> We also both know that one of us is obviously, insanely wrong - so either someone isn't engaging in that process, or there's something deeply wrong with sense-making in general.
No? It is possible for people to disagree on a question which has no objective answer. I disagree with your position regarding this question, but I don't think you're "obviously, insanely wrong", because there is simply no way to objectively measure the correct answer. And on the same note, I also don't assume that I must be obviously right.
I can accept your position without throwing around accusations that you're "mak[ing] extreme things up to align with a particular political ideology". Just because I disagree doesn't mean your take is delusional, even though you have not supported it with coherent arguments - which I have unquestionably done for my position, yet you call it "delusional".
A well-reasoned position can survive without pretending anyone who does not agree must be making stuff up.
No? It is possible for people to disagree on a question which has no objective answer. I disagree with your position regarding this question, but I don't think you're "obviously, insanely wrong", because there is simply no way to objectively measure the correct answer. And on the same note, I also don't assume that I must be obviously right.
I can accept your position without throwing around accusations that you're "mak[ing] extreme things up to align with a particular political ideology". Just because I disagree doesn't mean your take is delusional, even though you have not supported it with coherent arguments - which I have unquestionably done for my position, yet you call it "delusional".
A well-reasoned position can survive without pretending anyone who does not agree must be making stuff up.