What do you call someone (like, say Jenny McCarthy), who honestly deludes herself into a position where their lies are both harmful and profitable? Does it matter what they really think?
Making it about personality or intelligence is a trap that does not serve rationality.
"She/he is a smart, honest, kind, well-meaning, salt of the earth person. This is just not the kind of person would would lie about ______"
Ghosts. UFOs. Truthers. Vaccinations. I have heard a thousand times.
Smart people can be wrong. Honest people can be wrong. Smart and honest people can be wrong.
"She has to be either brain-damaged or lying" sets up a False Choice that will lead many people to believe the opposite to what you are (presumably) trying to argue.
The spirit of what I was trying get at (perhaps, too "cleverly") with "many of the best con artists are sincere" is that one should not take off your Mr. Skeptical Sleuth hat, just because the person in front of you seems both intelligent and honest. Focus on the quality of the argument. Focus on the quality of the evidence supporting the argument.
> Smart people can be wrong. Honest people can be wrong. Smart and honest people can be wrong.
All true, and why we have science. But the Jenny McCarthies of the world are so egregious that such charities can't extend to them -- they've been given too many opportunities to access sources of information apart from themselves.
> Focus on the quality of the argument. Focus on the quality of the evidence supporting the argument.
Yes, but after several years of the same pattern, it dawns on you that the problem is not the argument, but its source.
Yeah, at least Movember funds don't go directly towards lobbying against using public funds for low-income mens' health.
No, I'm not talking about Planned Parenthood. Komen's lobbying wing literally believes public funds should not go to any forms of womens' health, they believe it should be handled entirely by private "charities" like themselves.
I learned recently that some companies will offer to waive accrued finance charges to get you off the phone, as part of the robo-system before the human agents answer.
I assume that in this case, they can afford to do so because the finance charges were fraudulent in the first place (Hello, GAP)
