In other words, they can't deal with abstraction and logic, is the issue. For example, Dante made a post recently that pedophiles don't want to hurt children, they want to fulfill urges. While this may not be true for literally every pedophile, the desire to fulfil urges is instrinsically part of their definition, whereas the desire to cause harm is an individual thing that is not required for the definition at all. So this is a very reasonable claim.
Then they responded sarcastically that molesting children hurts them.
So what we have is this, in this example:
Dante has the correct definition of a pedophile in mind; that is, an innate and exclusive attraction to children.
Their definition of a pedophile is along the lines of "someone who molests children"
Now, one might think that correcting them to highlight their error would then put Dante's post into context and show it is correct, but experience says this is not so. Knowledge would not fix them. It is how they think. They don't operate by conceiving of a logically precise abstract idea or definition and then acting upon the construct, similar to the example in the quoted article. They don't start from first principles then work their way through each step to a conclusion, they just attain a vague sense of an idea then kinda splatter it into their minds in a finished state. It's messy and not very precise.
There's many other examples in which they failed to assimilate information accurately, missed the point or meaning of an analogy, took a comparison as literal instead of extracting the correct data from it, etc. This goes beyond disagreement, down to thought dysfunction. Hence, I see little point in engaging with them further. But if i'm in work and bored I might still poke them to see what comes out.
