[implements]

One which is a philosophical issue, imo, but presented on RW as both scientific and fully settled such that dissenters are cast as both wrong-headed and morally bad.

That’s just not “rational” - and I’m surprised the site on that subject has abandoned a neutral point of view in favour of something practically Conservapedia-esque.

HNs asks that we avoid flamebait, so I’m not going to be specific - I just wanted to make the sincere point that RW does take stances that, to me, go against what I thought it’s spirit was.

[throwawawawaay]

I think that beating around the bush without being explicit about what you believe (which makes your position impossible to refute or even talk about in any meaningful way) makes for sterile discussion and is hardly better than flamebait. In line with the principle of charity you should state your position without assuming your detractors will be unable to keep their cool.