How do you reason someone who commits every logical fallacy, and cannot listen to arguments?

Nigga you just tap it and open it, it's not that hard.

If you're 32, you probably have a job. Go buy a few cartons of eggs and practice.

>inb4 you're a moralfag
Just make scrambled eggs with the failed ones, then.

Words to live by I guess

If I ask them to do that all they do is just be vague, say look up the source (if they even share it) or just shift the burden to me to disprove though I'm asking for proof.

Even when I find the source it relies on the basis of circumstantial evidence or a single quote out of context as an appeal to authority type deal, however it is typically unrelated to the argument and even the person using the evidence in question cannot explain how its related.

>explain yourself clearly
>don't bite off more than you can chew (i.e. don't make wild claims because people will call you out and it will detract from your credibility)
>consider their arguments and attempt to explain why you disagree
>use neutral wording
>don't strawman the other side
>don't attack the person you're arguing with
>source all you claims.

if you find yourself getting frustrated, or that they are arguing like an idiot, just walk away. Veeky Forums is anonymous so you don't have to worry about your e-ego.

but the issue of climate change is particularly tough (along with things like religion), because no matter what science you show them, they think all that science is paid for by the illuminati (or whoever).

but the ultimate argumentative trick is to put the other side on the defensive. deflect question back on your opponent, question their claims and make them explain themselves. that's one thing i've learned from trump supporters, never debate the subject, always deflect the argument back to the other side (i.e. WELL HILLARY DID X SO SHE"S MUCH WORSE)

Cheers, I do pretty much follow everything on that list; however all they do is argue like an idiot, my bro has literally started playing fallacy bingo on this guy as I attempt to reason with them.

I don't like walking away but I guess I have to.

This is what they attempt to do on me, but I realise they're doing it and return to the original point.
I succeeded in doing that before (to see if their way of arguing would work on them), but the argument is instantly ignored and they walk away or just ignore the whole predicament.

Arguing with someone who can't do it properly usually leads to frustration on both sides. It's a waste of time. Just say something like, "well i don't think either of us are going to convince each other today, so let's stop before i get all worked up". they may call you a loser or a quitter but who cares, you know that they just aren't worth your time and it's not that you have run out of arguments or whatever.

Also a lot of people have a hard time admitting they are wrong (both to themselves and others) because it would mean that they were fooled and thus not very intelligent. So in essence you're smashing your head against a wall instead of deconstructing a wall to consider the other side.

Well a lot of people are aware that it is an immature way to argue and would just ignore you because they think you're an idiot (as i do when people pull that shit on me).

Thanks for the advice guys, I'll just have to walk away.

Lightly hit its side with the pan.
Now get both your thumbs under th3 crack. Push thumbs and then pull the sides away. It may seem strange, but this way no egg shell falls down.

By playing polemics you create dichotomy and engage in conflict. In truth neither you nor the "opposition" will (probably) be fully correct. By changing the conversation to one of exploration you and the engaged party can discover elements previously unrealized. Dichotomy will limit you into a narrow interpretation.

Do not despair. Alter the methodology and reengage. Avoid conflict, and be willing to play dumb.

I see what you mean, I once went through one of their interpretations of a subject matter and asked questions to try and understand.
It got to the point that they admitted it was flawed (this was not an argument simply a Q&A scenario to clarify their beliefs) but they didn't care and continued as they were.

If anything you become more informed on the specifics of their error and can adopt a manipulation of their beliefs by applying their logic to something they disagree with, inducing skepticism of their own belief. Eventually the seed of doubt will blossom.

You will have to get them to understand and agree to the guidelines of a fair philosophical discussion. This means things like burden of proof and the burden of explanation.

I've been exploring this same sort of situation with an sjw friend. Her go to line when she is trying to get me to accept something that she doesn't understand well enough to explain to me is 'read this and this". To which I respond with "well, if you've read it and understand it well enough to believe it instead of the argument I have articulated then you should be able to explain it to me well enough to convince me". Usually leads to some back tracking.

The keys to making progress are to: find where the disagreement is, and refocus the conversation onto that until it is resolved. It is very easy to get side tracked. Typically a person losing a debate will try to get off point.

Same shit here

So use their logic on something they disagree with, to then prove it would be true using their rationale?

