There's something that has always bugged me about certain people's arguments. For example, the creationist thermodynamics argument they keep throwing out like a dead cow and saying "whaddya think about that! Betcha never seen this before, have ya?" It obvious that when they talk about entropy it's vastly different from the way physicits and information theorists talk about it. An argument over terminology and what entropy is usually ensues, diluting the overall point like an impromptu red herring.

I've often tried to solve this problem by going along with what I think they think whatever verb they are using means, and slowly shifting their view of it to its actual definition within the context. I think such arguments over terminology only serve to put the listener on the offensive even more and distract from the topic, and are therefore useless WITHOUT AN AUDIENCE. That's why the broadcast format works so much better than individual intervention; it's not the person you're arguing with who you're trying to persuade, it's the people who happen to be listening.

In personal persuasion, one on one, I have to use any number of strategems and gambits to get someone to think about something. If they see me as the opposition, they're going to do what opposition implies. Instead, one needs to be on the outside track going in. Get on the same page, find commonalities before differences. Create in the other person a desire to compromise and avoid conflict. When crossing a troublesome issue, I make sure to offer them an alternative that is acceptable to them. Talk them down a steady slope, not off a cliff. After all, gradual process works in evolution, why not here? In a lot of the letting go of god type stories I've heard, that's exactly what happened. It seems to be the only way most people give up long held irrational beliefs, gradually.