That might be a good question for Andrew Schlafly. In some senses, different views are great, as are opportunities to hone your beliefs against competing belie

That might be a good question for Andrew Schlafly. In some senses, different views are great, as are opportunities to hone your beliefs against competing beliefs. I've changed my mind on some issues due to reading competing beliefs. My home town newspaper (Denver Post) would run Paul Krugman editorials in the business section regularly, and the now defunct Rocky Mountain News would run Buckley and Sowell. The issue I've got with Conservapedia and the like is that it's basically bad faith automatic gainsaying. After a while, countering bad faith opposition becomes a waste of time. Lies run around the world twice before truth gets it's shoes on, as Ben Franklin once said. It gets tiresome repeatedly spending thought on an editorial writer, only to discover once again that their reasoning is cleverly disguised circular.