Exalting Curiosity

That bags

I have read your first link and watched in it's entirety your second. It does take some time to view but worth while. Infact TerriBull I read your post and I thought you had watched it too. You will see what I mean if you eventually get around to viewing ..

I am sticking with the two links you provided and keeping my comment relative to your OP. I take your point 100% and I don't think there has been a thread/links that actually summed up so much of what I feel about the 'many' various subjects both links raise. This will be yet another thread that will undoubtedly see a division but I am so glad I took the time to view both of your links.

I especially thought the words of Dave Rubin prior to the interview with Tommy Robinson quite possibly summed up every thought , belief I hold and have tried to say in my posts over the years but failed miserably to get over at times. I listened intently and could not find any untruths in what was written nor said to be honest . It is certainly an interview you have to watch without any prejudice and an open mind.

I have a sneaking suspicion the points raised in both links will be challenged in a fashion that was spoken of in your links and if that does happen, depends who has the time to watch your 2nd link in it's entirety, I will sit back and see the irony of it all.

I hadn't listened to the Dave Rubin link when I made my post, I have now, be warned it's long I got through a whole big pile of outstanding ironing at the same time. Tommy Robinson was someone who I dismissed as a bigot, I didn't know too much about him other than he was involved in with the EDL, but much of what he said was in line with my post which is no doubt why POGS thought I had heard the interview.

I think however he deserves a platform on this and I am very much at one with you POGS and the thrust of the Tommy Robinson interview in that he is of the opinion that we have a consensus these days, largely by the left, look what's happening in our universities, of shutting down debate. I wonder sometimes whether those who cannot discuss issues like the more extreme aspects of Islam would be happier living in a totalitarian society.

Terribull I agree there's attempts to shut down the debate, but don't understand why you think this is mainly down to the left. It's not that long ago when Jeremy Corbyn was being slated for some of the extremists he invited to debate difficult issues. I don't see it as being predominantly left or right wing driven. Not at all.
I'm going out now and will watch the rest of the Rubin/Robinson interview later.

WilmaknicKersFit. "don't understand why you think this is mainly down to the left"
Because it's mainly the left who make excuses for these peoples behaviour.

Now that's a sweeping statement if I've ever heard one. Care to give examples?

To go right back to the op and "Exalting Curiosity", it rather reminds me of fire.
Great to a certain extent, it gives you warmth. But too close and too often, and a person can get burnt.

You can get tarred by the same brush as those you continually meet with.

I'm reading the comments since I went offline this morning bit by bit.

I've got to the comment by terribull about it only being 6% of priests who are child abusers. ONLY!? I'd be very surprised to discover that the percentage of child abusers in the general population was anything like that high. I think 6% is shocking.

WilmaknicKersFit. I assume that question was to me?
Off the top of my head, Rochdale council is a prime example.

obie, your post at 11:27:39. I agree about what you mean by natural. Thanks for the further explanation. But my view, as perhaps that of Harry Dreyfus, is that there is all the more reason to educate people about what they are doing and explain why it is wrong to jump to conclusions about someone based on a bit of circumstantial evidence and nothing else. It's about justice in the end. We humans might even improve if we pay attention to such 'education', just as we have improved our ideas in other areas where, previously, the "it's only natural" card was played.

I'm seeing comments saying that Cruz is "Trump lite". Yes. We know that. Dreyfus the dad and Dreyfus the son know that. That's not the point. Just listening to someone is not evidence that you belong to the same gang or clique or political persuasion.

Literal "tarring and feathering" is barbaric. So is virtual tarring and feathering. It is driven by gang or tribe mentality. It is lite on actual thinking. And it is thoroughly and unjustifiably judgmental. Bugger natural. The more we argue against such tribalism the less it will be regarded as something we just have to put up with on the grounds that it's 'natural'.

Mob lynching is 'natural'. It is also intolerable in a civilised society.

If you don't listen with at least half an ear, you won't know what to say against them if someone else seems to be impressed by them. Listen with a sceptical mind and an unconvinced expression.

bags I made the comment about Cruz being Trump Lite in response to jing saying she didn't know much about Cruz.

petra yes, my comment was directed to you. Rochdale Council was clearly at fault, but the police and Crown Prosecution Service were also heavily criticised. I'm not as sure as you that this indicates a left wing bias and still don't think this is about left or right wing.

I didn't notice who said it or why, wilmak . Mine was a general comment aimed at anyone reading the thread.

obieone My parents went to a Nazi rally where Adolf Hitler spoke at length shortly before the outbreak of war when they were holidaying in various European countries, including Germany, Austria and Hungary. In my mother's diary she recorded that she found the event surprisingly exciting at the time but the following day was unable to recall much of what had been said. Both my parents were curious and interested in finding about the political upheavals of the time but neither of them was a Nazi sympathiser.

