Remember this dumb article?
Well, I've heard back from the team involved - at least from the assistant.
I'll paraphrase:
Them: You don't understand, this guy didn't agree with us.
Me: Oh I get that, how come that's wrong and you not agreeing with him is okay?
Them: His argument was "Nuh-uh."
Me: Are you sure that wasn't your argument?
Them: But he didn't accept a fact.
Me: Where does the fact come from? How come your source is more valid than his?
Them: No... no... you just don't get it. This is a proven fact.
Me: Proofs are only ironclad in how it leads from assumptions to conclusions. The postulates (and, therefore the conclusions) themselves are still open for debate.
Them: You're trying to claim I don't understand. Thanks for your input.
Me: (thinking duh!) I hope you see how funny that is. I sure do, so thanks for enriching my day.
I'll go out on a limb here and say that there are some far worse arguments against the freedom of the press than these people - Glen Beck, for example - but, still, the fact that they are contributing to the media and inundating the weak minded with false certainty makes them part of the problem not part of the solution.
We need to come up with a system that routes people like this to jobs for which they are better suited. For instance, I would suggest that the person I talked to should be taking out the trash rather than filling people's heads with it.
