OldWorldOrder
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2012
- Messages
- 5,820
- Reaction score
- 1,438
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say
And this is what I'm talking about:
The first and second sentences have no relation with each other. Whether or not the West has business there has nothing to do with bringing peace, unless you think the only "business" someone could have is to "bring peace". Just because that's what you think doesn't mean it's what other people think. But here, again, you exhibit that ostensibly can't even imagine or fathom that someone could not share your point of view:
The only reason people could disagree with you, you seem to imply, is because they don't know what you know. Since you're big on books, here's one for you: Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error: Kathryn Schulz: 9780061176050: Amazon.com: Books. In it, the author describes the stages of how most people deal with folks that disagree with them. First, they assume they're ignorant. If only they knew what you knew, they'd agree with you. If you inform them, or find out they're informed, the next step is to assume they're stupid; they're just incapable of getting it. If, however, the person proves themselves to be clever or intelligent in other ways, the last resort is to claim they're evil. They're morally broken. That way, people are able to hold on to some level of superiority. I wonder where you'll put people here they've shown you that they're not ignorant. I wonder if you'll figure out there's a fourth option.
And this is what I'm talking about:
We have no business bombing all these countries in the Middle East. We're there for our own interests, not to bring a "peace" that will never happen there.
The first and second sentences have no relation with each other. Whether or not the West has business there has nothing to do with bringing peace, unless you think the only "business" someone could have is to "bring peace". Just because that's what you think doesn't mean it's what other people think. But here, again, you exhibit that ostensibly can't even imagine or fathom that someone could not share your point of view:
People have such blinders on when it comes to these issues. The American propaganda machine has done such a number on their ignorant minds. Take a hard look at who is really waging these wars and stop believing everything the corporate media machine tells you.
The only reason people could disagree with you, you seem to imply, is because they don't know what you know. Since you're big on books, here's one for you: Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error: Kathryn Schulz: 9780061176050: Amazon.com: Books. In it, the author describes the stages of how most people deal with folks that disagree with them. First, they assume they're ignorant. If only they knew what you knew, they'd agree with you. If you inform them, or find out they're informed, the next step is to assume they're stupid; they're just incapable of getting it. If, however, the person proves themselves to be clever or intelligent in other ways, the last resort is to claim they're evil. They're morally broken. That way, people are able to hold on to some level of superiority. I wonder where you'll put people here they've shown you that they're not ignorant. I wonder if you'll figure out there's a fourth option.