Let me clear the air. It is not the opposing perspective that I am against. One-sided discussions offer no enlightenment, but ignorant bias is also where enlightenment goes to die. What I AM against is taking information, resources, etc and selectively culling them to fit an agenda. The idea that "any argument which elicits balance discussion is a valid argument" overlooks those that unethically manipulate information. The fact that those words come from a professor gives them no more credibility. Regressive arguments are made all the time, to the detriment of reality. The people/persons I will stand against here are those that are clearly serving an agenda, and make efforts to suppress valid information that threatens that agenda. As a secondary violation, I've witnessed this same person selectively ignore completely valid points from which there is no manipulative escape. Only the drum beat of ignorant partisanship continues.

Bring on the opposing views. I want them. But such behavior as I have described above is a liability to those in the room who want to advance on truth, and it is an insult to those doing non-partisan and ethical research. I am often embarrassed for her and disappointed that the waters are so polluted by the toxins of her ignorant prejudice. It needs to be called what it is for the sake of the discussion.