In all fairness to the "news" anchors, most of them just read what is on the teleprompter, and are just as brainwashed as the public
Wow... Greetings, I had had no idea the posts here would tend so strongly toward the contentious/polemical here. There seems to be a wide variety of points of view (from "left" to "right"), but there the level of tolerance from either "side" when it's critiquing (read "criticizing" or "labeling") the other seems to lack the latitude and variety that the POVs seem to have. There should be a bit more balance, IMHO... at least some respect and constraint? Can we all just get along? Chris
Interesing take... JiC, "How boring thatIand we- would be. And not very human." Consider my call for a *bit* more restraint and mutual respect for differing opinions between posters on the forum to be the opening salvo in the first of many posts (read "flames") by the rather large cyborg contingent planning on posting here?? To be fair, a mere call to civility in the midst of a discussion where a wide range of opinions are being exuberantly expressed does not a call to homogeneity of opinions make, IMHO. I think humanity is perfectly capable of "disagreeing without being disagreeable," don't you? Chris
Chris: "I think humanity is perfectly capable of "disagreeing without being disagreeable," don't you? " Do you read history or current events?
Open Letter to a Cynic...? JiC, "Do you read history or current events?" Of course I do. Just because a certain potentiality or capacity of something isn't always realized doesn't mean that said realization of that thing is impossible. Unless your contention is that friendly discussions between people of varied and contradictory positions on any number of subjects (like the one you and I seem to be having right now, for instance) is impossible... Well, to be honest, I am not sure why a simple plea (from the "peanut gallery") for a bit less acrimony and labeling seems so impossible and (or) boring from your perspective (as I understand it thus far anyway). At any rate... I wish you well. Chris p.s. I don't mean "cynic" as a reference to the school of philosophy, but to the modern and colloquial definition. It's merely capitalized in the title in the "subject line."
Perhaps it was the question. You did say "I think humanity is perfectly capable of "disagreeing without being disagreeable," don't you? " and it would seem that both history and current events would show that humanity is not capable of of that--and certainly not "perfectly" capable. I will give you that some human beings are capable (not perfectly though) of that but they seem to be few and far between. It is much easier I find to NOT disagree than to disagree without being disagreeable. I attempt to not disagree but it appears I am failing at that in this case. But have I been disagreeable? Of course perception is reality so they say although I am not really sure that my old philosophy professor would agree.
Words... words... words. JiC, Perhaps it was the way I phrased the question... I apologize if it wasn't as clear as it could have been. "... it would seem that both history and current events would show that humanity is not capable of of that--and certainly not 'perfectly' capable." What I meant by the "perfectly" I used to modify the "capable" in reference to humanity/humans was that we humans have the capacity "to a complete or adequate extent" (as per the 2nd definition of "perfectly" on the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary's website) to "disagree without being disagreeable." Nothing more. Which is to say that I don't equate being "perfectly capable" of doing a certain thing with being capable of doing said certain thing perfectly. There is a definite difference from where I am sitting.... though I will admit to having a limited view due to where my chair is. At any rate... this "war of words" has to have become too tedious for anyone else (outside of the two of us) to read so... I will let you have the last word. Be well. Chris
