Fuck you, my mom died from improper arguing!

[V3X]

For example you may be able to convince someone who believes that ufos are spaceships that while that maybe the case its not proven and while its ok to believe thats a possibilty to not declare it to be the truth and keep an open but skeptical mind, once they get into the whole reptilian shapeshifter territory its a safe bet youre bot going to make any headway. When confronted with a teabagger youll be able to figure out fairly quickly whether or not theyll actually listen to your points or if theyre completely closed off to new info.

As it was said in the thread about vegetarians, the problem arises when a person's belief becomes their identity. Attacking the belief is inherently a personal attack, because without the belief they are nothing. It's also why it leads so directly to ad-hominem attacks in defense. They don't comprehend any logical difference between me telling a Teabagger that Obama is actually a fairly average president, and him telling me I'm a socialist scumbag who needs to move to Iran so I can live in a godless dystopia where welfare-dependent women have abortions just to make baby Jesus cry.

Their arguments are absurd, because they are completely devoid of a logical basis. But just try telling them that. No, they think they're making all the sense in the world, because, well, they just are and that's how God intended it to be, so there. There is no such thing as "open to new info." New Info itself is the exact thing they are opposed to, often explicitly. UFO nuts might tell you they understand that not all UFOs are alien space ships, they might even actually understand that. But they won't believe it. They won't stop thinking they are alien space ships. As long as you allow for the possibility that they are right, they will interpret it as a guarantee that they are right. And if you don't allow for the possibility, then you're just a close-minded drone who believes everything NASA tells you. And they'll take that as evidence that somebody important is trying to stop them from believing "The Truth."

It isn't a question of "how crazy are these people?" It's a question of "how can we make them stop breathing oxygen on my planet faster?"

[P3nT4gR4m]

With the conspiracy theorist trying to change their minds will get you labeled as a disinfo agent an illuminatus or a shapeshifting reptile. With the teabagger who cant be convinced theyll just brush you off as a member of the muslim kgb. Bad programming has its own antivirus software. Or rather antiantivirus software. Once you program yourself with that mindset the program resists any challenges to it. Pents dead on about the hacking bit.

Step one - destroy the critical logic faculty.

Step two - install circular logic pattern in it's place.

Bingo! Your virus will now aggressively defend itself against logic or rival brainwashing.

Step three - Jihad - point your meat puppet army at your rival's, sit back and watch the pretty lights

[Our Common Enemy]

No one is immune to logic.  Sure people have defenses against it, but ideas incubate, and the right question can destroy any rigid belief.

Truth is truth - both perfect and realistic.
It's just lies are more fun.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

No one is immune to logic.  Sure people have defenses against it, but ideas incubate, and the right question can destroy any rigid belief.

You're adorable.

[LMNO, PhD (life continues)]

Your user name and title contradicts your post. Explain.

[El Twid]

Your user name and title contradicts your post. Explain.

Who Roger? Isn't the President a Communist Nazi?

[LMNO, PhD (life continues)]

"Our common enemy has long since won."

Not quite the person to assert that logic will overcome adversity, isn't it?

[El Twid]

"Our common enemy has long since won."

Not quite the person to assert that logic will overcome adversity, isn't it?

I have selective blindness to people. It often coincides with Known, Known and Noted and occasionally Outlandish.

[Our Common Enemy]

"Our common enemy has long since won."

Not quite the person to assert that logic will overcome adversity, isn't it?

Congruency isn't one of my strong points.
It would be a mistake to think that I actually agree with my current self, much less my 2-years-ago self.

[El Twid]

"Our common enemy has long since won."

Not quite the person to assert that logic will overcome adversity, isn't it?

Congruency isn't one of my strong points.
It would be a mistake to think that I actually agree with my current self, much less my 2-years-ago self.

Why wouldn't you agree with yourself?

[Waffles, Viking Princess of Northern Belgium]

"Our common enemy has long since won."

Not quite the person to assert that logic will overcome adversity, isn't it?

Congruency isn't one of my strong points.
It would be a mistake to think that I actually agree with my current self, much less my 2-years-ago self.

Why wouldn't you agree with yourself?

Because he is stupid?

[ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S.]

Stuff like this is why I read Less Wrong.

[El Twid]

"Our common enemy has long since won."

Not quite the person to assert that logic will overcome adversity, isn't it?

Congruency isn't one of my strong points.
It would be a mistake to think that I actually agree with my current self, much less my 2-years-ago self.

Why wouldn't you agree with yourself?

Because he is stupid?

I think he's trying to impress us.

[The Wizard Joseph]

I think he used to call himself Blackfoot and did that trollzy "I am your enemy" thread a while back.

[El Twid]

I think he used to call himself Blackfoot and did that trollzy "I am your enemy" thread a while back.

Ah, I see.