posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 09:51 AM
Lately, I've seen a lot of threads regarding Iraq that go something like this:
Poster A: Iraq is one hell of a can of worms, and here's why.....
Poster B: Why are you focusing on the bad in Iraq? We should focus on the good, such as.....
Occasionally it goes the other way around, but more often than not its the way I illustrated.
My question is, how does this help "deny ignorance"? There is a fundamental flaw here. When someone brings up a topic, that topic should be
explored to the best extent possible. Yet what I am seeing more and more often is people attempting to shift the focus of the thread from its
original purpose to an exploration of some other aspect of the occupation.
This is not a simple matter of point/counterpoint. This is deeper. It's not like saying, "well, to explore point A, we have to consider the
opposing view, -A." It's saying, "no, don't explore point A, explore point B instead, which supports an entirely different and unrelated
proposition to point A (rather than merely the opposite of point A)."
This isn't just a board issue, I'm seeing it in the media also. People are so eager to present the forest as either something good or bad that they
are either refusing or neglecting to address the trees individually.
It's counterproductive, and reeks of favoring the advocation of an agenda over a presentation of the facts. No real debate, or anything productive at
all, will come from this kind of reactionism. You won't get anywhere by throwing unrelated facts to juxtapose them with the related ones, for any
given point, just to prove that the occupation is either going well or going bad, unless of course that was the initial subject, which it rarely seems
Anyway, my two cents. Take them as you will.