People place too much confidence in their ability to determine people’s motivations, beliefs, and thoughts. They may be accurate for some people, but that does not extend to the majority of either faction.
It is especially inaccurate for people who cannot make accurate predictions about the present or future, to then use that inaccurate personal judgment to decide what a bunch of people they have never met, feels, thinks, and knows.
It’s not something they can know. All they know is the people they’ve interviewed and interrogated, which isn’t even a good sized sample.
[This is a reference to the subject of whether Democrats are guilt or not, and whether they are ignorant or not, and whether they harbor malicious intentions or whether Hussein is just incompetent. The entire manifold complex]
A profiler or interrogator that tries to take random samplings of what people say and then use that as a way to judge the expressions, lies, and emotional reactions of the subject in front of them, isn’t conducting any kind of professional operation.
It may be a scientific study, but the results will be less practical and far too abstract to be of immediate use.
Of course the reverse may also be true, where anyone who interviews a single family member then somehow thinks they have the Skeleton key to unlock the psychological secrets of everybody else on this planet.
In the end, the proof is in the prediction and the percentage of accuracy. I told people that the Left obeys authority and that all of them would have little trouble obeying the Death Squads or giving those extermination groups the locations of American patriots. GB talked about people being innocent because they are ignorant. As the US authorities care about ignorance as being a defense in crimes. But even if they do, it doesn’t change the highly inaccurate portrayals and theories presented by the “we know they are ignorant of this” line of theorizing.
Are we supposed to take their words at face value? So when Islamic Jihad says Islam is peace and that they are peaceful, we take at face value their “good intentions”. Of what purpose or benefit does that serve?
If the Left and Islam says they will kill you and then they actually go out and kill someone, that has weight to it. But the mere words people espouse about their own intentions have little weight to them in and of itself.
When the Left shows by their words and actions that they are innocent, does that mean they won’t ever push the security button to let the death squads in the door? What matters are their actions, not the words they use to cover up their intentions. Nor does it matter what their intentions are, what matters is what they actually do and how their behavior fits into the predictive models. A model using good intentions and the previous words of people to gauge their danger levels is not going to be able to handle things. Humans are fickle, they can decide at any time to obey evil, and they already have.
In the past it was difficult to obtain relevant examples of people obeying death squads or providing information detrimental to American patriots. The IRS changed that. The Texas shootings changed that. But even then, there were plenty of examples before then. They just weren’t relevant to the people who obtained the “good intentions” of the Left from their friendly neighborhood association of families. They just weren’t relevant to the people who obtained their good impression of homos and Islamos from their friendly neighborhood proto Gaystapo and Islamic Muslim “free speech” good intentioned “Americans”.
Since a good intentioned Muslim can obey the evil of Islam at any moment, what does it matter whether GB says their intentions are good or not? What does it matter if the Left says their intentions are good or not? It doesn’t even matter what their intentions are.
Homos had good intentions? Maybe. Until the Gaystapo told them to find the heretics and make them pay. Then those good intentions kind of evaporated. Funny enough that’s the reality people don’t want to deal with. They keep making excuses that they couldn’t predict it ahead of time. Obviously you can’t predict anything by relying on people’s proclaimed good intent.
That’s what happens when people place an overly high importance on reading intentions. Being right doesn’t mean they can deal with what people do.
Public officials and individuals like Clinton are much easier to read. Their profiling is much more useful and calculating the intent or not of Hussein may or may not be useful. But I avoid the claim that Hussein had good or bad intentions. Evil isn’t about intent. Whether Hussein destroys the US or not, is an element of fate, it is not an element of what people intend to do. But if it helps people understand that someone is evil by convincing them that they intended it, there is plenty of evidence to support that as well if needed. But the proof of evil does not require intent. Obedience to evil does not require bad or good intentions.
A so called American can claim to be for free speech and still be against Palin and Geller. Hypocrisy is not the point in this context, the point is that their actions matter more than what they say.
If the predicton is correct that Leftists obey evil, then until someone with “good intentions” refuses to obey the Left, what does it matter what people think that intention is? Once they refuse to obey the Left, they stop being a Leftist. Of course there are people who fall from the Circle and try to get back in, I’m sure their good intentions will not save them from the fire or from the guilt. Getting back into the den of evil after they threw a person out, is that person good or bad? Good intentioned or bad intentioned? I’m not sure it matters and in fact there’s a lot of arguments I use to demonstrate that it matters not.
When humans are under Authority, what they will do is based on the orders they get from that Authority. There’s no such thing as free will there in the enemy. That’s not what we are dealing with here. If they are told to give up the locations of Tea Party patriots to the death squads, the Left will. And it does not matter whether people like to differentiate them into “innocent” ignorant savages with good intentions or whether they want to differentiate them into the elite priest leadership cadre of the Clintons and Messiah Husseins. One may give the orders and the other obeys, but both are guilty. Merely because one party has more guilt, does not exonerate the other parties involved.