Subject: Re: Bill to Ban Teaching Scientific Theories
"This statement captures the essence of "Right back Atch'a"."

No. It is just you doubling down on what you said and completely ignoring what was said. It is telling you could not name one strongly held belief you changed your mind on when challenged. Just of the top of my head

'To add a little soon-to-be-dismissed commentary, there is no point in making lengthy arguments or providing examples when the opposition will simply dismiss it as "faux news" or some such. On the old TMF Conservative board, we coined the term "fetching rocks" to capture an effort with no reward."

Once again you project your own behavior on to others. Just because you are incapable of assimilating new information and challenging previously held beliefs does not mean others are incapable of it as well. On the old Atheist board it happened a lot. Believe it or not, some people enjoy having their beliefs challenged. It effectively means they are learning something new, they are expanding their worldview and getting a greater understanding of the world.

As for your "faux news: comment, sometimes things should be dismissed because they are not serious. If you post articles from the National Enquirer about Bigfoot living in the forests outside Seattle and expect to be taken seriously then you won't be. This is where the quality of the information source comes in. The National Enquirer is not a quality source of information. Fox is not generally a quality source of information. It doesn't care about informing its viewers. It cares about generating emotion from its viewers so they continue to watch. Whether that is generating outrage or just reinforcing beliefs.

That said, your argument about "fetching rocks" is backwards. Posting a link is the easy part. Anyone can post a link to the National Enquirer about Bigfoot. Someone has to then take the time to research and explain why the link is wrong, only for you to then say the source is being simply dismissed. It is ironic that you refer to the Conservative Fools board because that was a place that was notorious for accepting viewpoints not on the strength of the evidence backing them, but simply on whether or not they were agreed with.

Besides, what you are failing to understand is it isn't just about politics, it is about a general outlook on life. Many people on the old Atheist Fools board were people looking to learn and understand the world. Part of learning is adapting viewpoints when presenting with contrary information. I seek out people who are looking to interact had be challenged. They might share an opinion (about any subject) and then when that opinion is criticized they adapt and sharpen their opinion based off of the criticism. I want people to challenge my opinions so I can change and adapt them as needed. I don't care if someone calls me an idiot in the heat of disagreement as long as they are interacting. Part of interacting is acknowledging points their opponents have made and adapting which then forces me to adapt and change my views.

Interacting doesn't mean constantly misrepresenting your opponents views. It doesn't mean that just because you can find a link somewhere on the internet supporting what you believe that it should be infallible.

Since these are new boards I am giving you a new chance to see if interacting with you is worth it by bringing this back to the point of my first post in this thread.

Do you think that a school system acknowledging the fact that a child could have two daddies means that they aren't teaching STEM subjects in schools?
Do you think that a school system acknowledging the fact that a child can be born with confusing genitalia, or a sexual preference that does not match their given genitalia means that STEM subjects are not being taught in schools?
Do you think that a school system acknowledging the fact that there is a patten of systemic racism in our justice system means that they are not teaching STEM subjects in schools?