What was the title of the post? Something about tolerance, if I'm not mistaken.

As to your 'secondly' point... I absolutely agree with the statement that "most people cannot, by definition, be in a better position to judge on certain issues than most other people" (emphasis mine - in fact I would extend that to say on most issues of more than minimal complexity).

Absolutely key point to bear in mind is that if you harangue someone about a problem when you're not in a better position to judge on that particular issue, you're being an asshat. That's why I tend to limit my haranguing to matters of (deep breath)...

• Economics (in which I have a double-major First, with firsts in Public Finance, Macro, Micro, Quantitative Economic Policy, International Economics, Econometric Theory and Applied Econometrics) and
• Econometrics (and the statistical theory underpinning it) for which I took straight Firsts at Masters;
• Quantitative analysis of economic policy (and economic modelling generally). which I did for a living for half a decade and taught to undergraduates (3rd year and Honours).

I babble with muted authority on

• expectations (having published on, and having been asked to advise my nation's Treasury on, modelling them in financial markets within macroeconometric models), and
• the modelling paradigm in general (having worked for almost a decade at one of the world's premier economic modelling think tanks, and having dabbled in a [still-incomplete] PhD in stochastic simulation using a computable general-equilibrium model).

And yet I constantly find myself being told things about economics, utility maximisation, agency problems, and so forth, by autodidacts who think persentio ergo rectum is a research methodology.