I’m bugged the sheer number of people who don’t understand that claims outside of the sciences can be empirically testable.
For example, it’s all well and good to argue that putting transgender protections into Human Rights codes will result in a glut of male predators sneaking into women’s rooms, but if there’s been no statistically significant increase in such cases in any jurisdiction in which such protections have been put in place then you need to stop arguing this because it demonstrably doesn’t happen.
Likewise, you can argue until the cows come home that regulating guns will result in more crime, but if the statistics from every jurisdiction which has gun control don’t support this, then you need to shut up.
Again, if there’s no evidence that trickle-down economics works as advertised, then it’s time to stop claiming that trickle-down magically increases government revenue.
Policies do not exist in the platonic realm of ideas; they have real world consequences and these consequences are testable.
Of course, all of this is assuming that the people who were advancing these arguments were actually doing so in good faith, rather than as a politically-motivated smokescreen to mask their own bigotry, insecurity and greed. Given Stephen Harper’s obsessive quest to attack the very basis of such evidence-based arguments, I am inclined to suspect the latter.