RE: Skeptics might be jumping to conclusions
April 20, 2018 at 12:29 pm
(This post was last modified: April 20, 2018 at 1:03 pm by Transcended Dimensions.)
When it comes to things that have a lot of argument and debate about them such as the idea that vaccines are harmful or whether the paranormal and the afterlife really exist or not, I cannot decide. Both sides appear to be making good, intelligent arguments from my perspective. Therefore, this makes it impossible for me to tell who is lying and who is telling the truth. These are debates between researchers and other people who have had a lot of education and training and that's what makes it impossible for me to decide. But, if it was a debate between a highly intelligent person and a little child making the most dumb arguments, I would be able to tell who is making the false, dumb arguments and who is making the good, intelligent arguments.
People claim that one side of the debate is making dumb arguments in the types of topics I mentioned earlier. But I just can't see that. It would be no different than a father who sees his son as a skilled basketball player even though he sucks. The father would see both his son and an NBA player as skilled players. But the father lacks the knowledge and life experience necessary in order to tell who truly sucks at basketball and who is the truly skilled player. If a professional NBA player met this father, he would be able to explain to him how his son is not a skilled player. Another example would be with American Idol singers who think their singing is great.
They lack the insight necessary in order to see just how awful their singing really is. As you can see here, I just don't have the knowledge and life experience necessary to know who is making the dumb, false arguments in a debate. The same thing applies when I look at works of art or hear people singing. As long as it's not the type of artwork or singing made by a little child who sings horribly and makes awful works of art, then I would see any type of artwork or singing as being good. I would, thus, also lack the artistic knowledge and experience necessary to truly see what works of art and singing is crap. With all of this being said, I'm not interested in learning things.
People have different interests and that's just a fact of life. But I will definitely learn how to compose since this is the one and only subject I am interested in. But what about decisions I make in my life? Well, when it comes to, for example, vaccines, I have decided not to take them anyway. Just the idea in my mind of being injected with this stuff seems unhealthy to me. So, I just go with my gut instincts. I know absolutely nothing about life or any given subject. Therefore, I just go with my gut instincts when making certain decisions in my life. Not to mention, I just don't have the knowledge necessary to understand some of the things these researchers say in the debates.
People claim that one side of the debate is making dumb arguments in the types of topics I mentioned earlier. But I just can't see that. It would be no different than a father who sees his son as a skilled basketball player even though he sucks. The father would see both his son and an NBA player as skilled players. But the father lacks the knowledge and life experience necessary in order to tell who truly sucks at basketball and who is the truly skilled player. If a professional NBA player met this father, he would be able to explain to him how his son is not a skilled player. Another example would be with American Idol singers who think their singing is great.
They lack the insight necessary in order to see just how awful their singing really is. As you can see here, I just don't have the knowledge and life experience necessary to know who is making the dumb, false arguments in a debate. The same thing applies when I look at works of art or hear people singing. As long as it's not the type of artwork or singing made by a little child who sings horribly and makes awful works of art, then I would see any type of artwork or singing as being good. I would, thus, also lack the artistic knowledge and experience necessary to truly see what works of art and singing is crap. With all of this being said, I'm not interested in learning things.
People have different interests and that's just a fact of life. But I will definitely learn how to compose since this is the one and only subject I am interested in. But what about decisions I make in my life? Well, when it comes to, for example, vaccines, I have decided not to take them anyway. Just the idea in my mind of being injected with this stuff seems unhealthy to me. So, I just go with my gut instincts. I know absolutely nothing about life or any given subject. Therefore, I just go with my gut instincts when making certain decisions in my life. Not to mention, I just don't have the knowledge necessary to understand some of the things these researchers say in the debates.
