When in the course of a discussion/debate/argument you realize that the other person is an absolute ideologue who is blind to anything that is contrary to his ideology and who is immune to rational arguments, facts, data and logic, is there any point in continuing the debate?
This question is especially justified when you realize that the other person is also lacking in intellectual capacity, to put it mildly.
You might just as well teach thermodynamics to a pile of rocks or discuss quantum physics with a bunch of baboons.
Clearly, such a discussion makes only sense if there is an audience. You are not trying to convince the other person. You are trying to reach the persons in the audience who are open to rational arguments.
For the purpose of maximizing the audience I will respond to a comment made by an Australian with the moniker sklyjd here on my blog and not in the place where he made his comment, for he is someone who is both an ideologue and an intellectually underpowered (aka not too bright) person.
I know that he’s this type of person because I’ve had an exchange of comments with him on this post at Tom’s blog. His arguments and his evidence were a joke. When I stated that there was no empirical evidence that masks and lockdowns do more good than harm his answer was “they have worked in Australian states” which is idiotic because it’s neither a refutation nor evidence. As evidence that masks work, he provided a link to a Mayo Clinic page which merely states that masks work (no evidence, no data, no statistics whatsoever). That’s no evidence. That’s merely an opinion. What a joke.
Sklyjd’s comment was in reply to a comment I’ve made on this post in which Tricia deals with the brutal, thuggish and authoritarian behaviour of the Australian police and with the question of how Germany could descend into the barbaric madness that was the 3rd Reich.
All relevant comments are provided after my general response. My thoughts are in brackets and in red color.
I called sklyjd a nutjob who is justifying this insanity (Australian police thuggery) and who gives us a glimpse into the mind of the fanatic nazi because he is a nutjob with the mindset of a fanatical nazi. He thinks it’s OK that the police prevents journalists from doing their job and that these journalists deserve any violence against them.
Only a nutjob would call the protesters brutes because they supposedly don’t care about other peoples lives. Only a nutjob would equate “not caring” with actual violence.
Sklyjd’s reply to my comment makes it perfectly clear that he is not only a fanatic but that he is also a collectivist with contempt for freedom. Fanaticism, collectivism and contempt for freedom and individual rights are hallmarks of the nazi mindset.
From the 25 points program of the nazi party (NSDAP):
10. The first duty of every citizen must be to work mentally or physically. No individual shall do any work that offends against the interest of the community to the benefit of all.
18. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race.
23. We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press. In order to make possible the creation of a German press, we demand:
(a) All editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens.
(b) Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State. They must not be published in the German language.
(c) All financial interests in or in any way affecting German newspapers shall be forbidden to non-Germans by law, and we demand that the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper and the expulsion of the nonGermans from the Reich.
Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed. We demand legal action against those tendencies in art and literature that have a disruptive influence upon the life of our folk, and that any organizations that offend against the foregoing demands shall be dissolved.
24. We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.
The party as such represents the point of view of a positive Christianity without binding itself to any one particular confession. It fights against the Jewish materialist spirit within and without, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our folk can only come about from within on the principle:
COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD
September 28, 2021 at 2:10 am
This is not police harassment and the journalist guy is lucky he had some tolerant cops. This guy is a mouthy idiot who could not shut up and claims the virus is a “scamdemic” The police have been handling lots of these kinds (wankers we call them here) who publicise false information about the virus and support anti vax riots. Who in their right mind waves at cops, he deserves to be targeted by the cops who have a hard job and then have to put up with his BS.
September 28, 2021 at 7:45 am
I have nothing to say to anyone who feels this type of brutality is justified. Enjoy your existence as a slave.
September 29, 2021 at 3:13 am
Brutality? When these people care less about other peoples lives, cause more lock downs, violence and abuse the police who is the brute? Otherwise we are fine in Australia, you ought to check your own back yard. Be a live slave and get vaccinated.
October 1, 2021 at 3:49 pm
Tricia, thanks for continuing to identify the madness and the descent into tyranny.
What happens in Australia is nothing but brutal, fascistic tyranny and their goverment is a bunch of lunatics who think that they can achieve zero covid. Human hubris and abject stupidity at its worst.
In June I wrote a post on “Critical race theory” and genocide.In that post I addressed the same question that always plagued me until the wuhan virus happened. Here’s a part of it.
“I’ve visited the Dachau concentration camp twice. First time as a boy, next time as a teenager. I’ve read books about the 3rd Reich. I’ve watched tons of videos and films dealing with the holocaust and world war II. In school we were taught about this dark era in German history. I’ve read books on racism, antisemitism and xenophobia. I’ve been living in this country for decades knowing the culture fairly well. And yet, and yet I could not really understand how a country that was one of the most scientifically, technologically and culturally advanced countries in the world could descend into murder, barbarism and insanity.
I could not really understand why people would so willingly give up their freedom, so easily accept being ruled by a dictatorship and so blindly follow irrational, idiotic and arbitrary rules until the wuhan virus happened. Fear and panic brought out the ugliest, most primitive sides of man.
