Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
strangely enough, much of the thread turned into a demonstration of this.
the reason i find it strange is that the thread is about this backfire phenomenon, so you'd think would be the last place we'd get to read a performance of exactly what the study is about particularly one that is framed as a refutation of the study's conclusions.
|
I am not sure who you think has been refuting the study's conclusions, but I (starting with my post #14) attempted to put the finding of the study in the context of my thought process. As illustrated in my post #67, no matter how clearly I present my thoughts relative to my emotional response to "facts", it fall on deaf ears. The key is in addressing the proper question. Until you do that, everything else is simply an exercise in futility. so, on the question of Saddam and Iraq, my guttural, feeling is he was a threat. Will is presenting his "factual" arguments saying he was not a threat. I tell him he is not responding to the correct question, and even if it is not rational to him, he tries to ignore the reality of what drives my decisions and my responses. On the other hand, I accept his point of view even though I think it is as irrational as he thinks my point of view is. I conclude I have a more empathetic and open point of view than he does, although liberals live with the pretense of the opposite.
---------- Post added at 01:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:34 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
I understand you wouldn't intentionally do so, but you're discounting other variables in your process.
|
I don't ignore them or unduly discount them, neither did Bush. Many things were attempted prior to military action. The risks of not acting were too high, the consequences of doing nothing were not reversible, not fixable.