Hard Being Right

I had a fight this morning with my fiance. I had a valid issue, but chose some poor words to express it and now instead of hearing my point she became defensive and now we’re at odds. In my case, had I used a different way to express myself, or talk about it later in the day when I would be more composed it could have been avoided. Oh well, I’ll apologize and charge the mountain again later. But it got me thinking about people who disagree completely.

In my travels and time spent meeting new people and discussions with friends, I have confirmed -for myself at least over and over that a change in beliefs (political, religion) is entirely personal. For two peers of similar mental ability and skills in communications with what they both believe to be correct and “right”. When discussing issues there is almost a zero percent chance at either swaying the other to their stance. Even if the argument becomes one-sided and one party looks to be completely inaccurate or wrong. They’ll just believe that the competent, or winning party was a “jerk” or “wrong”. Or begin personal attacks during the discussion. My most influential debates with others have been when I give them ample time to get all their beliefs out. In fact I take time and ask questions that further their point, because I am interested in understanding them. Doing this in a way that doesn’t seem condescending is difficult, especially when they know you disagree. During the conversation as I understand their points and stances I ask short, concise questions that are absolutist in argument. For example.

I had a conversation with a global warming fanatic (a recent fan of “An Inconvenient Truth”). It became obvious in our discussions that the person didn’t understand the scientific method nor did he have a grasp of why speaking about science in absolutist terms was a bad idea. So I let him fully congeal a point. Then I asked point blank, “Do you believe global warming was directly caused by humans and the pollution they create?” The answer of course was yes. So now with a point we disagree in and to prevent a shutdown on communication I asked have you heard of the little ice age? And defined in detail what I knew about the phenomena and that it happened during and after the industrial revolution. I also brought forth the argument that few decades ago everyone was concerned with global cooling and that at the time, “the science was irrefutable” was touted as well.

The point isn’t to say “trust me, I’m right.” its to plant the seeds of a differing opinion that isn’t extreme or delivered with anger and aggression. I give two to three historical references and if the person would like to learn about it they can on their own time. The second thing I’m going after is for the person to go on a private learning expedition that isn’t tainted by Al Gore, Fox News, NPR or any other MEDIA that has its own agenda. I revile some things that are stated by Fox News (so called conservative reporting) as much as I hate that of the overtly liberal New York Times. Media has its fault, but bellying up the trough never makes a sound conversationalist.

“Trust, but verify.”

Over 30,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting the hypothesis of human-caused global warming.  Its a good read and goes more importantly gets science back on track.  The scientific process is built upon constant dissent.  Nothing is proven, but has not be dis-proved.

Fear the scientist who uses absolutist terms and politicians backed by such scientists.

Check out EndOfMen for the whole story.

I put special in quotes because his comments are borderline short bus special. Crass comment I know, but it does cover completely his inept and loosely connected (if at all) points.

All this vitriol for the president was spurned by his interview with Politico. Two questions in particular have received the highest scrutiny. The first was a yes or no question asked to the president in regards to him not playing golf and if that was related to the war. The president first said, “Yes” then defined, I’m summarizing his answer by saying he doesn’t feel its right to be seen playing golf and has stopped playing as much in solidarity of the troops.

The second question and the one that seems to be taken WAY out of context was

“Mr. President, turning to the biggest issue of all, Iraq. I wonder if you — various people and various candidates talk about pulling out next year. If we were to pull out of Iraq next year, what’s the worst that could happen, what’s the doomsday scenario?”

DOOMSDAY is emphasized here for a particular reason. The president was asked a question based on the worst case scenario. His reply was well put together and thought out:

Doomsday scenario of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States.

The biggest issue we face is — it’s bigger than Iraq — it’s this ideological struggle against cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives. Iraq just happens to be a part of this global war. Iraq is the place where al Qaeda and other extremists have made their stand — and they will be defeated. They’ll be defeated through military action, but they’ll also be defeated as this young democracy takes hold. They can’t stand to live in a free society, that’s why they try to fight free societies.

The United States pulling out of Iraq or pulling out of the Middle East or not maintaining a forward presence would send all kinds of signals throughout the Middle East. And it would shake everybody’s nerves, and it would embolden the very same people that we’re trying to defeat.

I post this, because over on the other side of the fence Keith Olbermann said and I quote:

Mr. Bush has predicted that the election of a Democratic president could “eventually lead to another attack on the United States…”

In the above reply to the question where did the president predict anything? He was asked, point blank what he thought would happen if we pulled out of Iraq and he gave his opinion. Am I missing something here? So the logic leap thats going on here is:

Because Hillary and Barack both oppose the war and favor leaving. The president saying leaving will embolden the terrorists and lead to an attack (IN THE WORST CASE SCENARIO). It must mean that the president is saying anyone who wants to leave Iraq (the dems) will cause another attack on America?

I’m sorry, but what else is the president suppose to say? If McCain wanted to leave Iraq the president still believes leaving would embolden the terrorists. So really whats happening here is Keith not really having a requirement to maintain any illusion of balance in his op-ed show is lying to make a blog and another rediculous “Special Comment” to throw on the pile of garbage that comes from him mouth.

Go read the transcripts at Politico, then if you’re a Nielson family turn off MSNBC and never turn it on again.