RE: [pf] 50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods

by David A

20 December 2000 12:46 UTC

Priscilla,

In person we have the option of extended dialogue. But in a situation 
where we're trying to determine the truth of things, we don't have that 
option -- we have to make decisions about who we consider credible.

Do you read the National Enquirer and ask yourself after every article, 
I wonder where this author is coming from? I wonder what's in me that 
causes me to so quickly dismiss that President Clinton actually met with 
an alien from Mars while at Camp David?

And if not, why not?

David

prichter1@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 12/19/00 11:14:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
> davidnh@visto.com writes:
> 
> > If someone came to you and said something about a subject you know a lot 
> > 
> >  about, say, religion, and said something you knew to be incorrect, 
> >  wouldn't you begin to question her credibility? Wouldn't you examine her 
> >  
> >  next statement with just a little more skepticism? And if she then went 
> >  on and made two more statements you knew to be incorrect, wouldn't you 
> >  be even more skeptical of her fourth statement?
> >  
> 
> David,
> 
> My style would be to engage in dialogue. Where is she coming from? 
> What's 
> going on in her life right now?  How is she a human being in relation to 
> me 
> as a human being? No, I would not automatically escalate my skepticism.  
> I 
> would do some digging to see what was behind where she was coming from.  
> And 
> what is causing me to disagree with her?  What are my blind spots?    I 
> also 
> tend to use intuition with  regard to how I perceive things. That is 
> probably 
> a major difference between your approach and mine. I'm not saying this 
> is 
> good or bad -- it just is.  
> 
> This is why I'm trying to engage you in dialogue rather than dismissing 
> you 
> outright.
> 
> Blessings, Priscilla