Interesting background, I think yours might be more unique than most, my general sense of the average user here is that at some point in their life they called themselves “liberals” / “progressives” on at least some issues (drug laws, foreign intervention [which ironically seems to have flipped in the last decade] racial issues, sex/gender issues, etc), regardless of how loathe they might be to admit such today.

How do you go about evaluating intangible notions for their Truth? I go back to the religion point not to be unfair to you or overly rhetorical, but because I just think it’s a great summation of how no matter how much effort and conscious consideration we put to an issue, it’s very hard (if not impossible in some cases, at a given point in time) to discern what exactly the Truth of a matter may be, do you get what I mean?

Edit: to go back to your earlier point about “one man’s terrorist”, wouldn’t Americans have seen the founding fathers as freedom fighters, and the British/British loyalists have seen them as troublemaking terrorists?

Interesting background, I think yours might be more unique than most, my general sense of the average user here is that at some point in their life they called themselves “liberals” / “progressives” on at least some issues (drug laws, foreign intervention [which ironically seems to have flipped in the last decade] racial issues, sex/gender issues, etc), regardless of how loathe they might be to admit such today.

How do you go about evaluating intangible notions for their Truth? I go back to the religion point not to be unfair to you or overly rhetorical, but because I just think it’s a great summation of how no matter how much effort and conscious consideration we put to an issue, it’s very hard (if not impossible in some cases, at a given point in time) to discern what exactly the Truth of a matter may be, do you get what I mean?