(October 13, 2016 at 1:38 pm)Kingpin Wrote:(October 13, 2016 at 12:53 pm)Rhythm Wrote: More predictability, lol.
I've already -heard- what chad has to say on this subject, and that he finds this article to be useful is no surprise to me or to anyone familiar with the publishers. Just as it's no surprise that he presented it as some unbiased and purely scientific this that or the other....but lets talk about something else, right? Like close-mindedness, or not listening to another's viewpoint or ignoring all op-ed pieces.
It's conservative, religious, luddite... socio-political propaganda masquerading as a scientific "journal". You wanna go to bat for that Kingpin? Be my guest.
I didn't say I wanted to go to bat for it, but I expect people to take time to read differing viewpoint and discuss it on its substance rather than bypass it altogether on the pre-conceived viewpoint of the author(s). Just saying, either give it an objective look over and discuss it, or if you prefer to ignore than do everyone a favor and ignore posting about it.
The discussion is not about your opinion of the author and your presumptions. You've already labeled and stereotyped both the author and the content of the article without reading a single sentence. That is close-mindedness and bigotry at its finest.
Well said.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
