Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
You might be right, but it's not really very productive to attack motives, first of all. Either it's a good idea or it isn't (I don't think it is) that we should be prioritizing these issues over refugees.
It's entirely possible that a person would reasonably take the position that, "look, until now (or maybe even now), I was opposed to spending a ~$700 million chunk of money helping disadvantaged people. However, if we ARE committed to spending that money, if I'm to treat it like a sunk cost anyway, here's how I think we should spend it".
Second, world events tend to get people thinking about a variety of issues. An attack on Paris gets people thinking about foreign policy all of a sudden. People suddenly care about a ton of different things following a mass shooting. "Maybe we'd be better off intervening in X place" is not suddenly a bad notion just because it was equally good or bad six months ago.
I just don't think suspecting peoples' motivations is relevant or useful, it's wasting mental energy on speculation and mind-reading, and undermines our ability to have a conversation about basically anything.
|
We will have to agree to disagree.
To my mind it creates a "haze" that detracts and makes it hard to focus on the topic.
Also, people are lazy, especially when social media is involved.
For example this:
Very few people decide to actually check to see if it is factual and just "push it along". By that point it is often too late.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/fact-...ners-1.2670735