Chubby Nickel Audio Vlog

There are a lot of people that can be right all the time despite having no idea about what they are talking about and pulling “facts” out of their asses. You see, being right is more about attitude and speaking the right way than it is about the truth. After reading this series you will be able to be right all the time just like Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Kent Hovind, Kirk Cameron, Sean Hannity, Ray Comfort, Ann Coulter and other assholes.

Valid Fallacies

Most people know fallacies are illogical, but hardly anyone knows why they are illogical. So if someone calls you on a fallacy, you ask them why the fallacy is illogical. Argue them on every point. Take up as much time as possible so the other person is forced to move on. If they explain the fallacy then claim they need to explain why your statement is wrong, if they explain why your statement is wrong then claim their need to explain why the logic is wrong. Repeat this until they give up, which they will, because they are probably more reasonable than you are. If you have no opponent, then don’t even worry about it and do as many fallacies as you want as long as they sound pretty true. The best fallacies are hasty generalizations (he’s a democrat so he likes to kill babies), false dilemma (your either a Christian or you worship Satan), negative proof (there is no proof that unicorns don’t exist, so they do) and many, many more.

Foundation in the Sky

Ever heard that “truth is stranger than fiction?” Well this tactic uses that principle to make fiction stranger than truth, and therefore truer for being stranger. Make the “fact” so grand, that to make it up without evidence would be way too crazy. Once you have made the decision on what the”truth” will be, now start taking and warping any bit of information (no matter how unreliable), from any source you can, that supports your “truth” in any way. Most of Ann Coulter’s arguments use this tactic. How does one come to the conclusion that, “before the media realized it needed to lie about Obama launching his political career at Ayers’ house, the Los Angeles Times provided an eyewitness account from a liberal who attended the event” without some kind of evidence? Well  surely the LA Times has the proof right? Well if you said “yes” you are wrong, if you said “no” then you are right but not getting any of this, but if you said “it doesn’t matter what proof there is,” then you are getting the idea.

Redirecting the Direct

Every once in a while, some asshole will ask you a direct question that is meant to get you to make a direct answer. This is a trick used to make you solidify your views instead of having your views in a super hazy cloud that allows you to do anything with. Don’t let them make you form an actually firm and refutable ideal, you need to keep all your ideas and vague and versatile as possible.

So when some jerk comes along and tries to pin you down, you pretend to start answering the question, while slowly turning it around to demand that they answer a question first. This is best used when you have asked a question previously that they haven’t answered or if you haven’t yet accused them of redirecting or deflecting the question. Sometimes you divert it quickly and start on some other random rant to make the other guy refute the new claim and ignore your diversion. The goal for this tactic is to avoid any direct questions.

Straw to Stone

No one respects a person that always takes the easy fight, but they also don’t respect a person that loses. Well fortunately you don’t have to lose and you don’t have to take the hard fight. Take an easy to knock down argument from the other side (doesn’t even have to be true if enough people think it might be true), then spend most of you time building it up into how it is a staple in their belief or one of the basis of their arguments, then quickly knock it down. Any objections or being called out on your bullshit is easily thwarted by calling them sore losers, poopy pants, stupid or illogical.

Practice these techniques and watch all the people at the top for these and other tactics to always be right without having to research, think, listen or work for it in any way.

How to Always be Right: Knowing Stuff

This is a long time debate, but why? Every time a scientific discovery clashes with a religious belief, religion fights it and slows the progress of understanding. It causes scientists to waste time defending and promoting the facts that could be better spent learning more about our universe.

Science seeks to understand our universe. Nothing more. Science is not against God or religion. There is no scientific group bent on destroying religion, there are no science churches and no science Gods. Science does not try to disprove God. Science is completely separate from religion. Science is just for understanding our universe… I state that twice because of how important the point is.  So if science is not against religion, why is there a clash between science and religion? Because religion is against science. It always has been. Yes, there are religious scientists that do and have contributed a lot to our universal understanding, but that does not mean that religion is not fighting science. Galileo Galilei and Charles Darwin are two of the biggest examples of religion trying to destroy understanding.

Religion seeks to promote itself, teach its gospel and gain followers.  Things that are very far from science. So why do religious people attack science? For the same reasons it exists: to promote itself, teach its doctrines and gain followers. Why would someone start believing in the Bible if it is not accurate? It is very hard to convince someone to believe in the word of God if the word of a perfect being is fallible. For this reason religion fights to preserve itself. Is religion important? For most religious people, religion serves as a guideline to life that they strive to meet. Most people want to be good people because that is what keeps society from turning to chaos. For these people, religion provides a shortcut to supporting society by giving them rules and guidelines without them having to learn why those rules and guidelines are important.

Do we need religion for that? No, we don’t. Society can and has developed a set of rules and guidelines that will protect itself from individuals. The moral ideas can be explained simply by “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” No threat of a dad waiting around in the afterlife to paddle you for eternity… just the idea that you should understand what hurts you so you should not hurt someone else. The only problem with this moral is that it is very childlike and does not seek to understand how to treat other people entirely. This kind of moral is the stage of morals everyone learns after selfishness. People should strive to understand a higher moral philosophy, but it is a good start.