Truth in Argumentation

This was recently discovered in one of the many books that were recovered from the fire. Finding it relevant and informative, I couldn't resist the temptation to put it here on the site. It's written in a book which I won't quote from, but it's a reference work on the subject of Logic. The preceeding paragraph I refer to is well written, but I felt that it needed to be clarified in this age of deceit, deception and consequent misunderstanding of literally everything composed of atoms. Here it is:

Remarks:

But any argument which neither possesses nor is supported by the truth must necessarily contain a fault or logical fallacy. One can never be obligated to "see," support, conceed or agree to any proposition which can be perceived or determined to contain or uphold a lie. Those who maintain that one should support known or knowable lies under the cant notion or the affectatious humane demeanor of "seeing both sides of an argument" are not only the "true impediments to reasonable dialogue", but are also the true impediments to the natural progress of humanity.

Proof:

1. If it were not for these idle prattlers and captious scorners of reality, no one would be required to waste valuable time to stop and deal with their gross, self-imposed ignorance. This waste is unreasonable.

2. It asks an inappropriate question which is a violation of the rules of argument, since the question, "Can't you see both sides of the argument?" when concerned with the truth is based upon the fallacious supposition that it is not the duty of every man to acquaint himself with the truth by every means at his disposal. This violation is also unreasonable.

3. Much needful scientific advancements must be set aside by reason of these truth-doubters, who, instead of wasting time questioning the truth (many times for absolutely no reason) could be securing their education and contributing to science, or any other field of natural human development and advancement. This behavior is not only unreasonable, but ridiculous, pathetic and absurd.

Conclusion:

1. This last typed paragraph above in the text of the book can only be understood to apply to the vast realm of unknown truths or matters of indifference.
2. It is a logical impossibility for an argument containing or supporting a lie to possess any real merits and can only contain faults, determined or no.
3. Agreement or disagreement has absolutely no bearing upon the nature or quality of either a lie or the truth.
4. Personal position, likewise, holds no bearing upon the nature or quality of either truth or lies. It is only indicative of to which of these we apply our beliefs and may explain why we speak as we do. But it neither alters the quality or nature of truth or lies.