> Larry King bumps military mom from show- Are the "news" networks afraid of the truth?
3 February 2005, 19:57
Thank you for replying. Yes, basically, that is what I would like to explore and document [that Ms. Sheehan’s attitudes would be different, save for her loss.] And you are correct in that truth is lacking severly.
A point to explore is the Engineers for Social Thought (tm) have exploited to the advantage of war, namely, the intrinsic within each of us that is fear and dislike for other peoples unlike us.
A great many of us are not aware of other cultures and peoples. Especially, in the context of their nation or aboriginal community. Our measurement of those peoples’ systems is based more of then not on the News [when topical] or the ethnic neighbourhood resturant or enclave. This fear and ignorance easily leads us to the point of hate and war when it is framed for aggression.
In the lead up to and including the conflict, there have been many way-points where falsehoods by the Engineers of Social Thought (tm) have been used to conduct or to facilitate the destruction or Iraq and promote the conflict.
During the time a falsehood is topical there appears to be no amount of logic and reason that can be mustered to counter the falsehood. This unreasonable emotional binding to the falsehood and total suspension of thinking logically is, I believe, part of that "hate and fear" we have of peoples who are not us.
Then there appears to be both a residual effect as well as a slow melding of this falsehood into other, similar, functionalities.
Case in point, those mobile biological units. At the time, some newspapers carried pictures of some semi-tractor trailers in the desert and labelled them as such. Looking at the pictures, it seems all to obvious that they cannot possibly be used as mobile labs. The tractor trailor appears to be made of metal frame and there is a tarp thrown over the entire affair.
At the time, I did a small study and found that the subjects of the study when viewing the picture saw something entirely different than a dilapilated semi-trailor with a filmsy tarp cover. There was no argument that could have been presented to counter this. I will agree that the study was limited both by funding and time. The data set was 689 peoples and on average the interview took 10 minutes.
When it was pointed out that desert temperatures and airobrne sand are not condusive to such experienents; that a tarp covering would not provide the protection for the scientiest to do his work nor to the expriment. This was simply dismissed generally without a response from the subject.
In a recent follow up study with a differnt set of subjects, when the same picture/text data was presented; the subjects, yet showed a strong affinity with the original falsehood. Dismissing the counter arguments with, "well, that’s how they do it over there".
There is still a lot of cheeleaders in the American public for this war, mind you.
This ignorance of science and other peoples’ cultures coupled with the lack of self-reflection in us and a certain messianic outlook, I believe, leads us to aggression.
The death of her son, I believe, brought Ms. Sheenan to that point of self-reflection and discovery. Albeit, not necessarily to reason. If this were the case, we would not be in Iraq today.
I cannot even imagine what a mother would feel at a loss of her child. And it is unreasonable to think that we should go through such a thing to have war brought into focus.
So, my initial assertion, that Ms. Sheenan, due to her "fear and hate" of tribes unlike her’s caused her to be pro-war. Only, at her personal severe loss did she commit to looking at some of the falsehoods as falsehoods.
Many thanks again for your reply. Please, contribute more.
Thank you for replying. Yes, basically, that is what I would like to explore and document [that Ms. Sheehan’s attitudes would be different, save for her loss.] And you are correct in that truth is lacking severly.
A point to explore is the Engineers for Social Thought (tm) have exploited to the advantage of war, namely, the intrinsic within each of us that is fear and dislike for other peoples unlike us.
A great many of us are not aware of other cultures and peoples. Especially, in the context of their nation or aboriginal community. Our measurement of those peoples’ systems is based more of then not on the News [when topical] or the ethnic neighbourhood resturant or enclave. This fear and ignorance easily leads us to the point of hate and war when it is framed for aggression.
In the lead up to and including the conflict, there have been many way-points where falsehoods by the Engineers of Social Thought (tm) have been used to conduct or to facilitate the destruction or Iraq and promote the conflict.
During the time a falsehood is topical there appears to be no amount of logic and reason that can be mustered to counter the falsehood. This unreasonable emotional binding to the falsehood and total suspension of thinking logically is, I believe, part of that "hate and fear" we have of peoples who are not us.
Then there appears to be both a residual effect as well as a slow melding of this falsehood into other, similar, functionalities.
Case in point, those mobile biological units. At the time, some newspapers carried pictures of some semi-tractor trailers in the desert and labelled them as such. Looking at the pictures, it seems all to obvious that they cannot possibly be used as mobile labs. The tractor trailor appears to be made of metal frame and there is a tarp thrown over the entire affair.
At the time, I did a small study and found that the subjects of the study when viewing the picture saw something entirely different than a dilapilated semi-trailor with a filmsy tarp cover. There was no argument that could have been presented to counter this. I will agree that the study was limited both by funding and time. The data set was 689 peoples and on average the interview took 10 minutes.
When it was pointed out that desert temperatures and airobrne sand are not condusive to such experienents; that a tarp covering would not provide the protection for the scientiest to do his work nor to the expriment. This was simply dismissed generally without a response from the subject.
In a recent follow up study with a differnt set of subjects, when the same picture/text data was presented; the subjects, yet showed a strong affinity with the original falsehood. Dismissing the counter arguments with, "well, that’s how they do it over there".
There is still a lot of cheeleaders in the American public for this war, mind you.
This ignorance of science and other peoples’ cultures coupled with the lack of self-reflection in us and a certain messianic outlook, I believe, leads us to aggression.
The death of her son, I believe, brought Ms. Sheenan to that point of self-reflection and discovery. Albeit, not necessarily to reason. If this were the case, we would not be in Iraq today.
I cannot even imagine what a mother would feel at a loss of her child. And it is unreasonable to think that we should go through such a thing to have war brought into focus.
So, my initial assertion, that Ms. Sheenan, due to her "fear and hate" of tribes unlike her’s caused her to be pro-war. Only, at her personal severe loss did she commit to looking at some of the falsehoods as falsehoods.
Many thanks again for your reply. Please, contribute more.