Danger in Following the Herd

[Bill Thompson]

I thought I would post this very general comment.

The way something appears to be sometimes is not the way it
really is. And if it something the majority feel passionate about,
the few that can figure out the truth, they are often beaten down.

I want to show an analogy. I wonder if any of you have seen
this sort video by an acquaintance of mine who runs a political web site in New York:

www.gelsana.com/evan.html

"Mere disagreement does not make some evil"

This also shows that things are never as simple as they might seem. It also shows how someone who "can do the math" might be perceived to be an outsider and back-wards thinking.

I want to add that if you follow the herd you just might be led off a proverbial cliff along with them.

[Ginnie]

What's you're point?
Is it that people often don't know what they're talking about?
Surely, this is no revelation?
I do it a lot myself.

[Bill Thompson]

ginniegatrit said:

What's you're point?
Is it that people often don't know what they're talking about?
Surely, this is no revelation?
I do it a lot myself.

In order to express my point I first want to know this.
Who in this video, in your opinion, does not know what they are talking about? If you think the interviewe does not know what they are talking about, then the video is meaningless to you. If you notice that he was in a group of people who firmly believed in something and yet they never really considered an alternative, this is my point. My point is that just because everyone believes one way does not mean that everyone is correct.

[LunarOrbit]

What about the people who say you're not allowed to criticize the President during a time of war? Or the people who still believe Iraq was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks even though there is no evidence that they were? Aren't they "following the herd" without giving it any thought?

[Ginnie]

billthompson said:

ginniegatrit said:

What's you're point?
Is it that people often don't know what they're talking about?
Surely, this is no revelation?
I do it a lot myself.

In order to express my point I first want to know this.
Who in this video, in your opinion, does not know what they are talking about? If you think the interviewe does not know what they are talking about, then the video is meaningless to you. If you notice that he was in a group of people who firmly believed in something and yet they never really considered an alternative, this is my point. My point is that just because everyone believes one way does not mean that everyone is correct.

Sorry Bill, but I have a hard time understanding what you are talking about!
I'm not going to analize the video to try to figure out which people are talking about things that are true, or maybe people who are talking about things that are imagined or matters that they are blindly following. It seemed that the people protesting could not go in depth explaining the position they had, which is normal for most of people in society. I can ask members of my family who are Roman Catholic specific questions about doctrine and they have no idea what I'm talking about. Yet some of them still gasp if they find out I ate meat on Good Friday.
Also, everyone does NOT believe one way, believe me. There are always minor differences in opinion even if they sit on the same side of the fence. If you and your neighbour vote Democrat doesn't mean that you both think a-like. Even HB disagree on a lot of things, CT's too.
If I believed the interviewer didn't know what he was talking about wouldn't necessary make the video meaningless. Haven't you even seen an interview where the interviewer is more clueless than the interviewee? What about if Rosie O'Donnell interviewed Phil Donahue? Would it be meaningless? No, not necessarily so.
Or Bill O'Reilly interviewing almost everybody.
I'll take a look at the video again and listen more intently this time.

[Bill Thompson]

admin said:

What about the people who say you're not allowed to criticize the President during a time of war? Or the people who still believe Iraq was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks even though there is no evidence that they were? Aren't they "following the herd" without giving it any thought?

Yes they are.

That would be another good example.

By the way, I personally don't know anyone who believes that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I am lucky, I guess.

I was not thinking of politics when I made this post, by the way.

[Ginnie]

I was not thinking of politics when I made this post, by the way.

Then what where you thinking of?
Bill, why are you always so cryptic?
It's always like you're half alluding to something that is unsaid, or hinting at something nudge nudge wink-wink style.
Can you spell out more clearly in your posts what your points are please.

[Ginnie]

Okay, I watched it again.
As i understand it , it was before the Second Gulf war?
Some of the editing was biased in favour of the interviewer - like when people gave answers to questions that weren't on the video, that made them look simple minded to some degree.
I did not understand the interviewer when he said:
"The horrible atrocities committed by the Americans in the wake of the first Gulf war"
Was he playing head games with the interviewee, or am I just not aware of the horrible atrocities committed by the Americans during the 1991 Gulf war. (can you tell me?)

