This is really interesting because it shows the difference in the way we look at words. To you, “Philosopher” is a monolithic label that excludes everything in the category “idiot”. You seem to attach great importance to the label “philosopher” as if that label would validate what I had to say. To me, the validity of an argument comes from the rationality of the statement itself. Arguments don’t have extra authority depending on their author. This leads me to evaluate statements with no consideration of whether or not they are authored by philosophers, and I only rarely wonder if I’m talking to an idiot. I think we disagree more on the role reason should play in persuasive discourse than on particular policies.