Fear and panic is the key, I think. In the case of Germany we must add the fact that the goverment first allowed and encouraged and later mandated the dehumanisation of group of people. We’re on the same frightening path.
We must and we will fight,
October 3, 2021 at 6:53 am
“Nutjobs like sklyd, who are justifying this insanity here in this comment section give us a glimpse into the mind of the fanatic nazi.”
fanatic Nazi, ? how do you know I am not a Jew or have lost family members in the Holocaust? obviously you do not care because it had no real impact on you.
[Sklyjd doesn’t know me and I’m pretty certain that he cannot read my mind.
You rave on about Australian violence when you condone gun ownership for all including the nutters who extract vengeance with an automatic weapon in schools and shopping centres and then also condemn the people who demonstrate against your own US police brutality when deaths have occurred. Double standards I would say.
[What a joke.
“Those who kept a modicum of sanity, refusing to fear a virus not much more dangerous than a bad flu,”
Facts do matter, but you clearly do not want to learn anything and understand the facts, whatever your source of information and your belief this is not the flu.
[This dude can’t help pretending to know my mind, phantasizing about my motives. Pathetic!
Bottom line: By using the right therapeutics mortality can be definitely reduced further, making the mortality difference even smaller.]
[Videos like this one?
in Victoria people are begging for a vaccination as they are put onto a ventilator while hospital beds are used up preventing other sick people from cancers and heart diseases who cannot be treated. Many who beat the virus have ongoing medical problems for life.
[In my mind I can hear the chorus sing “Carmina Burana” and I can see apocalyptic visions of pestilence and death. Notice, when sklyd runs out of good arguments he stoops to the lowest level of cheap emotionalism. No data, numbers and worst of all: no critical thinking.
First, guys like sklyjd didn’t seem to care when the goverments in many countries (incl. Australia) caused the same effects by ordering hospitals to cancel elective procedures or procedures deemed not that essential (like breast cancer screenings).
Second, when it comes to infectious diseases, there are always these options:
Most goverments have willingly and deliberately limited their options to #1 and #3. These goverments are criminal and negligent and they are to blame for making the disease worse than it needs to.
Third, there is a glaring moral inconsistency that strangely enough no one seems to notice.
Yes if I am a fanatic Nazi you are simply uncaring and wanting to stay an ignorant freedom fighting foolish man.
[If that sounds idiotic it’s because it is idiotic. Why is it idiotic? Claiming that people like me who oppose his point of view are uncaring, completely ignores the fact that we have parents, siblings or children too. Only an idiot would assume that all of us don’t care about the people we love most.
Absolutely nothing is 100% safe.
These and every other vaccine can and will cause some adverse reactions in a small percentage of people, so does eating food, because one in 100,000 people will die from a food related illness in the USA every year. Crossing the road 6,721 pedestrians were killed on U.S. roads in 2020.
Taking a vaccine is a very small amount of personal risk exactly comparable with the everyday things we do.
[Sklyd is blatandly lying. How do I know that he’s lying?
The benefit of the greater society and loved family and friends matter and are just as important as your own health. People would be able to understand that in the past but it appears today some people are just too self absorbed in their own selfish agenda to care.
[Here, Sklyd displays again his collectivist mindset which he shares with the nazis.
It is not self-evident that it is better or morally right to sacrifice the individual good for the sake of the “greater good” or the common good.
Is it right to kill one person if doing so saves a village? No!
Nowhere is it written that the life of the individual is less worth than the life of the community. Such an idea would be based on a completely arbitrary assumption.
Collectivism finds its most extreme expression in human sacrifices. Mayas and other cultures offered human sacrifices to the gods for the sake of good harvests or the sun’s continuing shining or other graces and favors.
Strangely enough, it was never the ruler or the king who was sacrificed but it was someone who had no other choice than being murdered for the “greater good”.
There is a profound moral difference between a goverment which brutally forces the individual to make sacrifices he doesn’t want to make for the “greater good” and the volontary sacrifice of the individual. We recognize this difference when we see Christ’s volontary sacrifice on the cross or a soldier’s sacrifice when he throws himself on a grenade to save his buddies.
Determining what the “greater good” or the common good is, is very difficult and perhaps even impossible but even if we use the very simple definition that the greater good is that which is good for the overwhelming majority of people, sklyjd’s view is a perversion of that definition for the simple reason that more than 98% of people survive an infection with the wuhan virus and the overwhelming majority of people can deal perfectly well with the virus. Making the vast majority sacrifice their freedom and their economic prosperity for the sake of a miniscule minority runs completely counter to that definition.
One could justify any and all violations of individual rights if one adheres to sklid’s view that the greater good trumps the individual’s rights.
For this very reason there are protections for the rights of the individual in a constitutional republic.
Even so, our basic human rights are given by God or if you are an atheist, they are natural rights and I don’t care whether it is a majority, no matter how big, that wants to take these rights away from me. I simply refuse to let that happen. This is especially true when there is no good reason given for taking away my rights. We are only offered nonsensical arguments that fly in the face of the data, empirical evidence, science and medical ethics.