AuldSoul:
The upshot of the statement you just agreed with is that we are not only each entitled to our own facts, we are each in possession of our own facts. Therefore, we each have our own reality. Therefore, we must tolerate the reality of each other or we remove all ethical basis for toleration of our own. And, I think there is someone in this thread who disagrees with that, repeatedly, with ridicule and scorn.
No, not at all. I can tolerate your beliefs and accept that you see them as facts, and even that some of them may actually be facts, but I will not accept that you have your own reality. You don't. Reality exists independently of you and me. You may have more information about some aspects of reality than I do, but without some way of testing, it is impossible to tell whether your claim is factual or not.
While you are happy to tolerate it, some are not happy to tolerate it. That's what these discussions are about, in my opinion. The fact that such knowledge is irrelevant to you does not make such knowledge irrelevant, nor does it mean such knowledge must never impact you in any way. It does. Our perceptions, our facts, our reality affects the perceptions, facts, and reality of others.
The way such "knowledge" affects me is not in any way based on whether it is factual. I could be stopped in the street by a Jehovah's Witness who claims a particular kind of knowledge, or by a Raelian who claims a different kind. The effects that such beliefs have on a person - and indirectly on me - do not depend on whether those beliefs are actually true.
Perceptions are not facts.
Ridiculing such a belief would run counter to your acknowledgement in your latest post.
Not at all. It's a belief I find ridiculous because it is horrendously unlikely given the demonstrable facts at our disposal, and there is no evidence for it. Holding an implausible belief for no good reason is a ridiculous thing to do, and I'm not afraid to say so.
The reality is that you do not have the other persons set of facts, because we are each entitled to our own.
No we're not. Facts are facts, regardless of who has them. Someone may be in possession of facts that I do not have. Unless they can share those facts with me in a convincing way, there is absolutely no discernible difference to me whether they really have facts or are making something up. None at all. If there is no way of determining whether a statement is true or false, it is, at best, irrelevant.
The reality is that you cannot read the other person's mind, you cannot experience anything, not even color, from the perspective of that person.
And yet the colour of a particular object is a fact independent of people's perception. You may see red the way I see blue (whatever that might mean) but something is red only if it reflects light of a particular wavelength (around 650nm if memory serves). You may claim that your perception of red is different from mine; I will dismiss it as irrelevant. If you claim that a red object is really blue, I will tell you flat out you are wrong. In all cases, I will tolerate your right to be wrong or irrelevant, but will not pretend that you are otherwise.
The reality is that if you were that person you would have the same belief they have, because the combination of genetics and experiences that make that individual who they are and shape their reality would be your set of genetics and experiences.
If a circle was a square it would have four corners. So what?
Therefore, ridicule is intolerance. As is scorn.
Not at all. Ridicule is simply the expression of an opinion. One thing I think we can all agree on is that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I have the right to express my opinion, and to judge people on the basis of their opinions. I do not have the right to cause harm to people simply because they hold ridiculous opinions, but I certainly have the right to laugh at them.