With hindsight one wonders what on earth possessed them to tour Europe at such a time.

I think there's a difference between reading articles/listening to the views of a person on whom you either have not formed an opinion or whose views you generally disagree with, and actually attending a political rally.

The fact that Richard Dreyfuss went to a Ted Cruz rally may simply illustrate an interest in seeing how all the political candidates campaign. If that were the case, then presumably he has attended rallies for other candidates. Generally, though, I think it would be unusual for a person to attend a rally for someone who they do not support or envisage supporting. He is, of course, perfectly entitled to support whoever he wants - but it would be a little dishonest to deny his support if that were the case.

Most people attend rallies because they support, or are minded to support, the person who is speaking. They have usually reached a fairly favourable opinion as to his or her policies by that time. A rally doesn't really provide a great deal of information - its primary purpose is to forge a sense of unity amongst supporters/potential supporters - along with attracting media coverage. A better way to assess whether you agree with someone's views and proposals is to see them being questioned by or debating with someone actively opposed to what they stand for.

From what I have read and heard, there are many US commentators who don't believe Cruz is "Trump lite". The fact that he appears more controlled and conventional in appearance than Trump does not discount the fact that his beliefs aren't so different from Trump's:

He is an evangelist who does not believe in evolution;
He does not believe in the constitutional separation between church and state;
He has very strong support from the National Rifle Association in recognition of his absolute opposition to gun controls;
He wants to get rid of same sex marriage;
He opposes abortion and the funding of Planned Parenthood;
He favours the death penalty;
He backs confrontational foreign policy;
He continues to strongly oppose Obamacare and has vowed to get it repealed;
He wants to abolish the Internal Revenue Tax Service

This is what Harry Dreyfus says about the tendency to judge from appearances: "It is not shocking that people mistake curiosity with support, but it is pathetic and it is tragic."

I doubt he'd have been so emphatic in his defence of his father's curiosity if he thought his father actually supported Cruz's try for the presidency.

I find it hard to actually listen to people spouting ideas I find abhorrent but I often read around such ideas, just to make sure I understand them and, should I wish to argue against them, that I can do so. Harry Dreyfus said that too.

That's what Eloethan said, isn't it?
Richard Dreyfuss could have read around the ideas to argue with them; attending a rally is different.
I do not understand why Harry used the word tragic. It's not tragic. Has his dad justified his appearance at the rally?

Yes, his dad has. It's in the article.

My interpretation of what eloethan said was not the same as that, dj. I'll go and read her post again.

I think I understand you now. No, I don't think I said the same as what eloethan said. Not quite. There was a subtle difference and I was careful not to use the "putting words in mouths" device which I think is what this sentence is doing: He is, of course, perfectly entitled to support whoever he wants - but it would be a little dishonest to deny his support if that were the case since there is no mention of his denying anything.

Harry Dreyfuss said of his father "When asked if his being there suggested he supported Cruz, he responded, “It suggests that I’m interested in what he has to say… It’s the politics of my country, so I’m interested.”

That is what I would call a "politician's answer". As I said, I wonder if, in the interests of acquainting himself more fully with the politics of his country, he has attended rallies held by other candidates representing different parts of the political spectrum.

As I said, I believe the best way to find out whether a candidate can support his views and back up his proposals is to see how he/she responds to the challenge of a debate or a rigorous interview. A rally, where the candidate is surrounded by cheering supporters who do not pose awkward questions, doesn't strike me as the best way to find out whether a candidate's political opinions are honestly held, desirable or achievable.

So his dad did not say whether he supported him or not.
And the son calling people who criticised his dad mouth-breathers and The Dumb is not going to sway them.

What you seem to be saying eloethan is that if someone doesn't do the same as you (which is more or less my approach too, listening to or reading proper debates) then you don't take them at face value; you make judgments about them instead of staying open-minded until you know more certain facts about them.

Going to political rallies is not a wrong way of finding out about politics and since we don't know whether Dreyfus Snr goes to the rallies of other politicans, I don't think we can judge him. I think that's the only real difference between your assessment and mine; you seem to think you can judge someone on an amount of information that I don't find sufficient. For all we know Dreyfus Snr might be sitting on the fence between Republicans and Democrats

dj, I agree that using terms like "mouth breather" and "dumb" could well sway a person's viewpoint. However, I don't think those terms are regarded as quite as strong in the US as they are here.

For me the article is a lesson in being non-judgmental and not engaging in stereotyping when one only has minimal information.

I guess my approach is rather mathematical in the same way that this anecdote is: when a person on a train passes a field containing a sheep that looks black, they'll say "I can see a black sheep". A mathematician will say "I can see one side of a black sheep".