For the record, I try to be as brief as possible when responding, but when you're responding to 2 or 3 (or more) different people, the posts can get quite large. Also, either way I will fall victim to the Three-Pronged Internet Argument Fallacy in some way:

(-) If I don't address your points, then you're right and I'm wrong by default;

(-) If I address all of your points, then I spend too much time on the internet and you're going to ignore the conversation and mock me for it;

(-) If I address some of your points, you're going to argue the ones I didn't respond to and claim that I can't answer them, so you're right and I'm wrong by default.

So with that out of the way:

Fair enough if you really love the BBS and those other places, but the people you're debating with are new members here, or complete strangers in general - not people you've developed respect for through years of posting with. I get tired of reading their shit, too, and sometimes contribute to discussions until I see they're going nowhere and it's not at all a reasonable discussion. Then I move on because I know nothing is going to change due to the impasse.
In a way, it's a way of blowing off steam. I listen to other people's beliefs day in and day out without ever getting a chance to speak my own (or defend myself when I'm inadvertently disrespected). So I'm more apt to appreciate the chance to speak my mind when it's offered.

Wow, this was a very condescending way of trying to prove you're not condescending.
If I had really wanted to be a condescending prick about it, I could have made a big stink about it when we first had that discussion, or during one of those other conversations, but I didn't because my intent was to clarify my position so that I am properly understood. Usually I feel that I'm quite patient and respectful in backing up and explaining my views to you where I feel you've misunderstood or misrepresented them.

When you complained about people who are against labeling, you didn't seem to really listen to my side. You basically reposted your same argument over and over again until I just gave up. I understood what your side was, and tried to make concessions on that, but your very firm, "people who don't like labels are idiots" stance was just too much. This plays into how you do attack people with a label - constantly.
You left out the part where I recanted my use of the word "idiot" because I initially spoke out of irritation. I've never argued that I don't make mistakes or speak rashly.

there are condescending and non-condescending ways to disagree with people - even regarding facts where they're simply wrong. You do seem to opt for the condescending most of the time.
I'm sorry you feel that way.

Third of all, there is no POINT in arguing with people who say stuff like, "I don't believe in biological science."
Not everyone has the convenience of being able to compartmentalize everyone they disagree with out of their lives. Sometimes, you just have to learn to deal with stupid people. So I really do appreciate the attempts at advice to the effect that I need to just cut myself off from people I don't like, but it's really just not that simple.

He's not a bad person, so why would I want to try to show him that he's a "fucking nimrod"? And if it's not somebody I respect or want to talk to in the first place, then there's zero point in engaging like that.
You're equivocating a bit here. I'm talking about conspiracy nuts, science deniers, hardcore secessionist lunatics. The kind that can easily be mistaken for some weird cultish beliefs; people who say, "The Constitution says we can kill government officials if we don't like how they vote," or, "Science is a trick by the illuminati, everything you think is science is actually sorcery done by secret masonic overlords," or, "most robbers are black people because they think they're entitled to reparations from slavery, so they just take whatever they want from whoever."

If there's one thing you do that irritates me, it's how you seem intent on portraying me as an extremist by comparing my interactions with real extremists to your interactions with respectful, well-behaved people. They're not the same thing. It's almost as if you specifically want to view me as an extremist.

Anyway, I'm sure you will respond with a very long post, which is fine, but I don't know that I care enough about this situation to discuss it more. We shall see. Just know that if I don't respond, it's not that I'm mad or offended or anything. This is just evolving into another tl;dr, like so many others.
I've never felt obligated to a response from anyone. I put my thoughts here, they are here for anyone to pore over and respond or ignore as they please.

How can you be wrong about politics, unless you state completely untrue facts about the world? People have their politics because that is what they think is the best way to run a society, there are no 2+2=4 issues, you just say what you think is right. It's not an exact science.
I'm actually not talking about politics in the traditional sense; I'm talking more about "fringe lunatics" (the type of people who I am constantly told are "just the fringe minority" and "don't exist in any real numbers," yet that I seem to encounter very frequently in my daily travails regardless). The kind of people that, if anyone other than I were talking about them, we would all agree are "nutjobs."

That's one thing that bugs me about people; they sit and make fun of people who say and believe stupid things all the time (on this very forum, at that), but if I take one step forward and say that someone somewhere is actually incorrect, I'm suddenly "condescending" and "elitist?" No, I really don't understand that.

Tim, Llamas isn't wrong. You are just as closed minded and steadfast in your rather, for lack of a better word, extreme opinions as the people you argue with.
I disagree. I would never deny that my opinions are strong, but what beliefs do I have that are "extreme," in your view? I'm curious.