It helps if we let others know what our evidence is
and how it led us to arrive at our opinions.
Foxy,
What opinions can we form about people who refute inconvenient evidence ?

Good Morning Indyvidual,

You ask - "What opinions can we form about people
who rebute inconvenient evidence?"

That simply can be interpreted as - willful ignorance.
Which basically amounts to not wanting to be informed
or apprised of certain things.

If you are ignorant and ill-informed you can be manipulated
by any scoundrel who wishes to do so and it will be your
own fault.

There's also a difference between ignorance and stupidity.
Stupidity is behaviour that shows a lack of good judgement.

Hi Foxy,

I seen this thread, started by the Forums number one malcontent, nothing more than an opportunity for the little group of Old Farts to vent their spleens on political and social progressives. Two freely admit they have their snouts firmly lodged in the taxpayer trough sucking up aged welfare, something they never earned or deserve. The other nut job, well, he sees "Reds under the beds" at every turn. No thinking person would take anything they have to say seriously. Shortly they should be joining another pair of the Old Fart's, the posters Hasbeen and Shadow minister wherever they are now.

Hi Paul,

As I wrote to Armchair Critic on another discussion -
I can respect people with strong opinions and beliefs,
even if they differ from my own. However, as I said
to AC - I do have
problems tolerating people who reject reality when it
doesn't fit their world view or because they're too
comfortable or too lazy to engage in independent
thinking. I prefer not to engage with those people as
their views are too narrow and usually extreme.

I have decided not to read their views in future. There's
no point - all they want is a fight and to insult and name call.
Time to draw the line and just walk away.

Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi has got herself noticed again by stating that pro-Palestinian vandals who recently desecrated a war memorial had ‘only’ put a bit paint on a building.

Cartoonist, Johannes Leak, has been accused by the woman's lawyers of being “racist” with his depiction in The Australian of her comments.

What would they have accused him of if the senator was a white Anglo person? The words would have been the same.

Lawyers for The Australian hit back, writing: “Your client purports to advocate for free speech, yet herself (sic) is now using her status in order to stifle public discussion she doesn't like”.

The International Court of Justice has issued its opinion
and the conclusion is loud and clear:

Israel's occupation and annexation of the Palestinian
territories are unlawful and its discriminatory laws and
policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on
racial segregation and apartheid.