I was strongly tempted to vote for option one (discussions between equals) but ultimately opted for option four (other).
The thing is that I have views of my own. In some cases my views are totally speculative but in other cases they are strongly held. I think that I know something about a few things. So in some instances I think that I'm correct and that the person that I'm arguing with is wrong. So I reserve the right to try to persuade those people and don't feel any obligation to embrace whatever other people happen to be saying.
But I do think that everyone here really is an equal when it comes to their feelings, to their basic humanity. Everyone's worthy of some empathy and compassion, even if I happen to disagree with their ideas. So I take a very dim view of true-believers (whether they are theists or atheists) trying to insult opponents into silence or trying to run them off the board entirely. When somebody is saying somehing what I think is mistaken or badly conceived, it's probably better to make a friendly post indicating what my disagreement is and explaining why that disagreement exists. Or else just ignore the thread entirely. Some threads turn into childish back-and-forth ego-battles that probably are best avoided.
If I take time to craft a post, I usually intend that post to be an expression of respect for the person that it's responding to, even if I happen to disagree with what that person is saying. I'm indicating that their idea, whatever it was, was interesting and thought-provoking enough to get me going. If I put some effort into my response, that's because I think that the other person is worth the effort and because I recognize that they are smart enough to absorb what I'm saying. I'm often truly interested in how they will argue for their point of view in light of my objection. Put simply, I do perceive them as being my equals, and in a pretty important way too.
