Linton
Intellectually Omnivorous
I’m not sure where all of this angry political banter is coming from. I really didn’t get a political vibe out of the show at all, and Gene was pretty quick to stifle anything that would have leaned heavily one way or the other.
Perhaps in his own arena, or on other shows, Daniel has expressed some strong political attitude, but on this show, at least, he came across as one the most level headed, sensible, open-minded guests that you have had. When it comes to ufology and paranormal claims he seems pretty quick to call people on B.S. and willing to give others the benefit of the doubt if there isn’t enough to counter their claims. He came across as a truth seeker, and oddly that tends to make people very uncomfortable, because it often tends to take one down a path somewhere in the middle…or off the map entirely.
A big problem with ufology and paranormal research in general is that so many want you to fall into one camp or another and drive the research in that particular direction. As demonstrated by this feed, people take the same approach with their politics. There doesn’t seem to be much room for pointing out the realities residing on all sides and calling either side on their nonsense.
Its like we live in a world where all of our groceries come as package deals. If you want oranges, then you can only purchase the bag that comes along with blue cheese taffy and fish oil lollypops, but if you want apples then you can only buy the bag that includes pickled grubs, and a tin of questionably prepared blowfish. You can’t buy both apples and oranges. That would be lunacy! That sort of approach hinders any sort of potential for progress if one’s research or even one’s thoughts on a subject are going to be rejected simply on principal.
People want you to be either friend or foe, and get REALLY uncomfortable if you won’t pick a side, and choose to simply observe reality; not the filtered “reality” from this perspective or that, but actual observable this-is-what-is-what reality.
Pulling in political/world views does little for the big conversation. What are my views on the breeding habits of cats? Who cares? It has nothing to do with the conversation (unless the coversation started with "so, there were these two cats mysteriously floating across my room when all of a sudden they began to..."). I find it perplexing that one's political view should have ANY sort of worth or impact when dealing with these subjects. If they do, then, frankly, you’re going about it all wrong and wasting everyone’s time (including your own) with your nonsense. If you want to debate politics, run for office. The rest of us are here are trying to chisel out answers from a big ol’ block of the confounding.
More guests like Daniel would certainly be welcome; it’s a shame the discussion here hasn’t lived up to the show.
Perhaps in his own arena, or on other shows, Daniel has expressed some strong political attitude, but on this show, at least, he came across as one the most level headed, sensible, open-minded guests that you have had. When it comes to ufology and paranormal claims he seems pretty quick to call people on B.S. and willing to give others the benefit of the doubt if there isn’t enough to counter their claims. He came across as a truth seeker, and oddly that tends to make people very uncomfortable, because it often tends to take one down a path somewhere in the middle…or off the map entirely.
A big problem with ufology and paranormal research in general is that so many want you to fall into one camp or another and drive the research in that particular direction. As demonstrated by this feed, people take the same approach with their politics. There doesn’t seem to be much room for pointing out the realities residing on all sides and calling either side on their nonsense.
Its like we live in a world where all of our groceries come as package deals. If you want oranges, then you can only purchase the bag that comes along with blue cheese taffy and fish oil lollypops, but if you want apples then you can only buy the bag that includes pickled grubs, and a tin of questionably prepared blowfish. You can’t buy both apples and oranges. That would be lunacy! That sort of approach hinders any sort of potential for progress if one’s research or even one’s thoughts on a subject are going to be rejected simply on principal.
People want you to be either friend or foe, and get REALLY uncomfortable if you won’t pick a side, and choose to simply observe reality; not the filtered “reality” from this perspective or that, but actual observable this-is-what-is-what reality.
Pulling in political/world views does little for the big conversation. What are my views on the breeding habits of cats? Who cares? It has nothing to do with the conversation (unless the coversation started with "so, there were these two cats mysteriously floating across my room when all of a sudden they began to..."). I find it perplexing that one's political view should have ANY sort of worth or impact when dealing with these subjects. If they do, then, frankly, you’re going about it all wrong and wasting everyone’s time (including your own) with your nonsense. If you want to debate politics, run for office. The rest of us are here are trying to chisel out answers from a big ol’ block of the confounding.
More guests like Daniel would certainly be welcome; it’s a shame the discussion here hasn’t lived up to the show.
