Totally on board with this comment. I'm an avid chess player (though not as competent as I'd like to be) and to play without considering what your opponent is plotting, is sheer madness and yields nothing but bad results.
I'd also add, read it and attempt to comprehend the world view behind it, assuming no intent of evil on their part. It's a mind fuck for sure ;) but essential to stay ....balanced? That might be the right word and then again maybe not ;)
"read it and attempt to comprehend the world view behind it, assuming no intent of evil on their part"
Bingo. We don't move forward for resolution unless we humanize opponents by stepping in their shoes. It doesn't mean agree with them (we don't have to hold their values), but at least understand them. (Formal debaters, e.g. in school teams, and in law, etc., are taught to understand multiple POVs so they can successfully argue them as needed.)
After reading Schwabs great reset and RFK's Fauci, I was deeply troubled by the thought of Schwab & Gates having grandchildren. I assumed they would want the most beautiful world possible for them. Could it be that they're not inherently evil? Could it be they see a different vision in their minds eye?
For the record I despise so much of what they appear to be responsible for. But if the only argument is, they're just evil, well aren't we all falling into the same idiotic fallacy of, Putin invaded Ukraine cos he's just evil, right. And Hamas are just human animals, right.
Of course, it's true that a plan or vision can be, or have, an evil outcome without having an evil intent.
Totally on board with this comment. I'm an avid chess player (though not as competent as I'd like to be) and to play without considering what your opponent is plotting, is sheer madness and yields nothing but bad results.
I'd also add, read it and attempt to comprehend the world view behind it, assuming no intent of evil on their part. It's a mind fuck for sure ;) but essential to stay ....balanced? That might be the right word and then again maybe not ;)
"read it and attempt to comprehend the world view behind it, assuming no intent of evil on their part"
Bingo. We don't move forward for resolution unless we humanize opponents by stepping in their shoes. It doesn't mean agree with them (we don't have to hold their values), but at least understand them. (Formal debaters, e.g. in school teams, and in law, etc., are taught to understand multiple POVs so they can successfully argue them as needed.)
"Humanize opponents by stepping in their shoes."
I'll reciprocate your Bingo for the above :)
After reading Schwabs great reset and RFK's Fauci, I was deeply troubled by the thought of Schwab & Gates having grandchildren. I assumed they would want the most beautiful world possible for them. Could it be that they're not inherently evil? Could it be they see a different vision in their minds eye?
For the record I despise so much of what they appear to be responsible for. But if the only argument is, they're just evil, well aren't we all falling into the same idiotic fallacy of, Putin invaded Ukraine cos he's just evil, right. And Hamas are just human animals, right.
Of course, it's true that a plan or vision can be, or have, an evil outcome without having an evil intent.
I'll leave it there cause my head is spinning ;))
Your head may be spinning, but it appears to be working very well otherwise. :)