Continue Reading Below Advertisement

"Well done, not medium. You want to get rid of all the evil juices."

But what if, in some surprising turn of events, it turned out that witches were not only real, but that everything said about them was true*? That they do in fact have dark magical powers they use to torture and murder people en masse, including spreading diseases and starvation? And that, since they're magical, the only way to stop them is to kill them? I mean, you cheered when Voldemort died, right?

This, then, is where you realize that you're not necessarily more tolerant than the witch hunters -- you just don't share their belief in witches. Your moral code may in fact be exactly the same as theirs -- you just disagree on that particular fact. And facts can be right or wrong, but they can't be moral or immoral.

Continue Reading Below Advertisement

*The above example was stolen wholesale from C.S. Lewis, though he was making an entirely different point.

Now look at pretty much every single political debate. Both liberals and conservatives agree on the moral principle that government tyranny is bad. They simply disagree on the factual issue of whether or not Obamacare is an example of government tyranny. Which means that in most cases, it's not that your side is moral and theirs is immoral, but that you are simply working from different factual conclusions. It really does ruin the whole good vs. evil narrative that gets us out of bed in the morning.

Continue Reading Below Advertisement

Now, in order to preserve the good vs. evil narrative, here is where we say that the other side is simply lying about what they believe. The witch hunters didn't really believe in witches; they just wanted an excuse to mutilate women. Conservatives don't really think Obamacare is tyranny; they just want an excuse to keep poor people sick. Liberals don't really think sexism and racism are rampant; they just like to throw out accusations to shut down debate.