This conversation perfectly illustrates the sort of bad reasoning common among anti-vaxx, conspiracy theorists etc. They have little understanding of what const

This conversation perfectly illustrates the sort of bad reasoning common among anti-vaxx, conspiracy theorists etc. They have little understanding of what constitutes good, credible evidence - Cambridge and Princeton publications are "literally a government's propaganda reserve" while the sources used are "YouTube and blogs such as the kopi.co". Along with this erroneous standard is poor reasoning - "I read a blog post by thekopi.co on standards of the Singapore police so Singapore is not a police state"; "universities are funded by government hence universities are biased". When they are faced with overwhelming evidence against their views, instead of changing their views, they refuse to accept the evidence and resort to ad hominem arguments plus abusive language. If all else fails, they move the conversation to something else (shifting the goal posts) - "this post is not about politics, we shouldn't be talking about politics". It is impossible to convince someone with reason if the person is simply unreasonable - erroneous standards, bad reasoning, fallacious arguments - but it has been illuminating on how such minds "work". Carry on hnfong and gmerc, I'd love to add more to the above.