As a follow-up question:

It's pretty obvious to me, as has been proven time and time again and corroborated, that biased - yes, emotionally-based - arguments or assertions that appeal to others' senses win out in favor of cold, hard facts usually. So my question is for those of you who believe you are more impartial reporters of the facts --- what sustains your steadfast (though steadfastness and impartiality may seem mutually exclusive) beliefs in the face of great unpopularity...and how do you remain 'confident' knowing that knowledge is so plastic.....that so few immutable facts exist? Merely knowing that I might possess the truth is never enough for me, because I know that I'm dealing with what might otherwise be robots stuck on auto to believe what they believe. Sure, there's the Buddhist tenet of accepting what you cannot change, but I've never subscribed to that. I believe in resistance at all costs.