First paragraph: I think I formulated more carefully, with qualifications and reasons, but if you leave these out you get something like you summarized.
Second paragraph: Good, and it is not quite besides the point since I have three basic choices: say nothing; say it qualified, circumspectly, politely while keeping it anonymous, which is what I did; or name names, which is forbidden by the rules of the forum.
The point is that everyone on this forum deserves respectful treatment,
Not as I use terms. I'd say everyone deserves politeness - within broad limits and apart from special circumstances, e.g. as regards muggers, rapists and terrorists - but that respect is earned, or not.
As it happens, I respect most I've read on the forum, for their courage and honesty, at least, and often for other things, for there are some very smart, knowledgeable and/or funny and witty people here - but I do not award this blindly, e.g. because it is supposed to be the correct thing to do: I do this because I think, having taken the trouble to read them, that what they wrote was good.
EVEN those with psychological issues (for what its worth, I have yet to meet the first person that is without psychological issues)
Well... if the last is true merely saying someone has psychological issues would say nothing at all to distinguish him or her from everyone else, and therefore makes the term pretty pointless. So I don't use it in that way and - to name a name most readers of the forum know - I'd say Glenn Beck, of Fox fame, has psychological issues (I'm a psychologist) that absolutely none of the members of this forum have.
and EVEN those that have identity issues and enjoy spending their time and energy in a forum representing someone they are not (I predict few if any people are that way).
Here I mostly agree with you, in a qualified way, for if people on an anonymous forum pretend that they are other than they are, this will generally not be easy to prove with certainty, and so must remain a probablity. Your probabilities may differ from mine, but that's rationally quite possible, for each of us.
All opinions should be considered, also those of the brave that have opinions that differ from the majority. These people put themselves in a very vulnerable situation and enable us to reconsider our assumptions and premises. We don't all have to agree. Homogeneity, be gone.
I agree on the right to disagree, but I - for one - am just not willing to discuss all topics with all comers on a public or anonymous forum. It takes time and energy to discuss; there are many things I want to do with what remains of my life, and I have little energy; and I am - for example - not going to engage in mock-academic mock-objective discussions with anonymous persons I don't known the education, the age, the person, the person's outlook on life and social position, and what not, merely because he or she is an anonymous X on a forum on which I am an anonymous Y (though as I said: far more can be known about me via my site - also an intensely personal one - than can be found out about most on the forum, for which I don't blame them.)
Also, there are certain styles of written argumentation, that I may humbly claim myself to excel in, that are not possible to the full extent I am capable of it, as they are not fit for this forum. So there too I bow out - to which comes the added grief that I do not like the editor in which I have to write this (or have to use other editors and copy/paste, which is a hassle), that makes bowing out (even) easier.
Finally, as to "All opinions should be considered" - well... in principle, at some place and time, by some people. And being a logical philosopher also, I can assure you that even at the nominally right times and places this often turns out to be very difficult - you did write "All" - and something most people either can't do well, however smart, or choose not to do, for reasons of having, they feel, better things to do.