nelson
06-16-2006, 12:49 AM
No fight on my part. I don't remember the part where I implied anything and if you took it that way, I am sorry since I never intended that.
That's not why I logged on this evening. I was wondering if anyone could share how they document some of their beliefs, i.e., say I see something from Michael Moore and it is clearly anti-Bush and someone else gets something from a right wing source and we both believe what we hear. Other than listening to other media sources which we can't actually prove, how do we find a solid source? Because if we can't it looks like we are all having semi-educated guesses based on our natural inclinations.
One of the criteria for me is:
1. Does what I hear said jive with what I see happening around me?
2. Does it coincide with the values I hold?
3. Part of it is instinct - i.e., being able to read people by their mannerisms, facial expressions, tone of voice, bearing in mind of course some people are good actors. In other words street smarts.
4. Many times I have looked at "the other side" and tried to see what other people see in it. I try to discount media hype and deliberate attempts to pit one side against the other (on both sides), but I always seem to end up on the same side. Is it possible or even wise to fight your nature?
5. It is not class envy; as Roz says, "I've been rich and I've been poor, and all things being equal, rich is better".
None of my philosophies or choices are based on what my family always thought or believed in, but I doubt that is always the case with everyone. How much influence does family, upbringing, friends make in our political choices?
Example:
I watched Michael Moore's accusations against the Bush family concerning their alleged liasion with the Saudi royal family.
How do I find an impartial source of news that I can check to see if it is true.
What usually comes into play are:
1. Allegations I've heard before from different news sources.
2. My natural dislike of his persona and having lived in Texas when he was governor.
3. An incidence when he was governor when I wrote him a letter asking for his help in stopping Texas A&M from putting fawns in a pen with fire ants for an "experiment" and the letter I got saying it was not his function to do anything about it, to write Texas A&M.
OK - all that has nothing to do with the original problem......but I am being very honest here - I actually said out loud on getting the letter, "It figures". See?
It does not solve the problem of whether to believe MM's accusations. I could get affirmation from practically any left wing group and denials from practically any right wing group, but it does not help me to get at the truth.
As far as whatever you think I meant earlier that makes you think I am trying to start something -- how to you determine what fanatacism is? I think that's a civilized question? I did note in the beginning a reference (not aimed at me or anyone specific) where the term "bleeding hearts" was used.
I have no problem with either one. If I am a bleeding heart, great - that shows I have one. People of all beliefs and philosophies DO usually refer to people as fanatics when they are diametrically opposed to their beliefs - yes, sometimes including me.
I did not expect to find anyone who thinks just like me in here or anywhere else. I am sure we are all different in some ways, and perhaps me even more because I am not a man. Our life experiences are bound to be very different. To be honest, I don't see what all the fuss is about or why you think I am trying to start something, because I'm not. Believe me right now I've got a lot going on and time to fight with people is NOT on my to do list.
Sonrisa
Hi Sonrisa,
I think you raise interesting questions. Probably deserve their own thread. Here's my take.
When people observe something as it's happening, we form our own opinions based on solid information. Our opinions may change over time, but the event does not. It's solid. There was a time, seemingly long ago, when "news" was simply a report of what is happening, upon which the viewing/listening/reading public could safely base their opinions. Sadly that is no longer the case. Now we have the battle of the agenda-driven commentators. Best course of action today is to see through all "news" (i.e. commentary) and make up your own mind as events unfold. If you're like most people, you'll seek the company of others who agree with your take, and occasionally seek challenges in the form of others who disagree.
As buddha said:
'Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."Thank you, Teiwaz! The best answer is often the most brief.
I think fanaticism is believing something without reason. Usually it is... unreasonable :) ... but that's not always a bad thing.
And, I think everyone is a bleeding heart inside. :) Nothing wrong with that. To me, it's whether or not your mind actually has the reigns... that counts. Discpline is making a conscious decision, for instance, not to follow your heart (or some other part of your body ;)) when you know it's wrong... and IMO it this key to human advancement.
