Well kids, it is official, I have been blocked by the email server at www.thetruth.com. All I did was ask a few simple questions, and they blocked me.
It was simple, I asked if their standpoint was that it was not my personal choice to begin smoking, and therefore I was not responsible for my own actions, and they blocked me. I felt this was a perfectly reasonable question... but then again, these groups have not been known for answering my questions...
I asked P.E.T.A. how many animals THEY have euthanized, they refused to answer me. They average about one to one and a half thousand a year, but they don't like to publicize that fact while they are trying to have animal shelters shut down (through protest, or force.) I am now blocked.
I asked the Rainforest Action Network group and Greenpeace what they made their signs out of in a photograph of them protesting a logging operation. I am now blocked.
These are just a few of the groups that have chosen to ignore the opposition, even when faced with the most basic of questions. This type of attitude does not build confidence in their motives.
So if they refuse to answer even the most simple of questions, how can we believe they are so right in what they are doing?
The basic idea here is that there seems to be something inherently wrong with the operation of these groups, if not their methodology all together. If it is true that these groups are so dedicated to a righteous cause, why would it not benefit them to answer the most basic of inquiries. So what do you folks think? Are these questions reasonable, or am I simply out of my mind for asking such absurd things of such righteous organizations?
This is a little out of context for me. Could you try rewriting this and making a little more sense.
I didn't know there was a context I was to stay withen, but sure, I will rewrite it.
What I meant, was it is a little confusing. Either you rewrote it already, or I was on mistaken, because it makes sense now that I read it again.
This is interesting and sad. You might consider writing an Op-Ed piece about this and sending it to your closest metropolitan newspaper, try the Austin paper first. Then perhaps NY Times.
Clearly, there is an effort by PAC's not to create an open environment for dialogue about issues, rather, it seems, and I've felt this myself, to convince the public that one-side is completely accurate, when in fact the picture is usually quite grey.
With many of these organizations, and to a large degree many periodicals, that are self-proclaimed "liberal", I've noticed a tendency to overstate their side of the arguement and grow deaf ears when their arguement is met with thoughtful questioning.
Then again, it also depends on how you word things in your questions. Somehow people have evolved to the point where, when they believe in something, they have this tendency, despite any evidence that points to an alternative interpretation or reality, to act defensively.
I also, think, you should send each of these organizations a letter and point out the inherent challenges in their actions, to growing a support base, when they have a tendency to cut off any criticism or questioning.
Perhaps you should write them first, to be fair, eventhought they weren't fair to you, act on your own ethical standards and be the bigger person here and explain to them your frustrations.
Tony, also, I think you ought to try and find a copy of this book Sarah recommended to me many moons ago. It is called Small is Beautiful:Economics as if People Mattered .
All I did was add the last paragraph.