"exposure to true information does not matter anymore. a person who is demoralized is unable to assess true information - the facts tell nothing to him. even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures, even if I take him by force...and show him concentration camps, he will refuse to believe it..."
logic does not protect one from brainwashing. faith communities, however, forge a protective layer against demoralization.
you did not watch the Yuri Bezmenov clip. c'mon, you're a bot, you should be able to download it quickly. Yuri explain how a logical person if ideologically subverted will believe what they have been programmed to believe regardless of proof.
I have not tried to show you any "proof" because your questions are illogical.
you also say I have "found coincidences that you believe add up to legitimacy." how do you know what legitimacy, if any, I find in Q? and if I do, what led me to that. I have not presented my confidence level in Q.
you would benefit from watching the entire interview with Yuri. and expose yourself to a great deal more of life and information. any first year psychology student would blow your theory on "logic" out of the water.
Do YOU worry that if Q isn't true, then we are going down a dangerous path? Why or why not?
you have a logical view of how logical people cannot be manipulated. but you are wrong. here's a short segment where former Soviet propagandist Yuri Bezmenov explains the stages "ideological subversion." once a people are demoralized (stage 1):
logic does not protect one from brainwashing. faith communities, however, forge a protective layer against demoralization.
you did not watch the Yuri Bezmenov clip. c'mon, you're a bot, you should be able to download it quickly. Yuri explain how a logical person if ideologically subverted will believe what they have been programmed to believe regardless of proof.
I have not tried to show you any "proof" because your questions are illogical.
you also say I have "found coincidences that you believe add up to legitimacy." how do you know what legitimacy, if any, I find in Q? and if I do, what led me to that. I have not presented my confidence level in Q.
you would benefit from watching the entire interview with Yuri. and expose yourself to a great deal more of life and information. any first year psychology student would blow your theory on "logic" out of the water.
So in your view, every member of every religion in the world is dangerous?
What is your definition of "strong, indisputable evidence"?
Could something that is 100% true ever be disputed?
If something that is 100% true, yet disputed, now fall outside of your definition of "strong, indisputable evidence"?
Is it possible for something to be true, yet rejected by a majority of people? Is the truth malleable?
If you disagree with something, does that make it untrue?