Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba
Perhaps. But you are trying to have it both ways. You want your views on the history of this country to be taken seriously but you are unwilling to support your positions when folks who have put in their time studying the subject disagree with you.
You say that you're willing to consider different perspectives, but when presented with those perspectives, you turn to disconnected attempts at snark and retreat into the realm of feigned disinterest and relativism.
In combination, these and other inconsistencies raise questions about your motivation.
|
The disconnect here is convergent vs. divergent thinking.
The limitations of this media exacerbate the problem.
I am not concerned with the end conclusions of various arguments and thoughts.
I am interested in the thoughts and arguments which might support a given conclusion, regardless of whether the conclusion is "correct".
Exploring those thoughts and arguments leads to new ideas, sometimes directly related to the original idea, sometimes not.
Making a beeline for the conclusion and deeming it "correct" or "incorrect" stifles the process.
Squaring the circle, doubling the cube, and trisecting an angle are impossible.
Exploring how you might attempt it, if it were possible, leads to new thoughts and ideas.
Concerning my motivations, consider where this thread has gone in the past day.
Consider the new thread Nmap spun off today.
New thoughts and ideas are being explored.
I'm happy with the results.
Your knowledge was most certainly earned.
If you don't want to share it, that is your right.
I'm not making a judgement on convergent thinking or saying it is "incorrect".
Just recognizing that convergent and divergent thinking don't always mesh well.