Helpful: When you are able to admit to yourself that you have been wrong a few times, tell us how you feel about forcing your gospel on those who are “wrong”.
You certainly are in the right place.
The right place to be proven wrong again and again until he gets used to it?
“Freedom of speech means I can say anything, no matter how pathetically stupid, and nobody can inform me that I am pathetically stupid.”
But you don’t believe that being 50 pounds overweight is perfectly healthy, do you? You don’t go around saying that the obesity mafia is a fraud funded by the diet industry and being fat is actually better for you, do you?
That’s a little more analogous to some of the situations we have today.
I have always argued. I bought my children up arguing. I felt that it was a useful life skill to argue a point, to negotiate, to gain some advantage, by argument rather than by force.
They still argue - you should try a family meal at our house for lively debate.
No, it isn’t.
Any updates on this, John? Keep us posted!
Yes, it is.
I think there’s a certain disconnect among many people today about beliefs vs. facts and woo vs. science.
There really isn’t any productive discussion there, because one side or the other will get fed up.
I mean, if some chef were to come in and tell me how organic food is healthier, and sugar is poisonous, and how tomatoes cause inflammation, I can’t really have a productive discussion or argument with him. He’s not coming from a rational point of view that’s backed up by anything but woo and pseudoscience, and he’ll probably claim I’m pushing the “Big Farma” agenda or some other stupid nonsense.
It can’t really be a discussion or debate, because one side is actually, factually and empirically wrong, and the other is not. It’s like arguing with a Flat Earther or someone with a geocentric belief in the Celestial Spheres.
Human beings have always had an extraordinarily high resistance to admitting when they are wrong. I don’t know if there is a specific psychological term for it (there probably is) but people overwhelmingly tend to double-down on a belief when someone tries to tell them they are wrong, and they perform extraordinary mental gymnastics to avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes with admitting they have made a wrong choice or done something stupid.
But that’s not quite what the OP was asking… I’d be very interested in seeing if there are any studies that back this up, but anecdotally there definitely seems to be a trend of people increasingly thinking that their beliefs cannot be challenged, that someone who tells them they are wrong is an enemy. They place self-esteem above critical thinking and put their belief over fact.
I also see related narcissistic beliefs: The notion that “offending” someone through criticism or disagreement is an unforgivable offense, the idea that personal disagreements or hurt feelings require legal intervention, the idea that everyone is “owed” something from the world regardless of what they contribute.
I’d be quick to blame grown-ups for coddling them to much with the “Everyone’s-a-Winner” mentality, but I don’t think that’s it. I think pandering media advertisements, social media platforms, celebrity tabloids, and many other avenues all contribute to making each individual feel as though they are, or should be, “special,” and that a person who gets offended when their ideas are challenged is reacting to a perceived attack on their narcissistic ego.
The OP now has 1200 posts and has been made a member of the SDSAB.
C’mon, argue with me, I dares ya!
No, it isn’t.
This isn’t an argument, it’s just contradiction.
DON’T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT DROPPINGS!
[Note to mods-just echoing the Monty Python thing above, not an actual intended attempt at abuse…]
If your ideas are awesome, they impose themselves by virtue of their awesomeness. If you have to apply force, and doing so still doesnt work, maybe they’re not such awesome ideas after all.
The vast number of 9/11 truthers, birthers, anti-vaxxers, and religious extremists in the world definitively disproves this hypothesis.
I’ve been swayed to believe that an argument on an Internet board is much better than a public argument.
You can’t interrupt a post on a message board. 
I kinda sorta know what the OP is talking about.
Its becoming almost politically incorrect to have an argument on the merits. I blame the media for blurring the lines between facts and opinion. Now each side of the argument have a different set of facts to work from and consequently reach different conclusions.
So a lot of people just “agree to disagree” when they are not disagreeing about their opinions, they are disagreeing about the facts.
Maybe he has been reading the board for some time and only just decided to jump in
One of the problems is people are to quick to demand proof, where is the evidence they shout, there seems to be a reluctance to run with a line of thought and see how it develops, if we always stick to the facts we never find anything new you just keep going over old ground