So you cared enough about the topic to post your opinion out of the blue, and enough about my response to post a reply, but not enough to address that response, just enough to make it clear that you "don't care" about what I wrote?
Hmmm.... It's amazing to me how many people translate an inability to respond to an argument with a claim to not care to respond to said argument. Classic avoidance technique. Which should prompt one to self introspect as to why that is the case. It's one thing to want others to believe in something you know isn't true and can't stand up to scrutiny, but it's quite another to continue to believe something yourself when you know it isn't true and can't stand up to scrutiny. Which are you doing?
I've always wondered, once people feel the need to engage in data and word manipulation to continue to make an argument for a position, why they hold that position in the first place. I suppose the same question goes to willful ignorance about facts and data that contradict a position as well. Why hold a position if the only way it works is if you intentionally avoid thinking about anything that might be wrong with it? For me, I want to know what my position is, why I hold it, and whether it's a good position or if there are better ones (even if just slight modifications). Life should be a constant process of adjusting what you believe about the world around you as you learn new things. Refusing to look at and process new information out of fear of maybe having to re-evaluate something you believe currently seems counter to this.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please