It's not about agreement or disagreement. I would've stopped a long time ago if she wasn't condescending in her views. That's the only issue. She mentioned to agree not to agree, but with an implication that I'm wrong and naive and she is right by repeatedly asking (in a way not intended to elicit answers, obviously) what is the basis of my views, even though I provided many several times. That's why I didn't stop at that post. If I have a different point of view and she doesn't like it, she can just ignore it. It's true for anyone else. That's it. But to attack my views as invalid, then I have the right to defend them.