The extreme anti-conspiracy-theorist is just as close-minded as the extreme conspiracy theorist. A conspiracy becomes a fact when proven with evidence.
Unfortunately a lot of people's ideas on what constitutes "evidence" and "proof" are so staggeringly off the mark that you have a hard time believing they haven't been sold a bridge.
Well, my own response did (albeit briefly) cover this. ;-) Even when you don't get through to someone, onlookers can benefit from the discussion.
People on the sidelines are in a better position to be convinced, because since they aren't challenged directly, they can digest your arguments privately without having to do the ego-bruising public recognition of being wrong.
Excellent video. I think you should restate one part The point of the argument or debate should be to convince the other person, but the success of it should be measured by it's effect on the audience, instead of the other person.
Depending on the person it is simple. Religious folks are followers and to "change" their minds one just needs to have them taken out of their environment and contact with fellow believers minimized and they will begin to crack over time as they are conformists at heart. Add ridicule and the process is sped.
Pretty sure that's not the entire story given that I believe there really is no reaching some people. It's interesting that when you take people out of their environment and especially if they come into contact with ridicule that some will form a shell and become unreachable. It's not enough to just do those things. But either way it shouldn't be done for them or yourself but for the audience.
I'd never heard of Mill before this... Allowing people to air false opinions is productive for two reasons. 1st individuals are more likely to abandon erroneous beliefs if they are engaged in an open exchange of ideas. (Continued...)
Second, by forcing other individuals to re-examine and re-affirm their beliefs in the process of debate, these beliefs are kept from declining into mere dogma. It is not enough for Mill that one simply has an unexamined belief that happens to be true; one must understand why the belief in question is the true one.
The reason it's so important to prevent beliefs declining into dead dogma is that (especially for moral 'truths') people are far more likely to act upon them if their reasons for holding them are fresh and vivid in their minds.
There really is no getting through to some people. This is why I rarely ever enter into a debate with a person who will never use any sort of common sense or logic. I might just carry out the conversation to showcase their mistakes in thinking.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why just making fun of Alex Jones is the best solution.
i totally agree. when there is an audience... it keeps the 2 or more debaters in check, which will hopefully result in more understanding of a viewpoint. i find myself debating people without an audience more than i would like to. those are endless discussions... that rarely result in anything but 2 stubborn people holding their ground. i am usually the terminator of those discussions. i end it by challenging the other person to include an objective/unbiased person in the equation.
A problem comes about with debates between WLC, Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron, and the likes.
A good percentage of the people watching those debates have their side already fairly strongly settled, whether it's valid or not, so it's not going to make much of a difference.
It's even worse for WLC since he's good at saying a lot of stuff that sounds like it's valid but isn't.
As my wife succinctly put it, at 40 you take care of your shit or your shit takes care of you. I'll leave the lost causes to the young guys and try to speak more to the fence sitters, I think.
This is a good point, however as a guy a little older than you and Tooltime I would caution you to still choose your battles wisely, otherwise you waste all your time arguing with lost causes. There is an exuberance in youth that comes from adulthood being such a new fresh thing. 20 more years living in the world causes attrition of overall exuberance, which can't be helped, and that leads to some serious prioritization around age 40.
You've only got 19 years on me I turn 29 tomorrow. :-P Choosing your battles is what I'm talking about really. Choose your battles so that your efforts aren't wasted. Choose to use the encounters with the lost causes to your advantage: To affect others. That's all I'm saying.
happy birthday to you. I guess we're really on the same page then. I just have very little patience left for people who remain willfully ignorant. Sometimes even allowing an argument with someone lends credence to the undeserving. I won't even argue with anyone over evolution, it's such a forgone conclusion I can barely waste time on an argument.
See for me that's when the argument MUST be made in front of as many people as possible. Bring the issue forward. Don't waste your time with arguing against JUST those willfully ignorant people, make them embarrassed to be willfully ignorant in front of as many people as you can. Otherwise don't discuss it for long; that would be a waste of time. :-P
I feel for every thick-headed person who will not 'get it', there are many others who watch the debate and can 'get it' and save face, privately considering both sides, which can help them formulate a better position from the exchange. I debate stubborn people here on YT so that others may observe the exchange and maybe 'get it' in their own time. I'm sure many young people are being helped in leaving god worship behind them with all the exchanges here on this medium.
I've been saying that about debates for years now. After all, when McCain and Obama debated, it wasn't to try to win each other's votes. ;-) But the same goes for YouTube debates, especially those which will garner copious views.
I just wanted to reiterate that this is really good reasoning. I borrowed it and used this line of thinking for a different topic on a recent video.
grindstonejournal 2 years ago
Glad you enjoyed it. :-)
themanofearth 2 years ago
good points
tooltime9901 2 years ago
thanks :)
themanofearth 2 years ago
The extreme anti-conspiracy-theorist is just as close-minded as the extreme conspiracy theorist. A conspiracy becomes a fact when proven with evidence.
SomeBSUTubeName 2 years ago
Unfortunately a lot of people's ideas on what constitutes "evidence" and "proof" are so staggeringly off the mark that you have a hard time believing they haven't been sold a bridge.
xVancha 2 years ago
Well, my own response did (albeit briefly) cover this. ;-) Even when you don't get through to someone, onlookers can benefit from the discussion.
People on the sidelines are in a better position to be convinced, because since they aren't challenged directly, they can digest your arguments privately without having to do the ego-bruising public recognition of being wrong.
