Inspired by a comment I made here, I’ve been thinking about something.

About how RWNJs do not respond when you present their own contradictory views in opposition to one another. (This may have something to do with an earlier page of mine, but I am not a psychologist, nor do I play one on TV.)

Abortion is bad. Anchor babies are bad. Should potential anchor babies be aborted?

(crickets)

RWNJs just clam up and don’t respond/engage (except, possibly, for vituperation).

That’s why I’m calling this logic-judo.

Some bouts to have:

• Why is it good to have a national database about people's mental health, but bad to have universal background checks for gun purchases (of course, assuming that that info would be placed in a similar database)?


• Were Adam and Eve Cro-Magnons? Or were they a precursor human-line species? If you say Cro-Mag, what about all these habilis, neatherthals, and whatever fossils -- where do they come from?


• When you want to "teach the controversy" regarding Intelligent Design versus evolution, how many alternate ID theories are you supportive of? In addition to the Biblical creation story, there's also the Alien Astronauts theory, the Hindu story of creation, and even the Norse creation legend (et al.). You're saying we should teach all of these in our HS biology classes, to teach the controversy against evolution?
  

As I said, these even-minded, blase, comparative comments are almost never addressed. Ignored. Met with only silence or foaming insults.

I suggest adopting logic-judo in interacting with the far-gone. Just find a part of their philosophy negates another part of their philosophy. Worse case, they block you. Best case, they question their ideas.

I think.