It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by okyouwin
Fair question. Now, on one level, what does it matter if these people were telling the truth or not? As we read these posts we are frequently really considering a morality question, consider what they right to be hypothetical and the questions remain.
I think the more important issue that you raise has to do with your knee jerk reaction (your words). I am in my early 50s (really) and have seen how people are less and less patient over the years. Part of this comes out in talking to them, a news article is brought up and rather than analyzing it, they immediately tell you how they feel about it. The articles are meant to push your buttons and are loaded with bias and half truths. Our political choices are passion driven.
We are trained to like certain types of people and dislike others; but, it is based on the term we use to describe them. We also tend to hear one story and then believe that all of "those people" do the same thing. Some illegal alien buys a home by lying about how much he makes and lives off welfare and eats lobster. People then immediately say how that is what the illegals do. One person used to represent everyone that we have grouped together.
In school we are taught to give snap answers, we are rewarded for parroting back what we were told faster and more complete, not for thinking. We are taught slogans. Here is something to consider. ATS is about the best debate you can find and that includes from the people that are some of the worst contributors. At least the people on ATS read and write and many research things and challenge people.
We live in a world of sound bites and speculation. Our political discourse has degraded to a for or against mentality. For the past 40 years children were asked in school how they felt about the news rather than what they thought about it.
In college a Professor was being snide and made the statement that Republicans were hypocrites because they against abortion but for the death penalty. I responded by saying that liberals were hypocrites because they were for abortions and against the death penalty, I said the difference was weather one wanted to kill the guilty or the innocent. He flipped and decided to have a real conversation about the issues. This was a class on Political Science for non-political scientists (I was a political science major and just needed another class and knew the professor). As the professor began to raise the real issues and question me vigorously, one of the students stood up and asked the professor if what we were discussing was going to be on the test. The professor looked at the class and told them that the debate, the discussion was what political science was really about. I need to say that while I am against abortion, I would not outlaw it, I am also against slavery.
Let us agree that this is not about abortion, the incident merely provides an example of a couple of things. Firstly, the teacher sought to make a deep observation through propaganda that sounded good. I responded in the same propaganda manner showing that the issues were not that simple, only then was he ready to have a real conversation. We both used labels to characterize whole groups, both were wrong. Not all Republicans are against abortion and not all liberals are against the death penalty. The people listening were intended to have an emotional response and they did, the one's that listened. The vast majority of them didn't care about the issues, they had a yes or no opinion and stopped listening to the issues.
Lets us consider how the media words things. Lets say a 19 year old boy is making out with a 17 year old girl and that they have gone to school together since they were kids. The girls parents get angry and have the boy arrested for underage sex. Because the boy did not sleep with her it is reduced to child molestation. ...
Originally posted by rickymouse
Aw come on, you can believe me....oops.... Didn't I hear you say you needed a light for your cigarette?
Originally posted by Tardacus
This is why most people probably aren`t willing to get up and actually take real action.it`s not because they are lazy or apathetic it`s probably because they aren`t willing to put reputation and life on the line for something they may not even be the truth.
if you think about it the colonist took a huge leap of faith by starting a war with england based merely on what they read in the newspapers.
you would never be able to do that today, the british are coming? really? prove it? i can`t see any brits from my house and that video of brits marching up bunker hill looks like CGI to me.
Originally posted by redbarron626
People cause the division, the media and script writers use it to bolster their position. It can seem like it is all a programmed conspiracy but in reality it is just human nature and people will continue to divide themselves along a given line until the end of time.
There is an old saying that is relevant to this, it goes:
Put 12 people in a locked room and, while they may not be able to pick a leader, they will all agree on someone to hate.
Division begins almost at birth and continues through life in almost every aspect.