Intelligence: To pander or not to pander?

So most intelligent people have been in this situation:

You are discussing some matter, and you realize that the person you are discussing it with is hopelessly ignorant about the subject, and is arguing mainly from their ass. You have two main choices at this point:

1. You bring the discussion to their level, and painstakingly explain every minutiae of why they are wrong, misinformed, or just plain stupid. This will help the person in the future, but is time consuming, and has a high chance of failure since ignorant people generally have convictions which cannot be overcome with logic and reason, thus making it literally impossible to inform them of the falsehood of their position. (ie, trying to tell someone that their religion is transparently falsified and manipulative)

2. Leave the discussion, and allow them to continue being an ignorant fuckwit for the rest of their life. They will believe that they have bested you, which may be hard for your pride to allow, but is their opinion really worth working to change? This is the option I find myself employing more and more often in SD. I'll find a claim, be so blindsided by its sheer stupidity that I feel that I must correct them, and then realize that I have better things to do than argue with fools, and finally make no comment.

Which option do you generally choose in this situation? What would make you change your decision? And what are some claims that you have found to be so blisteringly stupid that you can't believe that someone could actually say it?

It really depends on the situation. If it is some matter I personally feel really important/meaningful for myself, then the first choice. Also not only the subject matter, but who you are trying to explain the concept to. If I feel that it is important for the ignorant person in question to actually have an understanding of issue, or if that ignorant person is a friend/person related in some way to me, then I will also be more inclined to choose option 1. Other factors also include how much time I had already put into explaining it to begin with and if I was willing to let that go to waste (and swallowing my pride at the same time).

However, if it is a random person on the internet on a matter which does really interest me, then be more inclined to walk away. It may be that they may be trolls, deliberately provoking you to be upset, frustrated and futilely use up your time, and it may also be that they are generally misguided, stupid, or just hard to convince. Also, here on SD, there are many users who which quickly can take your place, so you walking away may not matter in the debate that much.

Option 2 is not just a cop-out however, sometimes it is best to walk away and ignore/forget the debate. Sometimes for yourself (so you don't get agitated over something that may ultimately pointless - i.e. an internet debate) and sometimes for others (as in not feeding a troll's desires). The case may be that perhaps you yourself are in the wrong, or perhaps bad at explaining something, and it would be beneficial if somebody else took your place with more relevant debate points with a higher chance of enlightening the "ignorant one" (e.g. you may start using jargon above their reading age, which would probably go over their heads and make your look like a pompous dick).

Also sometimes, it is more important to come to a comprise rather than convincing somebody that they are wrong and you are right. Take your example - "trying to tell someone that their religion is transparently falsified and manipulative". This may be your view and potentially completely true, but faith is a very important element in peoples lives and is a subject which confrontation, in some cases, not the best way forward. (I feel that extremism on the topic on religion works both ways, that being overly hostile towards peoples beliefs however misguided they may seem, may cause them to become polarised during the debate and fall away to a less moderate stance). <--- meant as an example to illustrate my point, not to change the original debate topic...

Sorry about the *great wall of text attack*, but I feel that this is a really good question and I can really relate to GroverCleaveland's dilemma.

I usually go for option 2. However, most of the time it just ends up in a fist fight.
Claims people have said that piss me off:
-White race is superior
-The Government is all one big conspiracy
-Your God doesn't exist
-Marines are the best branch in the U.S military
-Anything to do with the National Debt

@Lastmousestanding If someone is in SD and they find 'walls of text' to be intimidating, then they should leave. Don't worry about it. Also, I picked the wording of my attack o religion to be deliberately hostile to stress the lack of compromise that can be reached.

@Freethought Your god doesn't exist. [size=1]I'm trolling you, please don't bother responding seriously [/h]

It took me three days to give up on convincing Irrational Babbling that pedophilia is wrong. I suppose it's situational though. There is a possibility that what they believe to be true is not yet ingrained into their minds. Repeated behavior, and enforced by social stigma of those closest to them will probably make it hard for them to accept a differing opinion, whether it be true or not.

@Grover Yeah, he probably doesn't. Also, it took me a while to find out that blurred line was actually text.

Usually both. First I would try to reword my statement with simpler sentences, hoping my second explanation will be more acceptable to their limited vocabulary. Then I'd break my argument into a few pointers, trying to get it inside their brains one by one. If all fails then I'll just leave them with a big sigh.

Number 1 is not recommended for people who have low tolerance to dealing with ignorant idiots. It's often they will call you a smartass after all your failed effort to put some logic into their head, and you have to swallow your pride every time you leave them and see those idiots' smiles thinking that they have "won the argument". Sometimes it saddens me because the people I bother trying to reason with are usually close to me.

Also, it's useless to discuss something so biased like religion. I've met some hardline Muslims and Christians before and had some discussions with them, the doctrines of their religions have rooted deep inside their consciences it was like they've been brainwashed. Justifying immoral acts for the sake of religion or in the name of god.. they were some twisted fellows.

Lastmousestanding said it better than I did, and I agree with what he says. I used to do #1 a lot but now I just say my piece and leave if I know that the other party will not be convinced. As for claims I find blisteringly stupid, some are:

~Men/women are "hard-wired" to do xyz
~Any claims about God
~Claims about creationism

No del, what you were trying to convince IB of was that lolicon IS pedophilia. Then you also tried to say that all pedophiles were molesters and rapists. THAT silly slippery-slope argument is why IB called you a troll, kicked your butt, and sent you on your way.

