Imo arguing with them is an exercise in futility.
Depends on your objective. Mine is always wisdom, rarely achieved but sometimes incremented by a tad here and there. <g>
My speculation has been that perhaps it's a matter of temperament. You see kids, boys, that are taught by their fathers to always stick up for themselves, to not let any slight go unpunished. If somebody looks at you funny, flatten him. Well, that may be exaggerated but you get the point. That's one possible explanation I've come up with for the outsized reaction.
Another is that some people just need an enemy--good and evil and all that--or the world doesn't make sense. Much of history has been framed that way. Humans may be programmed to it.
I've also considered the possibility that it's a lack of toughness, resilience, confidence, or some such. Don't know where to go with that.
So, in the absence of any resolution of the question of the existential threat, there may be understanding to be gleaned. I don't consider that futile.
Their premise is that because of this insanity the leaders of Iran have no interest in preserving the lives of its citizens.
That may be a function of the instinct to treat unfamiliar cultures as "other," so "other" that their leaders are sub-human. We thought that about the Soviets at the time but it turned out not to be true. I suppose, though, that there's always the possibility that it could be true. Madmen do exist. |
