Close mindedness doesn't allow for intellectual growth. Stop assuming you're right when you haven't gain the full scope....

A person who agrees with you is by default "being open" to the information you're providing. So the question of whether or not they are close minded in another way is not in question. BTW, I love how you approached this from a completely different angle!!

I did answer your first question directly. Hopefully we can get this right the second time around...

Yes, the meme is specifically directed towards people who ignore or completely dismiss other viewpoints just based on the assumption that any information available that is counter to their own beliefs or understanding is wrong.

Some people have a fear of the potential for being wrong or have too much pride which makes them biased.

If a person comes to a final conclusion by obtaining "X" amount of information, then that's fine but if they want to confirm with 100% certainty that their beliefs and conclusions are correct then they will have to be open to learning everything about "Y" information as well.

If this person "doesn't know" about all the information available they aren't close minded, they're just ignorant (aka lack info). To state that a person "doesn't care to know" suggests a few things about that person. For instance, they might be lazy, too busy to learn, close minded, lack interest in the subject matter or suffer from confirmation bias.

You wrote..." What if the person disagreeing with you does, in fact, have all the information necessary to come to the conclusion they've reached (whether you agree with that assessment or not), and simply disagrees with you...?"

This meme isn't about "competing" over who is right versus who is wrong. It's about being as objective as possible and the only way to do so is to obtain all the information at one's disposal before making any final judgement. Still, obtaining all the information available doesn't guarantee a person will be correct.

Regardless of whether it's about objective truths or matters of opinion, the meme still stands. If they choose to not be open to alternative information then they are limiting their own knowledge.

You Wrote..."What if BOTH parties have all the information necessary to come to their respective conclusions, and still disagree...?"

Then most likely BOTH sides have limited information and/or refuse to understand each other. There is also the possibility that both sides could be partially correct and partially incorrect simultaneously and only a person with full and complete knowledge that both sides posses can make good determination as to what each side is correct on.

How can someone determine how much information is "necessary" before coming to their final conclusion? The answer... when they have obtained all the information available.

I think it's odd how you're telling the person who created the meme, what the meme actual means. This back and forth exchange between the two of us partially serves as a good example of the stubbornness between two people with apposing views and if others read this they can see the difficulty involved when people try to merge their understandings to no avail.

I get that the meme does leave open some possibilities for reinterpretation or misinterpretation but I thought the meme was fairly straight forward and simple. Unless a person like yourself comes along and reads into it too deep. Trying to dissect and analyze it, looking for flaws with the memes simple statement.

This meme "asserts" that there is a person who is basing their position on information *only* from one side of a particular subject matter. I had no intention of leaving it open to other hypothetical scenarios in which a person may have all available information, considered all said information and then chose one side.

How would one know that a person hasn't obtained all information available? Well, not by arrogance alone. For someone to learn that the person who disagrees with them is not fully informed they would prove this by demonstrating their ignorance on the subject matter.

For example,

Person (A) Believes in god and Christianity.

Person (B) States they are an Atheist.

(A) claims that (B) doesn't believe god exists and is therefore arrogant in this belief and accuses the atheist of being a hypocrite.

(B) Can then call out (A) for not knowing the definition of the term A-theist and can then assert that (A) is not qualified to debate (B) on the grounds that (A) lacks knowledge from the Atheists Perspective.

You see, by (A) making the incorrect statement that the term "Atheist" is defined as a person that believes there is no god which is an assertion. They have proven themselves to be misinformed. Person (A's) whole understanding of person (B's) beliefs was based on the premise that (B) believes there is no god. Which is (A's) whole entire foundation for understanding of (B's) position.

So no, when you say that "Both parties have ALL the information"... It's usually not as simple as you are making these arguments/debates out to be.

If both sides truly had ALL the information the the chances of them disagreeing greatly lessons. It's usually only arrogance, pride and/or cognitive dissonance that would keep people disagreeing when they REALLY posses all information.