I completely agree with Bill here. Although I hardly think that's going out on a limb. I also agree with the Canadian lady (I didn't catch her name), that part of the blame is on the media and the nuance of political agendas.
Lets say you're a brick layer or a construction worker (it doesn't matter, just somebody who doesn't study politics or any field of hefty material), what chance does that person have in discerning facts when what they have to go on is usually going to be whittled down to misleading sound bites? Lets say a common person (like myself) gets a bug and wants to educate their self, so they go online and find a few papers. One paper is well written and for a particular issue. Another is well written and against that same issue. A third is well written and says both papers are lying. Our schmuck who has never studied the field he/she is reading about is left scratching their head. All the while, he/she is unaware of what's written between the lines- the agendas. The motives. Even if the person is clued in on all the agendas underlying the stances, which does he speak for or against? It's almost hopeless.
Another question that arises is: Is a person who is aware of both sides of an issue educated, even if the person has no idea which one is correct, and has been left on the fence?
Lets say you're a brick layer or a construction worker (it doesn't matter, just somebody who doesn't study politics or any field of hefty material), what chance does that person have in discerning facts when what they have to go on is usually going to be whittled down to misleading sound bites? Lets say a common person (like myself) gets a bug and wants to educate their self, so they go online and find a few papers. One paper is well written and for a particular issue. Another is well written and against that same issue. A third is well written and says both papers are lying. Our schmuck who has never studied the field he/she is reading about is left scratching their head. All the while, he/she is unaware of what's written between the lines- the agendas. The motives. Even if the person is clued in on all the agendas underlying the stances, which does he speak for or against? It's almost hopeless.
Another question that arises is: Is a person who is aware of both sides of an issue educated, even if the person has no idea which one is correct, and has been left on the fence?
I can't remember where this verse is from, I think it got removed from canon:
"I don't hang around with mostly men because I'm gay. It's because men are better than women. Better trained, better equipped...better. Just better! I'm not gay."
For context, this is the previous verse:
"Hi Jesus" -robvalue
"I don't hang around with mostly men because I'm gay. It's because men are better than women. Better trained, better equipped...better. Just better! I'm not gay."
For context, this is the previous verse:
"Hi Jesus" -robvalue
