< those that read everything and experience little... and necessarily believe themselves to 'know better' and therefore needn't fo out of their way to see the messy truth>
That's right DAK. Those ignorant Irish-Americans who sent money to the IRA having read how badly the Catholics were treated, but were stuck living in Lala Land, should have gone to England as I did, to experience the fear of seeing the latest bombed out building while walking to work, almost a new one each day, and smelling the burnt offerings from the IRA. Looking at peoples' bags and being alert for anything sitting on the floor, was disconcerting too.
Those Kiwi children who experienced their legs being mutilated probably thought they knew better than the Lalalanders who read everything and experience nothing other than on the boob tube.
But joking aside, the absurd idea that experiencing things directly is the only way to justify holding an opinion would mean that nearly everything couldn't be commented on by nearly everybody. Judges would have a hard time don't you think - they never experience the murders they judge, they merely get second hand information and hand down a decision.
<some people fail to realize that what IS, simply IS the truth >
Try not to confuse is with was DAK. That's a common mistake. What's your definition of IS? Also, because something is, or was, doesn't mean one should confuse is, or was, with will be. The definition of is is a vital national security issue.
Surely you don't understand so little that you think people need to experience things to be able to understand things? [To play your silly game of personal denigration]. That makes writing a waste of time for a start. Same for TV [it's not experience].
Mqurice |
