"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
And yet again my reposting of a Quora post describing that such postings are not intended to convince anyone except for the poster who uses his hateful conduct to stir up animosity towards him so that he can reinforce his fantasy that we hate his message when the actual fact is that we hate stupid assholes like him.
That means that they don't care about the evidence, they don't care about the truth, and they don't even want to convince us about anything. All they care about is convincing themselves and keeping themselves convinced.
I've posted this before from Quora, but it's been a year so here it is again:
quote:Why do people get angry when I try to share the word of God with them? I only do it because I care about them deeply and don't want them to end up in hell. I feel like some people avoid me because of this. Is there any way to get through to them?
by Doug Robertson, studied at University of Maine Updated Dec 11 2018
The entire process is not what you think it is.
It is specifically designed to be uncomfortable for the other person because it isn't about converting them to your religion. It is about manipulating you so you can't leave yours.
If this tactic was about converting people it would be considered a horrible failure. It recruits almost no one who isn't already willing to join. Bake sales are more effective recruiting tools.
On the other hand, it is extremely effective at creating a deep tribal feeling among its own members.
The rejection they receive is actually more important than the few people they convert. It causes them to feel a level of discomfort around the people they attempt to talk to. These become the "others". These uncomfortable feelings go away when they come back to their congregation, the "Tribe".
If you take a good look at the process it becomes fairly clear. In most cases, the religious person starts out from their own group, who is encouraging and supportive. They are then sent out into the harsh world where people repeatedly reject them. Mainly because they are trained to be so annoying.
These brave witnesses then return from the cruel world to their congregation where they are treated like returning heroes. They are now safe. They bond as they share their experiences of reaching out to the godless people to bring them the truth. They share the otherness they experience.
Once again they will learn that the only place they are accepted is with the people who think as they do. It isn't safe to leave the group. The world is your enemy, but we love you.
This is a pain reward cycle that is a common brainwashing technique. The participants become more and more reliant on the "Tribe" because they know that "others" reject them.
Mix in some ritualized chanting, possibly a bit of monotonous repetition of instructions, add a dash of fear of judgment by an unseen, but all-powerful entity who loves you if you do as you are told and you get a pretty powerful mix.
Sorry, I have absolutely no wish to participate in someone's brainwashing ritual.
That's all that ICANT is doing with this topic: convincing himself. He has no intention nor interest on convincing us about anything, rather he is only interested in keeping himself deceived.
Your inability to address any of the evidence that has been supplied to you demonstrates our point.
There's a new voice on YouTube in the creation/evolution debates and discussions: Mr. Anderson. As a lawyer, he brings lawyerly techniques to the table.
For example:
According to this video, when your opponent persistently refuses to answer your simple direct pertinent and easy-to-answer questions, even after you break it down into a series of much shorter and easier questions, then you can draw negative inferences based on their refusal to answer your simple direct pertinent and easy-to-answer questions. Furthermore, according to Mr. Anderson, drawing negative inferences in this manner is permissible in court.
That's what we're seeing "USA 1776" (obvious Newspeak self misidentification) doing here, so we can draw negative inferences.
PS
Watching that video again, at 7:40 he introduces the legal term as "drawing an adverse inference" and then goes on to discuss its use in court (eg, can be used against a witness, but not against the defendant because of the presumption of innocence).
Edited by Admin, : Embed YouTube video (replaced "&" with ",")
™ Version 4.2