[overflow] Re: your mail

["Filksinger" <filksinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Rob Wynne [mailto:doc@america.net]


> You're welcome to your opinion.  I disagree with it, and think that it's
> counterproductive towards fixing the problems we do have with government.
> But again, I'm not going to argue matters of faith, which this undeniably
> is.

On my part, I assume. Given the amount of research I spent on this one, I'd
disagree.

> Nothing I say will convince you that the abusers are the abberants, not
> the norm.  It isn't worth my time or yours.

If it is a matter of _my_ faith, I've given up a fair of those in my time,
due to rational discussions. And, for that matter, this is one such case, as
I started out to prove that politicians were _not_ corrupt, and was
convinced to the other position (that a majority, are at least somewhat
dishonest in their political dealings, and the environment tends to support
those best) by what I found.

I'm just mildly offended that, just by knowing what my opinion is, you think
you already know that I am operating on blind faith and not only not
reasoning on the issue, but am incapable of doing so. Your assumption that
it is a matter of faith on my part, and can't possibly be due to different
sources of information, or different interpretations of the evidence, or
even by different definitions of "corruption", is both insulting, and says a
lot about where _your_ blinders are. I've met quite a few people who, _in
the end_, I come to believe hold their opinions due strictly to faith and
not evidence or poor information, and I never _start_ with the assumption
that this is true. This has lead to many important changes in my beliefs
over the years, when the other person's arguments have revealed new truths
to me, as well as a number of stupid arguments.

I have, however, met many people who did start with that assumption about
their opponents, that their opponents were operating on blind faith and
incapable of changing their minds. These people were often on my side,
and/or, IMHO, often proven correct that the other person _was_ operating by
faith instead of reason and evidence.

But, in my experience, the people who started by assuming this about their
opponents were _more likely_ to be operating by blind faith than the people
they accused.

Filksinger