"John assiduously studies the mainstream media, believing that he has become “informed” by the likes of the NYT, WaPo, NPR, BBC, MSNBC, etc. " ~ Howard Skillington
The solution is simple with those who claim to have an open mind. All you have to do is "plant a few seeds" that lead them to come to the realization that their sources of info…
"John assiduously studies the mainstream media, believing that he has become “informed” by the likes of the NYT, WaPo, NPR, BBC, MSNBC, etc. " ~ Howard Skillington
The solution is simple with those who claim to have an open mind. All you have to do is "plant a few seeds" that lead them to come to the realization that their sources of information are not providing them with an objective assessment, and therefore are not reliable sources for information.
For example:
Ask him if he is aware of the 2030 Agenda, and that under Joe Biden's leadership "The United States remains committed to accelerating development progress around the world and to fully implementing the ambitious, 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)". And if he is not knowledgeable about this, ask his why his news sources have not presented him with this information.
And in the case of Ukraine, try the following format:
As a person with an open mind, I am interested in viewing information which would counter that which I believe substantiates the claim that Putin/Russia did not start the conflict in Ukraine, but is merely representing the citizens of Russia.
This issue has the potential for WWIII. Are you aware of the Minsk agreements, and if not, are you interested in viewing, and countering, a perspective which I feel substantiates my belief?
If they respond in the affirmative, then provide them with a link to your source.
Jeffrey Sachs: The Untold History of the Cold War, CIA Coups Around the World, and COVID's Origin
If they are not interested in taking the time to review and refute your source of information, then surely they recognize that their incomplete perspective is meaningless, especially if it isn't subject to scrutiny.
"No poverty (SDG 1), Zero hunger (SDG 2), Good health and well-being (SDG 3), Quality education (SDG 4), Gender equality (SDG 5), Clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), Affordable and clean energy (SDG 7), Decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), Industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9), Reduced inequalities (SDG 10), Sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11), Responsible consumption and production (SDG 12), Climate action (SDG 13), Life below water (SDG 14), Life on land (SDG 15), Peace, justice, and strong institutions (SDG 16), and Partnerships for the goals (SDG 17)."
fairy stories. Goals are, about by definition - challenges, yet can be visualized as attainable with focused effort. All those listed, I'm sure many would agree with.
The amount of money, and the effort and focus necessary to even begin to implement any of it, tells me one thing for certain...
Never gonna happen. Too many fucking humans involved.
Your suggestions are generous and sound, but John and others know that they can evade both evidence and reason with a lazy declaration of "I don't believe it." If I had coercive power over them I could require that they read your suggested list, or my own, and confront them with a mountain of evidence and documentation, but I have no such control and, in the end, the friendship is a casualty.
Whether it be the president of the United States of America, members of his cabinet, your family, or your friends, if they are not interested in having a congenial discussion with you about anything, aren't they telling you that they don't respect your opinion, and ultimately that they don't respect you?
Given such circumstances, is it worth your time to invest in that relationship?
I say, toss the "seeds" out there, and if they take root, you can avail yourself if they ever come around.
As for a president, isn't a primary task of good leadership to stand for scrutiny and explain to the population that which you are doing and why you are doing it?
There is a stark difference between the current options, and if this represents the population at large, then it suggests that the current system is played out. But, why would anyone want a deceitful/incompetent administration to preside over the implementation of a new format for life?
"John assiduously studies the mainstream media, believing that he has become “informed” by the likes of the NYT, WaPo, NPR, BBC, MSNBC, etc. " ~ Howard Skillington
The solution is simple with those who claim to have an open mind. All you have to do is "plant a few seeds" that lead them to come to the realization that their sources of information are not providing them with an objective assessment, and therefore are not reliable sources for information.
For example:
Ask him if he is aware of the 2030 Agenda, and that under Joe Biden's leadership "The United States remains committed to accelerating development progress around the world and to fully implementing the ambitious, 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)". And if he is not knowledgeable about this, ask his why his news sources have not presented him with this information.
And in the case of Ukraine, try the following format:
As a person with an open mind, I am interested in viewing information which would counter that which I believe substantiates the claim that Putin/Russia did not start the conflict in Ukraine, but is merely representing the citizens of Russia.
This issue has the potential for WWIII. Are you aware of the Minsk agreements, and if not, are you interested in viewing, and countering, a perspective which I feel substantiates my belief?
If they respond in the affirmative, then provide them with a link to your source.
Jeffrey Sachs: The Untold History of the Cold War, CIA Coups Around the World, and COVID's Origin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS-3QssVPeg
Jeffrey Sachs the Reality of our Imperial Neocons
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/jeffrey-sachs-the-reality-of-our-imperial-neocons/
If they are not interested in taking the time to review and refute your source of information, then surely they recognize that their incomplete perspective is meaningless, especially if it isn't subject to scrutiny.
2030 is merely a set of goals, not nasty.
"No poverty (SDG 1), Zero hunger (SDG 2), Good health and well-being (SDG 3), Quality education (SDG 4), Gender equality (SDG 5), Clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), Affordable and clean energy (SDG 7), Decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), Industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9), Reduced inequalities (SDG 10), Sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11), Responsible consumption and production (SDG 12), Climate action (SDG 13), Life below water (SDG 14), Life on land (SDG 15), Peace, justice, and strong institutions (SDG 16), and Partnerships for the goals (SDG 17)."
There needs to be an international discussion about the 2030 Agenda.
The problem I have, is with the grifters associated with it's implementation.
fairy stories. Goals are, about by definition - challenges, yet can be visualized as attainable with focused effort. All those listed, I'm sure many would agree with.
The amount of money, and the effort and focus necessary to even begin to implement any of it, tells me one thing for certain...
Never gonna happen. Too many fucking humans involved.
Your suggestions are generous and sound, but John and others know that they can evade both evidence and reason with a lazy declaration of "I don't believe it." If I had coercive power over them I could require that they read your suggested list, or my own, and confront them with a mountain of evidence and documentation, but I have no such control and, in the end, the friendship is a casualty.
A relationship with a person with a closed mind is like trying to dance on the head of a pin. It's not worth it.
Whether it be the president of the United States of America, members of his cabinet, your family, or your friends, if they are not interested in having a congenial discussion with you about anything, aren't they telling you that they don't respect your opinion, and ultimately that they don't respect you?
Given such circumstances, is it worth your time to invest in that relationship?
I say, toss the "seeds" out there, and if they take root, you can avail yourself if they ever come around.
As for a president, isn't a primary task of good leadership to stand for scrutiny and explain to the population that which you are doing and why you are doing it?
There is a stark difference between the current options, and if this represents the population at large, then it suggests that the current system is played out. But, why would anyone want a deceitful/incompetent administration to preside over the implementation of a new format for life?
Well put, and I heartily concur. You evoke a better world than the one in which we live.