That's not why I logged on this evening. I was wondering if anyone could share how they document some of their beliefs, i.e., say I see something from Michael Moore and it is clearly anti-Bush and someone else gets something from a right wing source and we both believe what we hear. Other than listening to other media sources which we can't actually prove, how do we find a solid source? Because if we can't it looks like we are all having semi-educated guesses based on our natural inclinations.
One of the criteria for me is:
1. Does what I hear said jive with what I see happening around me?
2. Does it coincide with the values I hold?
3. Part of it is instinct - i.e., being able to read people by their mannerisms, facial expressions, tone of voice, bearing in mind of course some people are good actors. In other words street smarts.
4. Many times I have looked at "the other side" and tried to see what other people see in it. I try to discount media hype and deliberate attempts to pit one side against the other (on both sides), but I always seem to end up on the same side. Is it possible or even wise to fight your nature?
5. It is not class envy; as Roz says, "I've been rich and I've been poor, and all things being equal, rich is better".
None of my philosophies or choices are based on what my family always thought or believed in, but I doubt that is always the case with everyone. How much influence does family, upbringing, friends make in our political choices?
Example:
I watched Michael Moore's accusations against the Bush family concerning their alleged liasion with the Saudi royal family.
How do I find an impartial source of news that I can check to see if it is true.
What usually comes into play are:
1. Allegations I've heard before from different news sources.
2. My natural dislike of his persona and having lived in Texas when he was governor.
3. An incidence when he was governor when I wrote him a letter asking for his help in stopping Texas A&M from putting fawns in a pen with fire ants for an "experiment" and the letter I got saying it was not his function to do anything about it, to write Texas A&M.
OK - all that has nothing to do with the original problem......but I am being very honest here - I actually said out loud on getting the letter, "It figures". See?
It does not solve the problem of whether to believe MM's accusations. I could get affirmation from practically any left wing group and denials from practically any right wing group, but it does not help me to get at the truth.
As far as whatever you think I meant earlier that makes you think I am trying to start something -- how to you determine what fanatacism is? I think that's a civilized question? I did note in the beginning a reference (not aimed at me or anyone specific) where the term "bleeding hearts" was used.
I have no problem with either one. If I am a bleeding heart, great - that shows I have one. People of all beliefs and philosophies DO usually refer to people as fanatics when they are diametrically opposed to their beliefs - yes, sometimes including me.
I did not expect to find anyone who thinks just like me in here or anywhere else. I am sure we are all different in some ways, and perhaps me even more because I am not a man. Our life experiences are bound to be very different. To be honest, I don't see what all the fuss is about or why you think I am trying to start something, because I'm not. Believe me right now I've got a lot going on and time to fight with people is NOT on my to do list.
Sonrisa
Hi Sonrisa,
I think you raise interesting questions. Probably deserve their own thread. Here's my take.
When people observe something as it's happening, we form our own opinions based on solid information. Our opinions may change over time, but the event does not. It's solid. There was a time, seemingly long ago, when "news" was simply a report of what is happening, upon which the viewing/listening/reading public could safely base their opinions. Sadly that is no longer the case. Now we have the battle of the agenda-driven commentators. Best course of action today is to see through all "news" (i.e. commentary) and make up your own mind as events unfold. If you're like most people, you'll seek the company of others who agree with your take, and occasionally seek challenges in the form of others who disagree.
As buddha said:
'Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."Thank you, Teiwaz! The best answer is often the most brief.
I think fanaticism is believing something without reason. Usually it is... unreasonable :) ... but that's not always a bad thing.
And, I think everyone is a bleeding heart inside. :) Nothing wrong with that. To me, it's whether or not your mind actually has the reigns... that counts. Discpline is making a conscious decision, for instance, not to follow your heart (or some other part of your body ;)) when you know it's wrong... and IMO it this key to human advancement.