In some discussions, some people: 1) choose to slag the people off , personal attack 2) Negate and trash anything , any point that is in disagreement with them but will just support and agree to the point of blind acceptance any idea that was purported and expounded the way they prefer to perceive, even though not everything that has been laid out is all correct and factual. Selective agreement 3) do not read the whole article/report etc and jumping the gun as they please 4) choose not to break each issue down and rationalize it 5) Nitpick every single detail 6) Negate anything that is not their political party/organization/etc statement To me , one should discuss any point with sound mind and criticize it based on what was written and not resort to name calling or undermining the person who shares such information heartlessly. However, if the informer has been disputed many times, with doubtful reputations, then yes he will not be credible to even disseminate anything. Be rational and have some sense of humour. Live and learn :)
Posted on: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 06:03:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015