In reading some of the threads in MC BS section I'm constantly reminded of the saying "The first casualty in war is the truth". This is a statement I suspect all of us are familiar with and most of us accept. The first utterance is attributed to an American Congressman or maybe Aeschylus, but I haven't seen a citation. Wikiquotes assigns it to Philip Snowden in 1916.

We are experiencing such a snowballing of online falsehood that entire websites are collecting adherents with no evidence. There are items called 'facts' and 'evidence' but there is no way to verify the so-called elements of truth. In fact, there is much laying of false information trails going on both by State and individual actors.

Are we facing a crisis of definition? Stephen Colbert in his wonderful Report came up with the word 'truthyness'.
In the wonderful series "The Good Wife", there is a plot point about the validity of a certain email which could have legal implications. The computer expert explains that there are background computer records for each email incorporating address of sender, time of sending, etc. that are called 'metadata' in order to verify the email, whereupon someone immediately attempts to forge the metadata.
So, when we make our arguments to each other how do we justify our facts? Or do we merely insist on their Truthyness?

When you, Mudcat denizen, insist on (or present) your facts, are you secure in them by a source unaligned to your prejudices, or do you require an emotional validity in the first place? Does your estimation of another member's point of view affect your perception of their facts?

The reason I'm bringing this up in its own thread is because I'm wading through some other threads that contain considerably heated back and forth arguments by people whose writing I regard, and I'm finding both sides interesting and comprehensible, but unyielding. What does it take to be influenced by another's argument? Are we reluctant to accept it for emotional reasons, or is there a way for logic to trump emotion?

I'm looking for input devoid of invective, and maybe even, without emotion. Can we talk about emotion without being emotional?