<Then it is a RESPONSE. The difference between reacting and responding is not the difference between smart and dumb. You just don't understand the issue.>
I understand the issue perfectly well. Your example of "smart and dumb" is perfect... the issue is not not about gathering more information... it's about being open to that information.
<Saying that President Bush was COMPELLED to invade IRAQ is just nonsensical.
I think we've pretty much established that that is your opinion... I assume you therefore think it's nonsensical to say anyone would be compelled (through emotional pressure/baggage/strees/etc) to do anything. That's fine, but that term is used all the time in psychology, "he feels complelled to drink when around family", etc. It doesn't mean you have to agree or use the term that way, that's fine.
<What evidence do you have that his foray into IRAQ was mindless, thoughtless, and unconsidered??>
My version of your assertion that it was not.
<If it was considered and freely chosen, then it was clearly not COMPELLED>
We just went over that... decisions are made all the time based on emotion rather than "clarity"... is "chosing" always "clarity"? According to psychology, no. Everyone has issues that they are more or less 'clear' in their decisionmaking than others... smart people in all walks of life "exuse" themselves from ruling/making decisions/ voting on/etc on certain issues due to emotionality all the time... making your assertion that it is a black and white issue seem sophmoric to me... but again, I know you don't seem to grasp that, or maybe simply disagree, that's fine.
<If there was an alternative, then it was clearly not COMPELLED>
Again, see previous paragraph... you seem to be chosing your version of 'compelled'.... try thinking 'compulsion'... compulsive behaviour. Maybe that thought somehow eluded you.
<You're exposing a stupendous ignorance, is what.>
I wouldn't be so hard on yourself. :)
DAK |
