--- In [email protected], anon_astute_ff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: <snip> > > So there's more to it than pointing out the > > shortcomings of any one particular individual. Too > > many people simply accept what they read and hear > > without applying critical thinking. > > How do you know? That presumes that silence is acquiesence. Not all > feel or respond that way. An alternative view is that "responders > took the bait".
First, I'm speaking generally here. I hardly think this country would be in the horrendous mess it's in today if a majority of people had employed critical thinking when they elected Bush and a Republican Congress. Those of us who *were* thinking critically appear to have been right on the money when they predicted what would happen. The complicity of the media and the cowardice of the Democrats in allowing Republican lies to go unchallenged--even to this day--has been a major factor in getting us where we are. > It doesn't take much critical thinking to see that some posters > respond to phantoms -- words that are not there, ideas not > presented. You bet. We had a sterling example of that very situation in Sal's imputing to me "annoyance" with reporters' questions to MMY about the Beatles, among a number of such phantoms. Yet others here have quoted and supported her fantastical diatribes repeatedly. > Either via deviousness or deep clumsiness, they create ghost post > worlds and respond to them. Whether one cares to reply to or comment > on such silliness is another matter. Why do we tolerate the participation of such people on this forum, though? How many posts have you read denouncing MMY and the TMO for purported deception, while posters here regularly mangle the truth with no sanctions? > > > > There's also an underlying sense--which may or may > > > > not be accurate but does have some influence on how > > > > people see things--that if one doesn't rebut something > > > > someone else has said, it's because one doesn't *have* > > > > a rebuttal, that silence constitutes acquiescence, and > > > > that what the person has said must be accurate. > > Why would one ever presume that? Quite a different mind set than > mine. Quite possibly different than yours, or at least different than you're willing to recognize. I think at least some of this presumption may be subconscious. > In some if not many caess, silence is the most powerful statement. > It implies the post is not worthy of a response. Its a snub. That may be what it's intended to imply. The question is whether that is always what is inferred. > Perhaps rude, but less so than being pulled into the mire with > someone who has no respect for facts, logic and sincere inquiry. You seem to be suggesting a moral equivalency here, putting the person who exposes the lies on the same moral level as the person doing the lying. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
