Before I go into the title of the thread, there is a large category of people here(and people who are interested in mind altering substances in general), whose thinking about argument, even plain albeit rigorous discussion, goes something like this: "Just chill out and smoke a j bro. It's all <relative, subjective, meaningless>. No one is right or wrong. Reasoned arguments and open ended discussion is basically pointless."(I will go into detail about how this is an invitation to troll bait, and I hope someone replies to this thread with something along these lines at the end of my post.) This fundamentally contradicts the point of this thread for obvious reasons, and for equally obvious reasons, people who think this way are generally seen as morons at best. Which conveniently brings me to my main argument. The reason we need to call people who say stupid things on strong convictions, stupid, is because this is how society marginalizes bad ideas. Imagine if stupid people who believed profoundly idiotic things were treated equally to our brightest minds who are most in touch with reality. I don't think I need to paint a picture of this sort of society. And yet, there are tons upon tons of people on this forum who would probably argue for exactly that. You would hear questions like, "Well who <are you/is anyone> to say who is intelligent and stupid?" or "A society where every person was treated perfectly equally would be superior than our current society." As a matter of fact, I'm tempted to anticipate a troll post of massive proportions from TheJourney, who will claim that definitions are meaningless, everything is meaningless, subjective, no one can be right or wrong, and that feeding our children a steady diet of Terence Mckenna and Ayahuasca would be a better strategy for improving the human species. When you ask people like him how they know what they know, you tend to get these non-rigorous, anti-intellectual, logically inconsistent answers like "An acid trip told me so." "I saw god one day after jogging through the wilderness and I know what I feel is 100% true." One of my favorite authors has a great argument on this topic, and it goes something like this: Just take for example the people who believe that Elvis is still alive. What's wrong with this claim? Why is this claim not vitiating our academic departments and corporations? I'll tell you why, and it's very simple. We have not passed laws against believing that Elvis is still alive. It's just that whenever someone represents their belief that Elvis is still alive; in a conversation, on a first date, at a lecture, at a job interview - He immediately pays a price. He pays a price in ill-concealed laughter. This is a good thing. So when someone says something like, "Um prove 2 me scientificly that mathematics exists. Durrrrr you cant, can you? But God works just like math ,dontcha know?" you call them a fucking moron and move on. It is not worth even wasting time with these kinds of people. Society as a whole has a responsibility to marginalize these people and basically say "people who are as patently stupid and/or permanently shaped neurophysiologically by psychoactives as you are, are unfit for anything we as a society deem important, like baby-sitting, managing my portfolio or running for mayor." I'm not arguing that people should be merciless at calling everything that sounds stupid to them stupid, or nitpicking, or being grammar nazis, or anything of the sort. People make mistakes all the time. Everyone does. But the way certain people think, in hopelessly biased, illogical, and frankly deranged terms, and voice their beliefs with conviction publicly, they deserve to be spoken to briefly, in the style of, "You're dumb. lol." I await your counter-arguments, troll replies, misconstruals, and hopefully approval.