Grover, might a prime subject of your ire be a certain Kalistean?

Hmm? *looks around shadily* I have no idea what you are talking about...

Ah how painful irony is. I was just over at my friends house today, trying to explain to his little brother (13 yrs) why the music he listened to was bad. (Lady Gaga, Usher, Katie Perry, the like). It was a 3 on 1 debate, (myself and 2 friends), trying to tell him that most musicians only care about meeting the terms of their record contracts, and to tell him to listen to artists that had more emotional depth. You could see in his face, the way he would just wait for us to stop talking, rather than actually LISTENING. After showing him every piece of music i have ever considered good, and himself even agreeing to our logic, his brainwashed mind still did not change even a bit. So we decided to just leave him alone, let his brain rot, and we watched the matrix =P

I usually go with number 2. Either if the person at hand IS hopeless, or has proved my argument wrong.
In either case, I stop. I hardly (and I really can't remember the last time I did) use the first option. I like a good discussion, and when I'm proven wrong, I learn something.
BUT if they are just arguing out of their ass, and are being ignorant by choice, then there isn't a point to the discussion. It is at that point that I take my leave from the "discussion".

Music, like most art, is a bit more about taste. Whether or not the methods used in creation touch against established morals is something entirely different.

I wouldn't say I walk away, but I leave the argument. Not because I feel that it is hopeless, but because forcing the issue serves no purpose. You can explain something to someone all day, rationalize it, show them statistics and relevant facts, but it often takes more than well laid out argument to convince someone of a different opinion. The reality is that when it comes to trying to reason with people, how they are being spoken to often is far more important that what you are actually saying.

If you try to force your opinions, they will just force their own opinions right back at you - even if they have to desperately scramble to put together a makeshift argument in order to do so. Often, if show openness to what they are trying to say or phrase your argument in a way that shows you are not trying to place your intelligence above theirs, people will be more receptive to your point of view.

People will turn away the most well laid out explanations for a combination of reasons. Part of it is human nature to fear change, and you are trying to change something in their life - a way they view the world in some form or another. Another can be skepticism, or maybe they received their incorrect view/info/statistics from someone they highly respect and therefore are determined to defend it. Of course, pride plays a large part too - just as Grover said: you don't want to walk away and let them think they are right. Well they feel the same way. Rarely is anyone easily willing to admit they were wrong.

So I just leave the debate, let whatever I said sink in to their mind and hope maybe I at least influenced them a little - even if there is nothing that happened during the discussion to lead me I had any effect on them. In the future you might have another chance, and maybe the next time they'll be more receptive after they have given it some more though.

And this is just how idea are exchanged when such a discussion is taking place between two people who are of vastly different views. You cannot reasonably expect to explain something to another person as if they were a being who's morals and dogmas were formed only by carefully analyzing data and expert opinions. As humans, there are emotions, symbols, and personal connections we make with even the most secular or academic aspects of our lives.

So I don't leave the argument, because to do so is almost to say that I think they are so ignorant that they aren't worth my time. Yet, I will not go any farther because I know that, unless they are feigning ignorance, there is legitimate reason they hold their opinion - or at least they feel or believe there is a LEGITIMATE reason. Hopefully, they'll see that by me respecting that they hold an opinion, they will at least respectful my ability to hold and defend an opinion - even if we think those actual opinions are completely wrong. It is that respect shown that keeps dialog open and gives the opportunity to actually change minds.

HAHAHA, were you reading the same conversation I was? Based on your opinions you claimed 85% of the Fakku user base were pedophiles and sex offenders, and that they could become actual child molesters very easily simply for enjoying loli. I then gave valid argument as to why your points were invalid, which you ignored and then proceeded to accuse me of power abuse based on personal bias because I simply asked you/told you to stop(which by the way is my job). What reality are you living in boy?

I enjoy when people prove me right, nothing feels better than watching someone self-destruct in public.

Give someone enough rope...

Depend on my relation with this ignorant actually. If it's in good term (I know him/her well enough), then I will gladly to choose first option since I don't want someone I care for will remain stupid and ignorant for the rest of his/her life. But still, I am not one who can tolerate everything, if my effort to make him/her realize resulting in no change for his/her way of thinking. Then, I will just take second option and leave his/her be.

I gave this ignorant a chance, and it would be his/her decision to accept my suggestion/advices or not.

I choose mostly option 2. I don´t waste my time for people which I don´t know.
For friends I always choose option 1.

Lolicon hentai and pedophilia are one in the same. They're both pertaining to a sexual interest in children. What part of that don't you get? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Why do you think those in possession of child pornography in the USA, UK, and other countries are charged as sex offenders? Those who have child pornography very well may have played no role in hurting the children in the video & pictures they own, but they're still forced to register as sex offenders. Do you get that? So, what's the difference between someone owning child pornography and someone owning lolicon hentai?

The "victimless crime" excuse is bullshit, and you're an idiot for thinking otherwise. Your attempt to call me out has failed, so please don't post off-topic any further. You wanna discuss this more? You'll lock any thread I post in regards to child pornography, so please initiate the discussion in a thread you deem proper for it.

Tegumi panders their intelligence with pride and joy in the defense of lolicon hentai(drawn child pornography).

del, with all the authority vested in me as Serious Discussion moderator, I proclaim you stupid. Your only hope of redemption is to read up Slippery slope fallacy and understand it.

Also, I'm not sure why you would accuse me of locking threads you wish to discuss this in when I haven't ever done that before.