Much as i admire their collectedness and persistence, i wonder if their modus operandi may be the best way to deal with Stoopid. I sometimes think it's like the supposedly Native American story:
By dealing with the irrational rationally, are we feeding the wrong wolf? I don't know. I do know that an awful lot of time is spent composing logical arguments, drawing on sound science, to which is replied, "that's not true, 'cause my guru said so."A tribal elder was teaching his grandchildren about life. He said to them, "A fight is going on inside me; it is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One wolf represents fear, anger, envy, greed, arrogance, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, and ego.The other stands for joy, peace, love, hope, empathy, generosity, and truth.""This same fight is going on inside you, and inside every other person, too", he added.The grandchildren thought about it for a minute and then one child asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"The old man simply replied, "The one you feed."
Then again, i remember a certain commenter who seemed to be very fond of He-WHS-Must-Not-Be-Named.... This person argued about our personal solutions to absolutely individual problems on account o' EVERYBODY should do this and NOBODY should do that. This person was patiently borne-with for a long time, till someone applied a good "setting down" -- and we haven't been plagued with more proclamations in a long time.
The more i think about it, the more i'm inclined to refer the Stubborn Commenter to relevant links, and when they come back and argue, tell them they've missed the cogent portions of the paper/article/book. (Because ... they obviously HAVE.) I'm reminded of another favorite quote:
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it.Or, as a less facile but highly insightful writer put it:
Thinking's a dizzy business, a matter of catching as many of those foggy glimpses as you can and fitting them together the best you can. That's why people hang on so tight to their beliefs and opinions; because, compared to the haphazard way in which they're arrived at, even the goofiest opinion seems wonderfully clear, sane and self-evident. And if you let it get away from you, then you've got to dive back into that foggy muddle to wangle yourself out another to take its place.
If OUR idea works for US, and HIS idea works for HIM, why does he feel the need to try to convince us we're wrong? I think it has to do with the same mindset we see in traditional communism and the church of Rome -- things can only work properly if EVERYBODY thinks the same, because if EVERYBODY agrees, it couldn't possibly be wrong, and doubters will be immediately and effectively squelched by their nearest and dearest. 2,000.000.000 XYZs can't be wrong? Hell yes, they can, and they feel very insecure when you point it out to them.