EricHiggin said:
It started off with a Rep member not taking the Barr thing seriously. That led to the Dems 'rubber' chicken nonsense. The KFC reminded me of Trump. Plus I've learned over the years that people who may be in a box, are hard to explain to, whats outside the box, by only using whats inside the box. Trying to merge them tends to be the best approach, but doesn't always work, and sometimes I can flat out go overboard. What I've also learned is that understanding things isn't as simple as just being young and stupid and not getting it. Aside from the brightest of minds, most people require building blocks to get out of the box and understand more complex concepts. If you're never given or exposed to those blocks, you will have a hard time moving forward. While I don't try to 'teach' because I'm certainly no guru, I do expose others to my way of thinking indirectly, assuming they may catch on, just like how I pay attention to them and try to learn from where they're coming from. That doesn't mean I want people to think and be like me, but the more building block understanding people have of each other and life overall in general, the better and more meaningful the conversations should be going forward. I find the simple 'my sources said this, and your sources said that', arguments to be boring and useless for the most part. If you can't go beyond that and dig deeper, it's something you should look into, if you really care that is. Just think about what the deeper understanding of science has done for the world for example. I don't mean "you" specifically either btw, just people in general. |
Unfortunately, the strategy of incorporating things from "outside of the box" often serves as more of a smokescreen than an illumination, because what it does is shift the focus. By bringing up criticisms of Trump's eating habits, you basically just erased the conversation that was being had and replaced your own, which was based upon a foundation that (I believe) most liberals would agree isn't particularly worth mentioning. Yes, there have been a couple of sensationalist articles about Trump's eating habits, but this does not in any way influence any of the very real and substantive criticisms of Trump. Moreso, that doesn't directly apply to the situation which was being discussed as the chicken was not being used in reference to its health or anyone's eating habits.
You have to be very careful when drawing connections, because a poor connection will muddy the water and make any progress impossible by weighing the conversation down with irrelevant asides.
Personally, I don't think the conversation that was being had was worthy of much more conversation so this is more of a theoretical critique than a functional one, but I don't think that makes it less relevant. At the end of the day, the testimony that Barr did provide is far more worthy of discussion than the testimony he did not provide.
