The self-reaffiriming believer

[Orrex]

One of my Facebook friends posted an article showing that cervical cancer rates have increased since 2004.

The first reply was from a woman who wrote: "That's about the time that they started pushing the HPV vaccine. I've never trusted it."

So I replied: "The FDA approved Gardisil in 2006."

To which she responded: "I don't care. It's too close to be a coincidence."

By her reasoning, Gardisil is so dangerous that it started causing cancer two years before it went into use, and a statistically significant number of women have received the vaccine and developed cervical cancer in the 9 years since then.


How can you argue with such a true believer?

[Archae]

1. I see this in the anti-GMO threads.

Back in the days of the old Fidonet, on "Holysmoke" we called people like this "FTB's."

(Bleep)ing true believers.

Confronted with contrary evidence, they dig in further.

[trotsky]

2. Impervious to facts.

Of course cervical cancer doesn't generally manifest itself until women are what, in their 30s or later? So obviously the only way we're going to see what effect Gardasil really has is to wait until those who got the initial shots get to that age.

But getting back to your question, you can't argue with them. Just point out the facts to anyone who might see the discussion, and move on.

[Warpy]

3. There is only one thing to do with a true believer and it works best

if there is an audience. Say "You bought that?" and walk away chuckling and twirling your index finger next to your temple.

It won't change the true believer's alleged mind but it will make the other people think about it. In addition, it feels damned good to ridicule a zealot of any type.

The best case is that they continue to read hysterical nonsense on the web but keep their mouths shut about it.

[AlbertCat]

4. How can you argue with such a true believer?

First you get a large cast iron skillet....



Still it's good to point out the year thing and remind them that the universe is not out to get them.

[DetlefK]

5. At what point does belief cross over into insanity?

"Why do you believe that?"
"Because X."
"But... X is incorrect."
"Oh... I don't care. I believe anyway."
"Why?"
"Because that's my belief and I believe it."
"Yes, but... why?"
"Shut up."

[Orrex]

6. Professional lunatic Lee Strobel embraces exactly that mode of thinking

In his perfect screed of vomit The Case for Christ, he described an interview with some Godlover who said that the miracle of the resurrection would still be a miracle even if he used a time machine to journey back and discover that the tomb wasn't empty.

Stroebel found this a persuasive argument for the divinity of Jesus. That is, the objective disproof of a belief is taken as irrefutable proof of the belief.

[progressoid]

7. Yeah, good luck with that.

You'll be needing one of these:

[Orrex]

8. It's happening once again in GD right now.

Objective fact is met with "yeah, well, I still believe what I want to believe."