How would you know if it were wrong if you weren’t watching? I was not asking your moral evaluation of what te link suggests is happening? I am asking why it is happening to you? Are you by watching creating the disgust that you feel. Ate you not being sucked in as a participant? Did you consider what the link is suggesting, that Trumps wins because you can’t help but watch? Watching becomes an addiction you crave that derives a satisfaction with what is seen and a desire for more all disguised by supposed disgust? Is that you? If so what do you do? You have in my opinion already once deflected the real issue.
Or put in any effort to find out anyway it seems.
Greenman lives in a nice small southern rural town built by the ingenuity and hard work of like minded conservatives. Why should he get himself all riled up over fancy things like extrajudicial murder committed by the leader of the free world?
Did you read the link? On Fox News there were lamentations the executed didn’t suffer enough. Even indifference would be better than that, no?
Yes, I live in a lovely small city in the South (I assume 18,000 is a city and not a town), what does that have to do with anything? Since I live on a fixed income I don't pay for subscriptions to random news outlets just to read a single story.
I’m not sure that not giving a shit and deliberately staying ignorant that our government is committing despicable crimes is materially better than cheering it on.
I understand that sentiment. What would make the distinction confusing to me would be the underlying assumption that all indifference is willful. I once told you I didn’t care what you thought. You took that statement to task, I think in a negative way, and at least a dialog ender forcing me to explain a viewpoint that requires the same kind of unconscious assumptions you continue to make here. You reason for your confusion is invisible because the assumptions they rest on are true to you only so long as they are unconscious and unexamined. I speak a different language than you do but I use the same words.
There is no underlying assumption that all indifference is willful. Greenman's indifference is willful. The evidence is overwhelmingly in support of this conclusion. I mean, he entered this thread for the sole purpose of stating that he would not be participating because he wouldn't read your link. Amused posted the archive link to the article. You don't expect Greenman to participate now, do you?
I am skeptical. I suspect that Greenman has no choice but to express indifference because he regards your idea of caring to be insane. His moral values preclude willfully being insane as he sees you doing. For some people the intention to act morally isn’t insane, it’s who they are, it’s how they behave, it’s natural and autonomic. So prove to me he willfully chooses to be indifferent. Aren’t you just choosing to be indifferent to the difference? If you can’t prove beyond any logical doubt that Greenman’s behavior is an opinion he chooses to exercise then I will have to assume your belief was in fact an unexamined assumption, subjective and without any objective certainty at all.
Your skepticism is irrelevant. I never said all indifference is willful. I don't believe all indifference is willful. You made that up out of whole cloth. I said Greenman's ignorance is willful. His indifference is also willful. My evidence is this thread where he replied to say he would neither know the question nor the answer, thus remaining ignorant of and indifferent to the subject of the thread. He could have not replied which would have left the matter unclear, but he made it clear by replying. My additional evidence is the rest of his posting history.
You failed to prove that Greennaan’s ignorance is willful or even that it is ignorance. You did not prove to me that he said what he said because he had no choice. Prove to me that Greenman is consciously aware of what he is doing. His saying that he is would prove nothing. You are still confused by the unexamined assumptions upon which you build your case. Ask yourself if you want to win this debate?
May I suggest that one thing we might consider trying to understand is how people become like you describe. Your description is accurate in my opinion.
This is incorrect. I entered the thread to see what Moonie had to say, saw that I had to pay to read the article and noted that was my reason for not responding. A free link has since been posted, and I may or may not get around to reading it. My participation is voluntary, how you feel about that never enters the equation.
Well, this is certainly one of the more adolescent demands you've made. You demand proof for something for which you could never provide proof yourself, and add the additional condition that the subject's own words would not constitute proof if they disagreed with your conclusions. Brilliant gambit. Your fortress of Heads-I-Win-Tails-You-Lose is unassailable.
The free link was always available to you, you chose not to find it and declared you would not be responding because you would remain ignorant of the subject when you had the option not to. I never said your participation was mandatory, no idea where you got that from.