Revealing faulty logic by using it to prove/disprove something else they are more likely to think about, in the face of willful ignorance.

Demand summary I like it.

I've tried to explain the rules but they just ignore me and instead do their own thing, claiming that they don't have time to learn them (although spend hours watching YouTube "documentaries")
I typically keep the argument very focused, as you have described, I have to back track through a their logic; this results in complete changes in theory (conveniently) or they just introduce some fact/claim that was vital for the functioning of the premise of the argument-effectively resetting the argument back to square one.

You don't. Stop wasting time on idiots and cultists.

I have revealed faulty logic in the past, they then resort to saying an entire principle of is incorrect or just insult me.
I have once showed their logic is flawed that they agreed the point I made was undisputable, the next day it was all suddenly forgotten and now they just say it's wrong with a lack of reasoning.

I haven't considered they were cultists before, that's a worryingly true comparison.

I guess you have to question their motives:

Why do they want to discuss it?
Are they interested in having true beliefs?
Are they willing to change their mind?

This will either soften them up, or show you that it is a waste of time.

What is their criteria for concession of a point?

>I guess you have to question their motives:
>Why do they want to discuss it?
Yes
>Are they interested in having true beliefs?
They believe they already have a true belief
>Are they willing to change their mind?
I guess not, they believe they are but clearly not

Therefore it is a waste of time?

In my experience with this person it's when they're running out of ideas or just to say I'm wrong because I've actually considered their argument.

May I inquire what the take is on religion amid this audience?

Bear with me. I suspect many here will see it as false and some as true, but do any of you see it as useful?

You don't argue.

Generally I have my smart friends and my dumb friends. If my dumb friends are nice, I'll be nice to them. Only reveal intelligence and explain if they ask.
If my dumb friends are opinionated and forceful and insulting about their ignorance, I lose respect for them permanently and generally just mock/call out stuff they say whenever they say it. And little things like laughing at what they say. It's really good for correcting bad behaviour.

These are questions to ask directly to them. This will give you both clearer goals for the discussion, as well as something to hold each other accountable to.

I'm Christian, though I can except that there are many flaws which is nearing me towards agnostic.
But I fail to see how religion would be a factor, could you elaborate?

I'll ask these questions specifically but if it doesn't work then or improve anything significantly I might as well just stop.

the usefulness of religion to a person's daily life is incomparable in many cultures, regions, eras, etc. in which it forms the basis around which a community forms. for thousands of years in many areas of the world people met their spouse, received aid and support during poverty, got the framework of their culture's morality and history, etc. in a religious setting.

Imagine being a farmer living by himself, and the only time you see other families is at church every sunday or when you sell your goods in town. Religion brings people in a community together outside of a competitive setting like commerce.

In an ever-interconnected world, this vital service of religion is all but lost on those who are accustomed to experiencing 'community' through standardized education and urban work environments. It's difficult to discuss religion with anyone who regards religion purely in the 1st world contemporary setting. It's much more complex a dynamic than just arbitrary patriarchal indoctrination.

This having been said, religion makes people dogmatic and unwilling to reconsider a core set of their personal truths. One's best hope in reasoning with someone unwilling to question a belief on religious grounds is to convince them that the idea in question is not a central or an official part of religious truth in the first place, (t. heliocentrism)
When dealing with someone entirely opposed to any other point of view (ken ham tier) you should realize you have to make small steps and try to - instead of refuting their core beliefs - begin by refuting their reasons for disregarding your sources. Show the credibility and impartialness of discoveries and science they are skeptical of.
Start by convincing them of things they don't already hold strong opinions on.

Importantly, carry yourself in a way that expresses humility and commands respect. You can point out how they lost an argument, but they are unlikely to reconsider if you act like an edgy fedora-lord

you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't even reason themselves into and just stubbornly believe

I'm an atheist, but I'm religious. Not religiously atheist, just happen to be atheist. Theism and religion are not mutually exclusive, and yet many in the atheist community have a hard time understanding the distinction.

By mere admission of being religious I become the opposition. There is high level of dunning kruger effects (assuming they know better), faulty generalization (all religions use faith) , and causal fallacy (being religious causes you to X)

My ideology is: Seek truth

Historically Sophia would be the deity I would follow, but I'm not theistic. Veritas is the memetic I practice. (propagating fallacy observation)

In light of the rise of the church of kek I've begun entertaining the acceptance of Sophia in an occult, ironic sort of way.

