the conflict for the world’s future is between empiricists and fantasists!

[Billo_Really]

We have a new war that is taking center stage above all other wars we've been fighting to date:

• the war on terror
• the war between Left vs Right
• the war between liberals and conservatives
• the war between dems and reps
• the war between East and West
• the war between Israeli's and Palestinian's

This war, will decide the future of the planet. And that is...

"The war between Reality and Fantasy" ​

("ie., a war between rationalists and fantasists.")​

It is a war between "those who are committed to reality and rationality and those who happily embrace propaganda as truth."

And this war crosses all other issues and forums and threads that are being debated at this website and throughout the world. From zionists claiming there's no such thing as Palestine, to the insistance of non-existant death panels, to the refusal global warming, to the belief the government wants peoples guns, to those questioning Obama's birth certificate, people are actively trying to replace reality with fantasy.

Whether that stems from a lack of education, or watching too much TV, or simply not having the balls to face reality on it's own terms, people are embracing this lunacy as their surrogate truth. Of coarse, people professing this dogma, don't call it "fantasy", they call it "perception management".

 

[dblack]

Let me guess - your convictions are based exclusively on reality, while all those fools who disagree with you are 'fantasists'.

 

[Billo_Really]

Let me guess - your convictions are based exclusively on reality, while all those fools who disagree with you are 'fantasists'.

First off, they're not "convictions", they're "conclusions". Convictions resist change, conclusions can be revised. My conclusions are based on "logical deductive reasoning" and analysis of relevant facts regarding an issue.

In contrast, people who embrace "fantasy", do their conclusion at the beginning, then go out to find the facts to back up that conviction. Kind of like when Bush decided he was going to attack Iraq and wanted to "fix the intel" around the policy.

Furthermore, I don't consider those who disagree with me, as "fools", as long as they have a valid argument. People who expect me to believe their claims, based on irrational evidence and illogical fallacy's, are "fools".

If you have a valid argument, I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong and changing my position on a particular issue. That's reality.

 

[MHunterB]

Let me guess - your convictions are based exclusively on reality, while all those fools who disagree with you are 'fantasists'.

Nail. Hammer. Hit.