Quote:
Originally posted by Pacifier
Yes, a human tend to belive what the masses are beliving, if the masses seem to like a statment (cheer at a speech!) more people will follow
...
People know and belive what the see in TV and they see pretty pictures.
|
I am not as pessimistic as you. A lot of my friends are pro-war, and they know that war is a nasty business. In fact, I'd say most of them are more educated on the subject than a lot of anti-war people. If my friends know this, I'd say there's a fair share of the population that knows it.
When I look back at the recent months, I see a lot of anti-war marches, and hardly any pro-war marches... if your statements are true, this would mean that there'd be a massive anti-war media campaign, instead of the pro-war campaign that you claim to have seen. The fact that there were this many marches against the war (even in the US!) would indicate to me, that a lot of people either know that war is bad (in spite of all the media influence) and are anti-war because of it, or... that a lot of anti-war people are sheep, mindlessly following the anti-war slogans of their leaders.
Now... where does this leave your claim that the pro-war media somehow influences the people into being pro-war? Or would that influence be selective? Are only stupid people pro-war, because they're easily influenced? (and as a consequence: are anti-war people somehow more intelligent, and in some way immune to media influence?)
Or could it be that the media influence isn't nearly as effective as you think it is; that most people are perfectly capable of recognizing bullshit when they see it; and that the pro-war masses are (in general) as knowledgable and educated as the anti-war masses?
Quote:
It was a honest "sure" not a ironical "sure..." 
|
Heh, I thought as much after posting it... wouldn't it look stupid if he actually meant that "sure"?
