There are always two sides to every story. Of course, some sides are more understandable than others. But in the heat of battle, understanding usually takes a back seat to the effort to win the fight. It’s of little value to win without knowing what you’ve actually won. If the other side leaves in a fit of anger without an understanding of the issue at hand, the purpose of the fight is moot. It’s just become a battle of wills rather than a wrestling over ideas.
The problems with seeing someone else’s side are inherent: we see our side clear as day but, as hard as we may try, their side remains somewhat murky. In fact, it’s so much so that we wonder, how can they not see things as I do? We quickly conclude that it must be due to some lack of intelligence. It’s easy to dismiss the other side if you can just label them as intellectual inferiors. But knowing the variety of viewpoints that occupy the kaleidoscope of ideas which represent the human race, it’s apparent that those possessing high degrees of intelligence occupy virtually every camp. What can easily be labeled as wrong thinking is sometimes correctly diagnosed as merely a wrong approach. Some might say, well, that’s the same thing. To which, I agree it can be. To make the distinction, one can easily be accused of splitting hairs. But the distinction is valuable in that it places the other side on the same level, so that you can now reason on the basis of viewpoints rather than demean the other side for not seeing what is so obviously apparent to you. The distinction is valuable because it points out an improper starting point rather than improper reasoning.
It’s also clear that some who are reluctant to believe the truth (that you know to be true) are simply just unwilling to believe it. Again, here, it’s not a lack of intelligence; it’s merely intellectual dishonesty. It’s an unwillingness to see what is clearly true in favor of whatever fits their preference. The reasons for which can be varied. Sometimes it’s a fear of changing their thinking, sometimes it doesn’t fit a narrative that they find appealing, and sometimes it comes down to simple old pride.
Some of the age old herbal energy cialis generic from india enhancers like Shilajit, Ashwagandha, Shatavari etc., are present in the supplements. It has been seen that there is an advantage of taking oral jelly. online pharmacy viagra levitra samples If the pain is delicate and doesn’t final, one could ignore it. Your erection can for up to 4 hours depending on your needs* Clinically proven labs manufacture the jelly, which cialis generika http://icks.org/n/data/ijks/1482467975_add_file_3.pdf makes it safe for consumption* It is suitable for your body.
One thing I’ve found universal: in order for me to have the chance of coming to the truth I have to be willing to challenge the truth I already may think that I have. As hard as it may be to believe, the possibility exists that I may be wrong. For those things I don’t have hammered down as rock solid and settled in my mind and heart, there’s room for open debate. But some truths are self-evident. To debate them is merely an attempt to placate the other side, or else sheer lunacy. We can be open to discussion without yielding the entire field of truth open for debate. And sometimes we can gain a clearer perspective if we’re willing to see the other side. As Paul Harvey used to say, “Now you know the rest of the story”.