There's no rational basis for being sure about ANYTHING when it comes to matters of faith (or un-faith). There is only certainty in knowing that you can't know all the answers.I think I prefer O'Hare and Hitchens. They're pretty damn sure and make no bones about it.
- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
Not understanding is fairly different from merely claiming other points of view can't or don't exist.
I have complete faith in ones ability to believe things. It's a very weird statement, really, and tells me he isn't interested in the answer at all.
Saying "I don't buy it" is respectful?
A request for the simplest answer (which was provided I think 2 or 3 times) would suffice without telling people that... I'm not sure what... thought doesn't exist? It's a weird thing to say.