Did you actually read my reply or are you just continuing to hound your point for the sake of argument?

I did read your reply.

I am extremely offended you would suggest my ideology, drawn from my experience, and the experience of those close to me, in service of my country comes from an uninformed place. I am more so offended that you apply it to my opposition to interventionism.

First of all, I haven’t suggested you’re uninformed.

Second, and more importantly, your service to your country is not relevant in this context. Whatever your record of service may be, and if you’ve served honorably I applaud you for it, it doesn’t make you objectively correct about your political beliefs. It’s that attitude that your beliefs are self-evident, and your apparent lack of acceptance that reasonable people might disagree with the things you believe, that I take issue with here. It doesn’t matter if you’re a firefighter, or a cop with thirty years’ service, or a soldier who won the Medal of Honor: your opinions are not objectively correct.

Be as “extremely offended” by that unfortunate reality as you like.

If you're arguing in favor of maintaining an open mind, why do you shut out the opinions and experience of those that disagree with you so readily?

My argument is that you should be open to the possibility that you’re at least somewhat wrong and accept that there’s more than one reasonable perspective, i.e. that you shouldn’t speak so categorically. Nothing about that “shuts out” anyone’s opinions. And inasmuch as I’m “shutting out” anyone’s experience, I’m doing so because experience is irrelevant to that point.