Nicola Staff asked 5 years ago
This is quite true and is a quite dramatic example of the amount of consternation and furor generated when there is a strong opinion about something that becomes a major cause of a political contingent, and then an opposite political party will be seen to not hold those views at all and may become just as firmly entrenched in their thinking. And then the fur will fly, so to speak, and create a major distraction and inefficiency in the workings of things—whether contributing to government gridlock or lots of wasted effort and motion by support groups as well as expenditure of government funds and government resources being brought to bear on a fool’s errand in many cases.
There are many downsides to this mischief, all of which serves the cause of the Extraterrestrial Alliance in bogging things down and delaying progress of humanity. If people simply adopted this perspective as an open-ended question for any such controversy, they would come to see many, many contests of thinking and opinion being literally created as well as being fueled by sinister motives. It is not that the subject matter is without any potential merit, it is the way it comes to be seen as highly urgent by some and not at all by others that suggests there is something fishy going on.
In this example, the entire debate is pointless because there is not a climate change underway that humans can do anything about, in a practical sense, and this, too, is a perfect illustration of what conditions make this strategy guaranteed to work. If there were a genuine concern to begin with, it would be hard to convince people to turn a blind eye. It is when there is an exaggerated claim about a non-problem where propaganda can be used to change thinking and have people suspend logic and reason to embrace a false perspective that this is a perfect setup to get blood boiling and cause a ruckus.
Please login or Register to submit your answer