LynxChan 2 years ago
Oh... :-/ Forgive me I missed that part of your video.
themanofearth 2 years ago
heh, not a problem. I'm new to the whole video production business, so just having someone watch my videos is more than enough for me :-)
LynxChan 2 years ago
Excellent video. I think you should restate one part The point of the argument or debate should be to convince the other person, but the success of it should be measured by it's effect on the audience, instead of the other person.
gt6303c 2 years ago
I think that's a very good observation. Thank you.
themanofearth 2 years ago
Depending on the person it is simple. Religious folks are followers and to "change" their minds one just needs to have them taken out of their environment and contact with fellow believers minimized and they will begin to crack over time as they are conformists at heart. Add ridicule and the process is sped.
Mahoivlich 2 years ago
Pretty sure that's not the entire story given that I believe there really is no reaching some people. It's interesting that when you take people out of their environment and especially if they come into contact with ridicule that some will form a shell and become unreachable. It's not enough to just do those things. But either way it shouldn't be done for them or yourself but for the audience.
themanofearth 2 years ago
This is virtually exactly what I said on Tooltime's video. In the comment section though.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Great minds think alike. :-P
themanofearth 2 years ago
Very John Stuart Mill.
miksedene 2 years ago
I'd never heard of Mill before this... Allowing people to air false opinions is productive for two reasons. 1st individuals are more likely to abandon erroneous beliefs if they are engaged in an open exchange of ideas. (Continued...)
themanofearth 2 years ago
Second, by forcing other individuals to re-examine and re-affirm their beliefs in the process of debate, these beliefs are kept from declining into mere dogma. It is not enough for Mill that one simply has an unexamined belief that happens to be true; one must understand why the belief in question is the true one.
I like it! :-)
themanofearth 2 years ago
Heh, this just reminds me of my first year exams.
The reason it's so important to prevent beliefs declining into dead dogma is that (especially for moral 'truths') people are far more likely to act upon them if their reasons for holding them are fresh and vivid in their minds.
miksedene 2 years ago
All too true.
themanofearth 2 years ago
I absolutely agree that the debate is for the sake of the audience.
dewinthemorning 2 years ago
There really is no getting through to some people. This is why I rarely ever enter into a debate with a person who will never use any sort of common sense or logic. I might just carry out the conversation to showcase their mistakes in thinking.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why just making fun of Alex Jones is the best solution.
MagnusIan 2 years ago
Really good points.
grindstonejournal 2 years ago
i totally agree. when there is an audience... it keeps the 2 or more debaters in check, which will hopefully result in more understanding of a viewpoint. i find myself debating people without an audience more than i would like to. those are endless discussions... that rarely result in anything but 2 stubborn people holding their ground. i am usually the terminator of those discussions. i end it by challenging the other person to include an objective/unbiased person in the equation.
qy05 2 years ago
A problem comes about with debates between WLC, Ray Comfort/Kirk Cameron, and the likes.
A good percentage of the people watching those debates have their side already fairly strongly settled, whether it's valid or not, so it's not going to make much of a difference.
It's even worse for WLC since he's good at saying a lot of stuff that sounds like it's valid but isn't.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
This is a good point, putting debate on display. I guess that's why I make videos to start with, you never know who is going to see it.
SconeMason 2 years ago
I'd like to keep making videos so that you end up making them too but I'll keep making them anyway. :-P
Hell just turn your essay into a script and make a video. It's what I do with my videos. :-P
themanofearth 2 years ago
As my wife succinctly put it, at 40 you take care of your shit or your shit takes care of you. I'll leave the lost causes to the young guys and try to speak more to the fence sitters, I think.
SconeMason 2 years ago
This is a good point, however as a guy a little older than you and Tooltime I would caution you to still choose your battles wisely, otherwise you waste all your time arguing with lost causes. There is an exuberance in youth that comes from adulthood being such a new fresh thing. 20 more years living in the world causes attrition of overall exuberance, which can't be helped, and that leads to some serious prioritization around age 40.
SconeMason 2 years ago
You've only got 19 years on me I turn 29 tomorrow. :-P Choosing your battles is what I'm talking about really. Choose your battles so that your efforts aren't wasted. Choose to use the encounters with the lost causes to your advantage: To affect others. That's all I'm saying.
themanofearth 2 years ago
Happy birthday.
poorkinghaggard 2 years ago
Thanks :-D
themanofearth 2 years ago
happy birthday to you. I guess we're really on the same page then. I just have very little patience left for people who remain willfully ignorant. Sometimes even allowing an argument with someone lends credence to the undeserving. I won't even argue with anyone over evolution, it's such a forgone conclusion I can barely waste time on an argument.
SconeMason 2 years ago
@SconeMason
See for me that's when the argument MUST be made in front of as many people as possible. Bring the issue forward. Don't waste your time with arguing against JUST those willfully ignorant people, make them embarrassed to be willfully ignorant in front of as many people as you can. Otherwise don't discuss it for long; that would be a waste of time. :-P
themanofearth 2 years ago
I feel for every thick-headed person who will not 'get it', there are many others who watch the debate and can 'get it' and save face, privately considering both sides, which can help them formulate a better position from the exchange. I debate stubborn people here on YT so that others may observe the exchange and maybe 'get it' in their own time. I'm sure many young people are being helped in leaving god worship behind them with all the exchanges here on this medium.
saxmanchiro 2 years ago
I've been saying that about debates for years now. After all, when McCain and Obama debated, it wasn't to try to win each other's votes. ;-) But the same goes for YouTube debates, especially those which will garner copious views.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago