That's largely true. You can't have a substantive discussion/debate/argument with someone if you don't both share the same basic standards of judgement.clakclak wrote:...A person who adheres to sutch an extrem point of view will for example not see the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal or The Boston Globe as a reliable newssource. If one is now so far gone than I think it is hard/impossiable to engage them in meaningful dialogue.
Imagine someone with a different belief or value system than "mainstream" or whatever current culture considers as "normal values" being confronted, day after day, with publications and news outlets that tell them in no uncertain terms that they are "wrong." The read the N.Y. Times and are told that cats are better than dogs. They read The Washington Post and, with their newfound sensitivity to such things, feel like they're being bombarded with uncomfortable and ever-present reminders in articles that the value system being thrust into their face values cats more than it values dogs. They've lived their whole life with dogs, know dogs, love dogs, yet all these "mainstream" news outlets keep pushing cats in their face.
It doesn't matter if all these publications have truly accurate information on other subjects. All that will be tainted by their overwhelming preference for cats. So, instead of being forced to put to the question their own value system, they retreat to more isolated news sources that cater to their love for dogs. The self-validation these "news sources" bring for their readers also lends itself towards validating, in the minds of their readers, the credibility of other claims, even in "news stories" that are largely fiction or false or horribly biased.
(Obviously, a hypothetical analysis, since everyone knows dogs are better than cats.)
. 
