Dear Friends, I just watched FAUX News (I was really getting down and dirty) and saw Hannity debating the bona fides of global-warming campaigner Al Gore with a 'let's do something about global warming' supporter.
Hannity's specious argument went along the lines of: because Gore may have travelled in a private jet or he may have used too much electricity in his home, Gore is a hypocrite and therefore everything that Gore says about global warming should be ignored if not entirely rejected. In other words, a tiny blemish on the apple skin renders the whole apple inedible. How ridiculous!
I too have had many similar experiences to the poor man who was trying to support Gore. For example, when talking about the divisiveness of mainstream religions I have had people asking me to prove that there is no God or that there is no life after death or that humans don't have a soul. What one has to do with the other I don't know!
Though it hasn't happened yet, I'm sure someone is going to suggest that, before I can promote a World Utopian Movement, firstly I have to prove that the world exists (we humans could, after all, be like Donovan's Brain and exist only in bottles and merely imagine that we are living in a physical world). Then, if I can prove that, the next issue will be for me to accurately define what is meant by Utopia and prove whether it can exist or has ever existed. Then, after that, there will be a demand that I detail exactly what is meant by a Movement and whether there is such a thing or is it merely a chance meeting of minds that just happen to think along similar lines at a particular moment in time. I might not live long enough just to deal with these three issues let alone get on with trying to do something to lessen some of the major problems in our world.
I'm interested in trying to work out why humans, contrarily, love to obfuscate, love to try to make things as difficult as possible for others especially where change is being advocated. Is it an ego thing, a mischievous desire to prove how clever they think they are? Is it stubborn resistance to change, a rebellion against changing long held views? Is it a lack of any ability to think laterally or creatively or an attempt to try to restrict thought processes to narrowly defined, academic procedures? Or is it just pure bloodymindedness, a wish to hinder someone who may have something worthwhile to say or do?
Who would know? Obviously there are many more people who prefer to play with a dead bat than there are who try to play the game of life with flair, originality and generosity!