A few weeks ago, while solitarily enjoying a particularly delicious fish sandwich, with avocado and onions, at a local restaurant, I was approached by a man who wanted to know if my ears were ringing. Let’s call him Norman. My ears did in fact pique when he said he and his group of 60ish buddies were talking about me at a nearby table. Norman then proceeded to unleash an unrelenting diatribe.His flurry of words unfurled at a rapid pace, reminiscent of James Joyce’s “Ulysses” and the stream of consciousness technique, but without him knowingly doing so. Norman’s rant was entirely about his take on Government management and what he saw as my own racist and xenophobic comments.At one point I attempted to interject and asked if he actually wanted to have a discussion about any of the issues he raised. When it became clear he had no intention of having any dialogue with me on any issue not even to challenge many of his assertions based simply on fact I turned my back to him and refocused on the delight in front of me. Shortly thereafter Norman retreated to his buddies.Regrettably, Norman is not alone. We have in our midst a group of vocal and persistent denizens of doom and gloom, who in pursuing their right to free speech, take it to the extreme by speaking but lack the capacity to listen. Their interest seems reduced to expressing their position but never engaging in actual debate or discussion of the critical issues opined on.All too often, their views are based on a sense they have or a conclusion they have arrived at and they hold to these views irrespective of what the facts are. A variation on this is, when confronted with facts that challenge their argument, they simply dismiss them and move on to another topic.One of the related aspects of what I see as a decline in the quality of debate is the unnecessary debating of facts. There should be no such debate. But this happens far too often and creates uncertainty where there should be none.I was recently speaking with someone who has lived here for 20 years and who was complaining that the government had done nothing to respect long term residents. When I pointed out it was the PLP government that introduced the PRC category, he responded adamantly that this was done by the UBP.It seems clear that we have at least two kinds of public voices on public issues. On the one hand, there is the partisan who has a clearly defined view of the world, can articulate her views logically and with facts, yet shows respect for differing views and even has the capacity to change given new information or changed circumstances. On the other hand, there is the ideologue who clings to his particular outlook no matter what facts or new circumstances challenge him. Reason and logic escape him.Norman is an ideologue. What are you?Walton Brown is a social and political commentator and the Progressive Labour Party candidate for Pembroke Central. Follow his blog on www.respicefinem1.blogspot.com. He can be contacted at walton[AT]researchmix.com.