One question was, "Why didn't we keep the oil fields after the original Gulf war".
Maybe the U.S. didn't want to wage a full scale war in Iraq at the time. And George Sr. was in office then, he might think a little bit different than his son. Plus you didn't have 9/11 yet, which made it easier for the U.S. to invade.
One good question though, that I can't answer adequately is : What alternative to the U.S. invading Iraq would have been an appropriate response to Saddam's regime?
That is perhaps the most difficult question of all.

[Bill Thompson]

LOL
I guess one cannot talk about psychology without sounding like "something nudge nudge wink-wink".
If you have walked in my shoes you would clearly see what I mean. I have been the reception of some brutal attacks just because I disagree with something only to later find out that the person doing the attacks didn't really have his facts straight.

I work with people who are really passionate about subjects but if you ask them to elaborate 50% of what they think is true. 50% is not exactly, precisely true. The untrue stuff is close, but it is either a fuzzy generalization that paints a false image or it is a rumor or myth that has been long debunked . But that does not matter because their emotion takes over and, franky, they just don't have the time to study it in depth.

As JFK once said "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic."

We are emotional, passionate creatures, we jump the gun too often. LO''s assumption that I was making a political statement is an example. His comments were true too. But, if you notice, it does not change the fact that THESE people in THIS video clearly had no idea if what they were protesting was right or wrong. They were just in the herd.

I mean, maybe there were other people there that could answer the guy's questions. But probably most could not.

I am sure it could works both ways on the other political side.

[Bill Thompson]

ginniegatrit said:

One good question though, that I can't answer adequately is : What alternative to the U.S. invading Iraq would have been an appropriate response to Saddam's regime?
That is perhaps the most difficult question of all.

And if you don't have an alternative solution, is protesting what is the best option giving all the facts, a sane thing to do?

It implies that the people who went to war actually like war. That does not make any sense.

Interesting how people decide things before they get the facts and then only listen to the facts that support what they decide.

This can be applied to science as well. When new data comes in, the opinion formed by that data has an uphill climb. Remember the surface of Venus and how it was determined that the entire surface was regenerated periodically. This slammed head first into accepted ideas of geology an even when presented with the data, scientists would not change their mind. I remember it took some very clever publications and analysis to convince people.

[Ginnie]

billthompson said:

ginniegatrit said:

One good question though, that I can't answer adequately is : What alternative to the U.S. invading Iraq would have been an appropriate response to Saddam's regime?
That is perhaps the most difficult question of all.

And if you don't have an alternative solution, is protesting what is the best option giving all the facts, a sane thing to do?

It implies that the people who went to war actually like war. That does not make any sense.

Interesting how people decide things before they get the facts and then only listen to the facts that support what they decide.

We don't know if invading Iraq was the best option.
And protesting it could have been a very sane thing to do. Their opinion is just different than yours, thats all. In hindsight, don't you wish they were successful in stopping the war?

It doesn't imply that the U.S. actually likes war. Their could be all kinds of reasons for invading Iraq, both real and imagined.
Interesting how Bush invaded Iraq before he got the facts, and how his only listened to the facts which supported what he decided.

[LunarOrbit]

billthompson said:

admin said:

What about the people who say you're not allowed to criticize the President during a time of war?
...
Aren't they "following the herd" without giving it any thought?

Yes they are.

That would be another good example.

Welcome to the herd.

Do you want to reconsider your stance on whether or not the Dixie Chicks should be allowed to criticize the President? Or is the "right to free speech" still a privilege that doesn't apply during wartime or when overseas?

billthompson said:

And as far as I know from my own experience, these women have done wrong.

Have you put your live on the line for freedom of speech? I have. It does not apply overseas. It is not a right it is a privilege. Freedom of speech is not free.

billthompson said:

So my dismay and disgust with The Dixie Chicks regardless of their legal rights or how you define their legal rights is firmly grounded. Free speech isn't free at all. Even if their words could be viewed as encouraging and supportive to an enemy in wartime, it is wrong.

