Quote:
Originally posted by nostatic
Did I say I was enlightened? Nope. I'm pretty flawed. But at least I can admit it.
I said "imho". Not the truth, but the way I see it. And I call it like I see it. It is pretty obvious to me who thinks what around here, and what their background is, and what their biases are. I'm unenlightened in a number of areas but I'm working on it. I don't automatically assume variance=unelightened. But in this case I do. Sorry, but I think I have an understanding of the dynamics, and some here either choose to ignore them, or don't have exerperience with them or refuse to open themselves to the possibility.
Some people insist on having a very digital view of this, and insist on equivalence. For them to continue to do so even when people directly affected by this debate say otherwise is pretty telling. But ymmv.
Call me what you want. And I'll bow out because if you don't get it or don't want to get it then you won't. You can call it hubris. I call it reality. My reality. And you don't have to live in it. Just like I don't have to live in yours. But sadly I think that one of our realities perpetuates the problem and the other tries to understand it. Of course we disagree on which one's which 
|
I have found over the years there is little solice in pointing fingers. So I don't...no one, least of all me, called you a thing.
I was raised in an family that tried to see people as they are, regardless of color, you either get that or not. We are endeavoring to raise our children in the same manner.
My post had nothing to do with Richards, rather your innate inability to see the grey areas you so cherish in the thoughts of those who dissagree with you.
YMMV as well.