NeedToUseYou -> RE: Jihad Jane??? (2/3/2007 4:05:25 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote:
ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou quote:
ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote:
I'm confused why people give credit to the opinion of people that lost someone in war, Because the leaders who told half-truths, misstatements and outright lies to START the war, have children who do NOT serve, and the families don't take the same risks as the Sheehan family did. That's being a hypocritical rat, but hey, does anyone REALLY expect honor from a Bush? That really didn't answer the question I was asking in my complete original post. That's because I was only responding to the idea I had quoted. quote:
My question was/is why is Sheehan's opinion important? Everybody's opinion is important. quote:
As in why should I hold her opinion to a greater regard than others. Loss doesn't infer insight on any given subject other than loss. If anyone can tell me why or how she knows more and/or understands more then I'd be glad to take her views more seriously than anyone elses. Here's the thing. You SHOULD BE taking her, well, ANYONES views seriously, not by who she is, but by the factual validity and moral resonance of her arguments. quote:
Losing somebody doesn't fill that requirement, to me anyway. This could be applied to Jane Fonda as well, who doesn't even have the loss sheehan has. Neither do Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rice, etc... quote:
Why does anyone listen to these people for information? Seeing they aren't over there, they've never been in the military or Iraq, they don't have a degree in international politics, as far as I can tell they have no basis I can recall for being held up as a representative for a cause, and they speak to emotion primarily. Experts aren't right just because they're experts. That's a logical fallacy. And what has all of Condi Rices "degree in international politics" resulted in except a few hundred thousand dead? If that's what those credentials get you, seems than you listen to Condi Rice, then do the EXACT OPPOSITE. quote:
I'm at a loss where the creditability comes from in the first place Well, first you listen to what people have to say, then you research their past track record to establish credibility, and their assertions for truthfulness. In that you YOU are able to assign some values to a persons credibility. Stop expecting the people on TV to tell you who is credible. They aren't. I don't even have cable, and probably watched about 2 hours of network news in the last year. So, I'm not being spoon fed credibility to me. Second, the way you answered to the partial quote wasn't in relation to my intended meaning that is why I responded.. Sheehan is really just one of any number of examples that could be used. The whole of the statement is about why do people follow those unqualified to lead, really. That would apply, to bush, sheehan, Jane Fonda, etc... everyone of them doesn't display any substantial qualifications or incite for the positions they hold in their respective realm of influence. But since sheehan came up, I posed it using her as an example. Her only qualification is her son died over their. But you can apply it to bush as well, all he did was run failed businesses. And Jane, all she's done is develop sagging tits in the last 20 years. Personally I don't see why most "leaders" are followed, except for for the emotions and labels they invoke. And that beyond anything in my view is the problem. The herd follows but doesn't have a reason why. It's like they just pick a random person and shove them on tv or in office and follow that person from then on. It's not based on reasoning though, I'm sure of that
|
|
|
|