Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "On The Divide Between Liberals and Conservatives (Pt. 2) | Mark Duplass | POLITICS | Rubin Report" video.

13 minutes into this and I'm pretty sure I have heard them talk about the simple position of just being reasonable critical of bad ideas and prepared to call out stupid stuff no matter who spouts it. Sure, - listen to "the other side", but there are questions where it's possible to just *BE WRONG*, and what is there to "validate" if someone insists that you have to "respect" any wrong opinion. I mean ...How long should I keep entertaining, say, a creationist insisting that we should teach the bible in biology?
1
> Ryan Foley-McKenna Finding the truth of course ... based on the evidence. So, - I completely reject your analysis of what I did. Once the evidence unambiguously points to what the truth is, I don't see much room for deliberate misinformation from people ideologically biased to deny the facts. Once again: "there are questions where it's possible to just *BE WRONG, and what is there to "validate" if someone insists that you have to "respect" any wrong opinion. I mean ...How long should I keep entertaining, say, a creationist insisting that we should teach the bible in biology?"* Now you seem to claim I'm more interested in "being right" than "finding the truth". In order for that accusation to hold I think you have to (in that specific example) demonstrate that, either: 1) Teaching creationism in biology actually has scientific merits and it's just me who is confuses about what's the truth here., or 2) That we shouldn't value scientific facts to the degree where it should guide policy and it's not important what is right or wrong. I on the other hand claim that I'm not specifically interested in "being right" - I'm interested in that our best scientific information about the real world around us guides policy. In other words... we should not teach creationism in biology because it's wrong and in exactly the same matter, we should not entertain ideologically motivated scientific nonsense as what Steven Crowder spouts wrt. Climate Change, because it's wrong Wrt scientific questions there IS actually such a thing as BEING WRONG ... the earth is NOT flat, and I don't care how much people believing it play the victim card.
1
... or in other words. I don't claim to know the truth ... but I do claim to be able to recognize some things which are patently false. I have no problem "just listenting" to "the other side", but if the other side is just dogmatic (as described above by Atlas) then I really have no patience. It's not a conversation if the premise is that you should accept the other side holding dogmatic positions where nothing which can be said can convince them - at even expect to respect that ... Why would we legitimize that?
1