reply to post by sisgood
I think it depends on the relevance and intelligence of an opinion.
I didn't agree with our involvement in Iraq when that started, but I listened to both sides of the argument to learn more about the motivations. I
respected the fact that our military believed that they were doing something for the Iraqi people.
So I listened to both sides.
Ultimately, I gained the opinion that we were following America into a war for profit, oil, and strategy against a future attack against Iran.
However, when it comes to a discussion regarding something like racism, our beloved "English Defence League" for example, I hear the first line of
bull and I switch off.
Most intelligent people know a BS story when they hear it, they know propaganda and they recognise when a person with lesser intelligence and lower
credibility is feeding them a line. Sure, they might believe it themselves, but that just shows even more how irrelevant their opinion is to me.
In the Israel/Gaza war, I was prepared to listen to both sides in the beginning. I didn't have much more than a cursory knowledge of the politics
between them or the violent history.
But within a day or two it was clear exactly who the maniacal oppressor was. It was clear to me that Israel's "representatives" were blatantly
lying on camera at every opportunity. They refused to accept ANY responsibility for ANYTHING and constantly attacked rather than defending their own
Therefore, I switched off from listening to anything they had to say. I knew that they were lying through their snarling teeth. It was clear to see
that they were engaged in the most desperate propaganda battle I'd ever seen, and it sickens me to this day.
So, for me, it all depends on the clear actions of people and the intelligence of their opinions. If they fall below acceptable standards their
opinion is not worth my time.