Subject:
|
Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 May 2003 20:15:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
270 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
<snip>
> > If you want to keep your head in the sand, then that's your choice. Don't
> > admonish those that want to actually practice some true discernement, however.
>
> Who do you view as a good source? I already know who Scott does, presumably.
Well, I'd start with a variety of sources, instead of just one or two that
tell us what we want to hear, or worse, tell us what they want us to hear
and filter out that which may "harm" us.
Knowledge is power.
Next I would not 'write off' sources because they don't come from avenues
I'm comfortable with. I also would not write off sources/topics because
they don't fit into my political/religious/personal worldview. I would
'wrestle' with these concepts/ideas and see, if the idea's contrary to my
belief, if it's the idea that is flawed, or my POV. Perhaps it's both and
the idea as well as my view need modifying.
I wouldn't dismiss *anything* unilaterally/preemptively out of spite or a
sense that it may make me uncomfortable. To do that leads to ignorance. "I
won't pay any heed to that 'cause it came out of the Guardian!"? Ignorant.
Refute the issue--not the messenger. Refute the opinion, not the writer.
And if you can't refute the opinion, then perhaps a closer re-examination of
your own worldview may be in order.
Because something doesn't "smack of Libertarianism" doesn't make it wrong.
Because something doesn't come across as "Christian" doesn't make it evil.
I'd also like to see some folks actually say, "Well, mayhaps I need to
reconsider my view on the matter now that these points are clearer." But I
don't expect that to happen.
In the end, for me, I do try to read from many different sources, and watch
news on the telly from different stations, and listen to folks around me,
and then I still basically sit on the fence on many different issues ;)
As for specifically this thread, I didn't quote the "National Enquirer" or
"The Star"--the article came from the Guardian, and a few hours later, was
on the BBC website. It was summarily rejected by individuals *because* it
came from the Guardian, and still it isn't 'legitimate' even though the BBC
ran exactly the same story. So my question--does it have to get on the CNN
web site for the Yanks to do some delving into the issue? Does an American
news source have to talk that maybe Ms. Lynch's rescue was "staged" for the
benefit of boosting a declining "rating" for the war by the American people?
Some Americans here are discussing it--Hop-Frog had a few good things to
say. I'm just saying that, whilst I love banter and sarcasm, writing off
what I considered legitimate ideas and issues with "Oh that's in the realm
of 'black helicopter'ness" shows a lack of willingness to deal with the
actual issues, and can be described as 'having one's head in the
sand'--unwilling to consider a different idea.
Well, is Friday and I've gone on too long.
Can't wait to get in the 'rugged outback' of Ontar-I-o in a few hours.
Take care all,
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
| (...) Excellent advice. But you'd agree that some sources are more credible than others, right? Or would you tend to view all sources with equal credulity? I would think not, and further, I would think that a source that tends to be factually (...) (22 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
| <reinserted a few quotes that David snipped, but I think i've got the attributions right, apologies if I flubbed> (...) Sorry, how is a license fee that one *must* pay (or be in violation of law), and which is collected *by the government*, and then (...) (22 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
