You have turned this discussion into climate science. I am talking about putting both sides of a debate out. I will let this be my last comment. I respectfully disagree with you. I believe that all sides should be given equal opportunity to be presented. If the idea is wack, then it will be shown that way. But at least we have all the information.
I am not trying to say we should stifle a view point. What I am trying to say is that; just because someone holds a differing opinion doesn't mean it should be automatically respected. Differing views should meet certain testable criteria to be considered worthy. I think the entire point is that the idea IS wack which is why people like Neil Degrasse Tyson are saying we should stop giving equal time to climate deniers.
You have turned this discussion into climate science. I am talking about putting both sides of a debate out. I will let this be my last comment. I respectfully disagree with you. I believe that all sides should be given equal opportunity to be presented. If the idea is wack, then it will be shown that way. But at least we have all the information.
I am not trying to say we should stifle a view point. What I am trying to say is that; just because someone holds a differing opinion doesn't mean it should be automatically respected. Differing views should meet certain testable criteria to be considered worthy. I think the entire point is that the idea IS wack which is why people like Neil Degrasse Tyson are saying we should stop giving equal time to climate deniers.