The capacity to express an idea does not necessarily follow from comprehension of the same.
When I was younger, I repeated a common sentiment in a discussion about gay marriage: "love who you love". A dissenter rebutted me with the whole fallacious "but bestiality!!!!" argument. I felt that what they had said was fundamentally unsound, but I had no idea how to respond. Does that mean I was not "open-minded"? Of course not - I just didn't have the words.
"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me."
I think the observation was that
www seems to be reasoning like a child here. It's rather disappointing, considering that they claim to be an adult, claim to be member of a profession dedicated to helping young adults put the ways of childhood reasoning behind them, and to have come to a discussion forum explicitly devoted to adult reasoning.
I mean, isn't it a fundamental principle of mature skepticism that, past a certain point, if you can't articulate a rational justification for your belief, then your belief is unfounded?
Is the appeal to childish thinking an argument that skeptics should ever accept, besides in children below a certain age? "I can't explain why I think Apollo was hoaxed, but my childish belief that it was hoaxed remains unshaken."
"I can't rebut your argument that contrails are just water vapor and jet engine exhaust, but my childish belief that they're mind control chemical attacks remains unshaken."
At some point, a self-proclaimed teacher, voluntarily participating on a discussion board devoted to skepticism and rational thinking, should be called on their incapacity to articulate a rational rebuttal to a claim they dispute. Appealing to their reasoning being that of a child just compounds the problem.
.