It has come to my attention that a lot of people assume that everyone who gets something wrong got it deliberately wrong for an agenda. If Alice says that 95% of domestic violence is committed by men against women, she's obviously actively trying to smear men. If Bob says that women have less muscular endurance than men, then he's a raging misogynist. If Richard is an antitheist and John Paul is a fundamentalist, then Richard obviously hates God, and John Paul obviously hates science. It's not possible that any of them are simply MISTAKEN. They must all, according to some, have some sort of agenda.
Maybe Alice is citing a study that is from a different culture
, a different era
, or that has a small or selective sample that's not representative of the general population.
Maybe Bob has simply confused the terms
"muscular strength" and "muscular endurance," or never learned the difference between the two.
Maybe Richard really believes that God doesn't exist, and that religion causes more harm than good, and maybe John Paul really believes there is credible evidence against the theory of evolution or for young earth creationism.
Now, that said, when someone won't change their views even when presented with evidence, they probably have an agenda. But someone who you haven't presented with evidence against their views yet may simply be mistaken, and it's better to give them the benefit of the doubt and present them with evidence, than it is to automatically label them and their views, thereby putting them off and making them less receptive to any evidence you may present them with later.
edited 4th Nov '11 12:32:31 PM by LeighSabio
"All pain is a punishment, and every punishment is inflicted for love as much as for justice." — Joseph De Maistre.