If you need to indoctrinate somebody with a certain belief from an early age, then your belief must be so poor that it cannot be used to convince adults, so how can such an action be justified?
Do you assume most adults are rational in their decision-making process and are convinced by arguments? I'm mostly seeing the opposite in practice, and that indoctrination seems merely necessary to balance things out.
Pretty much yes: my points was that there are plenty of ideas that a rational individual would be convinced of, but that are basically unarguable logically to large parts of the population.
The flat-earthers are an extreme example, but not unique in any way.
But you also seem to assume that different people would come to the same conclusion rationally, without taking into account different experinces, knowledge, ideas and priorities.
And of course, you assume the ideas that YOU came up with are what that rational person would come up with.
Which is the part that scares me. You have a perfect excuse that cannot be disproven: your ideas aren't bad, it is just that not enough people are rational enough to understand them.
Another group that had similar ideas? Lenin and the gang. The total death toll is far too great to risk going down that route again.
You say 0.01 percent, while I think that the majority of the population needs to have some basic values instilled from an early age, if only to achieve the minimum homogeneity of a stable society.
And simply because an evil group uses a tool doesn't mean that tool is broken in itself, it just implies further consideration. For all their atrocities, Nazi Germany did some great engineering and also ran one of the most successful anti-smoking campaigns ever.
I think we have too many differences of opinion to reconcile over internet comments, but thank you for the rebuttals.