>This having been said, religion makes people dogmatic and unwilling to reconsider a core set of their personal truths.

In particular this is a generalization. Ideology is independent of the organization type. Due to a lack of significant diversity and a high statistical representation of religions using faith the generalization works by probability. However there are exceptions.

Yes community can form in many aspects of social interaction, but the masses remain largely religious despite these modern changes. I propose that an intermediary religion will aid the populace in transitioning from faith based reason to skeptical based reason. Change the ideology without depriving them of existing traditional practices.

Refining religion slowly rather than taking up dichotomous and conflicting opposition.

Making use of religion.

Re·li·gion/rəˈlijən/
noun

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

Re·li·gious/rəˈlijəs/
adjective

relating to or believing in a religion.

I think we can agree that your description of yourself as religious is not accurate.

I'm not an "edgy fedora-lord" I tend to just point out flaws so they can rephrase or reconsider their argument, though with limited success.

What is it's etymology?

I don't see how that's relevant. If you use a word, you should expect that people will interpret it as refering to its common definition. If that isn't meaning you hoped to convey then you should use a more appropriate term.

It is very relevant, because the modern usage of a word is often semantically incorrect due to colloquial use.

Look at pious as a definition, then look at its etymology.

Here I am asking you to invoke your skepticism and doubt your understanding of the word religion.

Is it more accurate to conclude:
1.) that it semantically is exclusively theistic.
or
2.) it semantically is exclusively binding or obligatory
3.) it is both used as an obligation, and as a theism.

Alternatively do you have a suggestion that fits the bill of cultural values and repetitious practice that isn't education, corporation, or governance?

>the earth isn't flat
explain this then

All of this work to try to get around the fact that under its current definition you cannot describe yourself accurately as being religious and atheist. And since you seem to know a better meaning of the word religion, you should be giving me a nice summary of that rather than asking me to do the work required to defend your self defintion.

You ignored the part of my post about the importance of commonly accepted definitions

i·de·ol·o·gy/ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/
noun

a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

To you, but in my experiences with the theist/atheist community domestic and abroad there are about 3-4 dominant interpretations. Cultural values heavily influence interpretation. Which is why I stick to the literary and etymologically correct version.

I will focus on the semantic interpretation instead of being concerned about pandering in order to propagate. At it's core it will be what is most accurate rather than what is appealing. I suspect over time that may change, depending on it's success/failure.

Ideology/policy/creed/dogma/doctrine/process/exercise/operation/action/task

Religion/organization/corporation/society/nonprofit/association/agency/management/plan/structure/arrangement/coordination

We can bicker the semantics, but I'm simply arguing for some structure that combines the knowledge base and methods of science/academia with the societal values/conviction/community of religion.

Rather than an institution that is unfamiliar I argue to adopt religion avoiding simile.

So did I kill the thread with an inconvenient truth?

You just don't argue with them op. Don't argue with stupid

I typically do what you mention, so as to avoid conflict. But the sad truth is most of the time the response I get it something similar to what Said

flat earthers are the most intelligent people I have met in my life. Every time you say "explain this without the earth being round" they do.

You don't. You just carry on safe in the knowledge that flat earth and other stupid ideas will never be accepted because they're of no use. If a shipping company operated on the premise the Earth was flat the business would fail in 2 minutes.

There is a sect of "literal Bible interpreters" who believe a few passages describing the all-encomapssing power of the Lord is a blueprint for the structure of the Earth: four corners, a disk, etc. These people cannot be convinced otherwise.

>Every time you say "explain this without the earth being round" they do.
Not in my experience. They will absolutely dodge every challenge when they can't answer.

Pretty much the whole reason I made this thread

They may provide an alternative explanation but if you were to apply that somewhere else, the reasoning isn't consistent.

figure out the disturbance that has caused them to abandon reason and remedy it

It is actually you who are committing to the fallacy of caring too much about irrelevant stuff. Flat earth, creationism and many other things are made up irrelevant fantasies to distract you from what really matters.

"Research" on youtube?

They are of much use.

... In distracting people from what matters.

they're significantly more likely to be wrong than right, if their arguments don't make sense

Being right does not matter. Being able / unable to direct peoples focus does.