: firstly, this insistance that refusing to engage in debate with ideological groups alienates them and cements their opinion into zealotry. We as a community are not responsible for the resentfulness of unreasonable madmen - we do not cater to the needs of people who think the sun should be extinguished in their inane madness. We should not cater to a discussion of obvious falsehood either, irrespective of whether it causes these people to retreat into some personal bubble of rage because we hold no resonsibility for their care. Their unwillingness to listen to reason has been established a number of times on this subreddit, and we need to not have yet another debate (This thread is at least number 5 this week). It is not appropriate to have another debate every time something comes up: if the score is settled, like this issue, we downvote.

Now, to your second arm: these aren't people trying to 'cause panic' in the furry community. These are people who don't like FA or 'Neer and are trying to bring FA/Neer/IMVU into disrepute and discourage use of their webistes. They are doing this by in effect spreading falsehoods to encourage other people to subscribe to how they see the world. I would like to again remind you that the comparison is NOT being made to religion. It is being made to the creationist debates held in many countries, and the reasons why many television studios refuse to televise material such as this. It is because the issue has been treated sufficiently for a reasonable person to arrive at the reasonable conclusion: a continuation of the debate implies that the debate is still open, when in fact none exists. We have had our debate threads: just because it causes panic doesn't mean we open a debate in every single thread that concerns it - especially when this paticular thread has the narrow locus to takedown notices to IMVU.

The issue and reason I raised the religious debates is not to consider the validity of religion in general, but rather to consider why continually debating the translation of someone's opinion in reality (using a specific, spurious religious example) is going to be damaging to the cause of truth. It seems that you are misquoting or misinterpreting me, going as far as to fabricate a quote that religious outlooks provide nothing. This should read 'opinions, including religious or spiritual positions, are not compatible with objective or positivist observations'. Again, I emphasise: it is not 'non-helpful' opinions, but only unsupported opinions that are being touted as fact that should be suppressed.

Note well: * I am not saying that there should be no discussion. I am saying that individuals who consider a topic adequately discussed, done and dusted should not engage in debate, and should simply downvote a topic to prevent radical or unreasonable views from gaining attention. * There is no suggestion that these sorts of radical or unreasonable views are necessarily and in all cases linked to religion. Religion, as with politics, serves an easy touchstone by which to characterise these sorts of views, and thus was used. The qualifying property of both the debate here and these creationists is an opinion held independant of the situation that exists. I have adequately discussed this, and irrespective of the 'thickness' of this analysis, it remains a useful vehicle.