Try that trick with someone that accepts neither, and they’re more likely to laugh you off as a deluded hippie than to blithely construct an argument for you.
But is logical reasoning any more likely to work in this case (when arguing with a person who isn’t exceptionally rational)?
Usually. There are other exploits that would work better, though; the point I was trying to make is that Assange’s recommendation relies entirely on having a large pool of positive affect that you can entangle with whatever statement you’re trying to prove. There’s still a term for that kind of entanglement in the effectiveness function for reductionist arguments, but it’s considerably less important.
But is logical reasoning any more likely to work in this case (when arguing with a person who isn’t exceptionally rational)?
Usually. There are other exploits that would work better, though; the point I was trying to make is that Assange’s recommendation relies entirely on having a large pool of positive affect that you can entangle with whatever statement you’re trying to prove. There’s still a term for that kind of entanglement in the effectiveness function for reductionist arguments, but it’s considerably less important.