i doubt it. unlike you, for me it isn't about loyalty. it's about policy. if a country appears to make policy mistakes, i comment on it. all countries make mistakes of policy. this is part of the human condition. read the story of adam and eve and you'll see that human imperfection has a long tradition.
if countries do things right, i may comment on that also. bush i did his gulf war pretty well in my view.
it's a feature of thinking about things in a granular fashion that you see imperfections. the best theories are those which survive criticism. the scientific method was the precursor to the enlightenment. you don't get a us constitution without the english civil war. you don't get a viable set of laws by writing them in stone. we seek improvement by recognising our mistakes and improving our actions the next time.
whereas basing your particular opinions upon your general sense of loyalty or antipathy is for partisans. it's football. it isn't the academy, or a parliament, or even the marketplace. it certainly isn't a conversation.
this is why you cannot support your idea about the us in russia. because there's no granularity to it. you believe it because you perceive it to be in the general interest of america. there's no depth or surrounding thought to your view. it's a supporter's chant.
the fact that your view may actually play into putin's hands is awkward. but unfortunately your process for taking a position doesn't help with arguing it. you are exposed to its weakness and know no way to defend it. because it is based on nothing but loyalty.
and so you depend upon saying the person who says something different must be diametrically opposed to your view. your perspective is based on loyalty. so there's must also. cue your paint pot which is necessary to your view of the world. for or against. the one or the other. always.
this is why you will be a wavoid if you change your mind about wave. you hate them because they are not where your loyalties lie. but if your loyalties change, you'll fit right in and will excoriate the non-believers.
that's not an insult. it's who you are. you're a partisan, who thinks in terms of loyalty. your arguments can only be based upon straw men because your process requires the person you argue with to be your mirror image.
so of course you cannot see that other people don't think like you. that loyalty isn't the foundation. for you, it's all about whose side you and they are on. everyone has to have sides. i get it. you are who you are. it doesn't make you a bad person. just one who sees the world in a particular way.
| 