[homobibiens]

admin said:

Welcome to the herd.

Thanks, Lunar Orbit.

I have to go find a towel to wipe off my screen now

[wdmundt]

Here are a few anti-war quotes worth reading:

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
Governor George W. Bush (R/TX) April 9, 1999

"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo."
Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

“For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce.”  Floor Statement opposing resolution commending America’s successful campaign in Kosovo.
Representative Tom Delay (R/TX) 7/1/99

"Well, I think we -- it's time to stop dancing around this issue, folks, to tell you the truth. It's time for somebody to tell the people on the left, you're damn right we're questioning your patriotism."
Rush Limbaugh, August 23, 2005

So Republicans who question war are good. Democrats who do the same are bad. Republicans do war right. Democrats do it wrong.

www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL2316200920070523

I wonder when President Bush will get his statue in Baghdad.

[Bill Thompson]

wdmundt,

LIke I said, I wonder what you would think of this video
www.gelsana.com/learn.html

The reality is that we were in a state of war with Iraq since the first gulf war. There were many UN Resolutions agreed to by Iraq and then violated. THere were the no-fly zones were US jets patrolled and were shot at on a weekly and (in some weeks) daily basis.

So if you or anyone else is "anti-war" then they should be thrilled at the idea of going in and ending a war.

"Give Peace a Chance" is great but we were giving peace a chance. You propose we were to give peace a chance to do what, exactly? Keep us in a state of war? This is really what these anti-war folks are saying. ANd all these articles by Fox, or Rush or whomever have short-term memory loss.

This is not an illogical assumption: Regardless of wmd's existing or not, Saddam's defiance can only mean that he wanted "piece" not "peace": A piece of Iran, a piece of Kwait, a piece of Saudi Arabia. And Saddam was just playing a waiting cat and mouse game with the UN resolution.

I cannot see how anyone who did not keep up with the history of what had gone on for all those years can successfully argue that what happened was not 100% unwarrented.

I have not read your links about Vietnam but I have read a book called "Vietnam war for Dummies" written by historians on both side. The most telling chapter is the misconceptions about the Vietnam war. I suggest to anyone to just go out and buy it.

I work with a lot of extreme, far left people. I am smart enough to keep my mouth shut. But, at the same time, I have to wonder if they even see how they really are. For them to honestly believe what they say, then the people they oppose are evil blood thursty sub-humans. WHich is more likely? THeir view of the world or is it more likely that they just might be a little mis informed and do not see the whole picture and maybe -- just maybe -- there are two sides to this coin and each has a valid point to make that the othe side is ignoring.

About L.O's comment that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. This is true. I do not know anyone personally who think it did.

Was there a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq. I have read books and articles on both side. THe answer is all in who you want to believe and how you define one meeting or another. Have you considered reading an alternative view or would you rather just brush it asside and thing it was written by some neocon. The easiest thing to do is to not even consider you might be wrong and stick to your guns. Or you could at least read:

The Connection

How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America

By Stephen F. Hayes of The Weekly Standard

ISBN 0-06-074673-4


You know, this web forum is called "apollohoax.net" and part of its existance is to try to debunk the people who think the Apollo missions were a hoax. So in order to do this we demand of people to put asside their firmly held beliefs and consider an alternative -- even if they do not want to -- because, frankly, I think a lot of people "want" to believe that we did not walk on the moon for political reasons. Some of the people, I find, have political and anit-american reasons for wanting to believe we did not walk on the moon.

We should not be hypocritical and not hold ourselves to the same sort of expectations we hold others up to.

The preface of the book I mention is here
people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/billthompson/4670/sort_A/Offset150
at the bottom page of my blog.

Finally, I would like to add that it was a Democrat who got the United States into Vietnam and the president who decided not to continue fighting was a Repulican. We would like to think one party is pro-war and another is not, but as Evan (who made that vie WHo is in office when something major happen).

LIke I said, I wonder what you would think of this video
www.gelsana.com/learn.html