But, dude, uh....you haven't seen the movie. How do you know? I mean, ad hominem and all that, right?
My opinion? I think that our society, especially lately, is too partisan and has lost the ability to debate logically. Personal example: I haven't seen Passion of the Christ movie, so I try not to comment on it. I'd like to see it, I've even brought up the idea of seeing it to my wife. That didn't go too far, let me tell ya. I say, see it so I can comment on it from an informed perspective, she says not a chance she's seeing it.
Another example, a bit more personal: For years I was pro gun-control. But I was never really informed on the issue, I admit. After many discussions with others who were very pro-NRA (some of them even having been in "militias") I got a new appreciation of the whole issue. While I disagree with much of their reasoning, I do understand how they feel the way they do and nowadays I'm pretty open about gun ownership.
Now, admittedly, some issues have chasms that people can't bridge since they are values-based, rather than process-based or fact-based. Abortion is the perrenial example. I think I have a pretty good handle on the arguments on both sides of the issue, and, alas, in the end it comes down to values - not facts, or anything else.
So, for those reasons, I do read Fox News, I do listen to O'Reilly (when I've the time) and I do thumb through both conservative and progressive news magazines, etc...
I guess th epoint being is that, from Logic 101, any given argument must be judged on its merits alone, not on the person making the argument.
Thought experiment: if "Farenheit 9/11" had been made by Rush Limbaugh but was otherwise exactly the same, would you see it?
Just my .02c...
Alarik
Quote:
Originally posted by Atrocities:
...there is very little truth to his subjective - decidedly one sided - attack on Bush.
|
[ June 16, 2004, 17:11: Message edited by: alarikf ]