Quote:
Originally Posted by verklingen
dude all any of us can ever do here is give our perspective. the degree to which that perspective is on any given subject taken seriously is up to the reader. i'm nowise dictating the nature of reality for anyone, just providing some reflection which might yield discussion. lighten up a bit. 
edit: had this discussion with rev not too long ago. am i supposed to preface my every post with "THIS is what verk thinks?" |
Whether it's irrational or not, I sometimes get offended when it appears people claim what is objectively true when they can't offer evidence for it. It's like if someone said, "Time is a cycle," that by saying that without prefacing it with, "In my opinion," or, "I would like to think," the person is implying that if I disagree, I am wrong, even if no evidence can be offered to the validate the claim.
It's like by saying, "God exists," without empirical or logical evidence, I'm automatically wrong if I don't accept that conclusion.
I'm likely more arguing against the way the claim was made, because it seems to me that when statements are made without those explications, people are more likely to take them seriously as opposed to just another viewpoint which one could/should consider. To me, the lack of specificity in the language is a subtext for indoctrination, whether intentional or unintentional. And since religion and government are my two main foils at the moment I chose to single out those moments when I feel that the lack of specificity is going to cause confusion rather than clarity in the person being addressed.