79 votes

Everyone sees what they want to see

In response to: Truthers continue to see what they want to see.

Everyone sees what they want to see:

  • The truthers and the antitruthers;
  • The believers and the non-believers;
  • The Paul supporters and the Paul haters;
  • The statists and the anarchists;
  • The gold bugs and the paper pushers;
  • The carnivores and the vegans;
  • The Keyensianists and the Austrianists;
  • The IP defenders and the trashers;
  • The Republicans, the Democrats.

Isn't that clear enough by now? Doesn't all the data here on the DP point in that direction? There is no way we can have unity, nor is there reason to. People believe what they believe until they change their mind. Or rather, until their minds are mystically, magically changed.

Don't take it personally, and don't hold it against anyone.

People see what they want to see. Everyone does it.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Tolerance is the

key to sustainable diversity. The greater the diversity, the stronger the health of the organism (collective humanity). I believe we should embrace this.

I Disagree - This Statement Is An Insult

To say that "we see what we WANT to see" is to say that:

1. We are wishful thinkers, and believe that the truth is dependent on OUR DESIRES, not reality.
2. We are dishonest, and we ignore reality in preference to OUR DESIRES.
3. We are irrational, and we do not reach conclusions through examination; we merely restate OUR DESIRES as our conclusions.

These are insults to our characters. And "agreeing to disagree" is equally dishonest; you either HAVE REASONS and you can state them, or you HAVE NO REASONS, and you ARE IRRATIONAL.

So "agreeing to disagree" is truly of no value and would devalue "agreements."

You just proved the

point of the statement. You have chosen to see is an insult, which is not what I see and nor do many others see it that way. The 3 statements you produced are projections coming out from within your mind but you mistakenly think it is contained within the author's statement while it clearly is not. This further demonstrates that each of us only sees what we choose to see or select the evidence that supports the beliefs which we hold within our minds.

This is the reality we face. It's part of the human experience. Let's do our best to recognize it and then perhaps develop improved communications with each other.

Well said.

Well said.

Obviously not everyone is going to agree on everything...

but the problem is that certain groups can't handle opposing views on here and gang up, bully, and downvote those who disagree with them. There seems to be a mob/clique mentality here and it's largely driven me away from this site. It's a shame, because the DP used to be my top source for news and liberty discussions. Now it seems to be a congregation of conspiracy theorists with everyone else shut out.

I don't play, I commission the league.

It is too bad. But every

It is too bad. But every unmoderated forum on the internet eventually devolves into cliques running the show, especially if there's a way for people to downvote or "neg" each other's posts.

Another feature of large internet forums is they're a honeypot for some of the weirdest people on the planet who are obsessed with certain topics. The more popular the forum, you don't get normal people talking casually and rationally about a subject, you get the most extreme ones. I was thinking for a while that it's like they're in a competition for who can come up with the wackiest new conspiracy theories, but I'm starting to think they believe them and it's just a matter of the site attracting some of the .0001% or whatever of people worldwide who are like that.

Alex Jones contributes some good info, but at times he seems to leap to conclusions, and I think a lot of people on here try to imitate him. Sometimes things come about not because of a great elaborate plan to do so but just because things came together and nobody really had an interest in stopping the weird path the various interests collectively pushed events down.

Personally I'm mostly interested in Austrian economics. I tried starting economic threads, to no avail. So although there are a number of brilliant people on this site who do make great posts, I'm losing interest in wading through the rest, and I plan on spending that time reading more economics books instead.

I am in exact tune with your

I am in exact tune with your first and third paragraphs. Thanks for saving me the time and risk of blogging-while-working.

10-15 million more voters need to believe in non-interventionism (liberty) at home and abroad to change America. Minds changed on Syria. Minds changing on privacy. "Printing money" is part of the dialogue. Win minds through focus, strategy.

Trouble Is

Some of the people here DEMAND that we ALL see things their way or no way. I got enough of that from a Baptist preacher father-in-law to last a life time! Makes me nuts.


I don't see...

the activism.

Specifically, at the moment, I don't see people taking
the golden opportunity to confront the hypocrisy on the
issue of:

Prohibited Persons

(and yes, I want to)

The gun grabbers, at present, are framing the whole issue in terms of "gun safety"
and "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" - how could anyone be against that?

When the issue of "prohibited persons" - the forty or however many million Americans who are prohibited - on pain of ten years in federal prison - from their 2nd Amendment rights altogether.

You're an elderly disabled person wanting to protect your couple of medical marijuana plants from marauding thugs with a single shot shotgun? Makes no difference at all - you're a felon - Eric Holder and Diane Feinstein say so, and so does 18 USC § 922(g) & (n)

So does this sound defensible? Of course not, but does DiFI have to worry about this? Of course not, because we are letting the control freaks define the debate and not making the slightest attempt to call them on this blatant hypocrisy.

Thousands of people asking the simple question, "Do you support the existing definitions of "prohibited persons" barred from the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights to the possession of firearms?" of their representatives would be a huge step toward redefining the whole debate.

If they agree that marijuana consumers are felons if they exercise their RKBA well, let them defend *that *. And if they answer otherwise, then ask them what they are doing to fix the system and decriminalize freedom.

Yeah, I would *love* to see this, but I don't...




Yes! +1 a thousand times.I

Yes! +1 a thousand times.

I just responded in a similar vein to a Forbes article that is getting positive vibes around here: http://www.dailypaul.com/280863#comment-3027527

Hegelian dialectic at work, and nobody's the wiser. The parameters of the debate have been defined, and, in the words of Tom Woods, if it's not on the "3x5 index card of establishment approved thoughts" then it is not allowed to be discussed, and most will never consider anything not on the card.

This is bar none the biggest obstacle to the paradigm shift most of us seek.

I disagree Micheal

those of us in the Oak Roots Club are proving you wrong on this point.

Just got to remember that not

Just got to remember that not aggression principle, and we're all good.

What about if everyone agrees to disagree?

That would make a huge difference in how people get along.

We all have our own ideas, prejudices, biases and beliefs. Guess we need to give each other a break.

Lord Acton, Lord Chief Justice of England, 1875 - "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the People v. The Banks."

Putting the idea in a

Putting the idea in a song.

Han Solo - Have a Nice Day (Bon Jovi)


And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Maybe we can

find out what we do agree on by reducing topics to singular fundamental "truths that we can agree on. I am attempted to do just that here:


Can we found out what we do agree on? Let find out...

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

The way I organize reality is

that I recognize there are infinite possibilities, and all are equally available to all observers. Whatever belief I formulate I can look out onto the infinite information and find evidence that supports my belief. The same is true for every other observer. This is why we have so many individuals with differing beliefs. Unfortunately, many tend to think their way is the "right" way and want others to view reality as they do in order to feel justified. This is a fruitless exercise, to me. I try to keep an open mind because I understand that I do not have all of the information nor does any other human being. We are each subject to the mystery.

It doesn't get me down to see some of the arguing taking place here. Perhaps many of us enjoy a good debate and feel like this is a worthy group of individuals to interact with in such a fashion. It's healthy, I believe, to exercise and strengthen our arguments and I hope that beyond this we realize that we are all in this together, as a family, and each of us has the others backs, despite our differences. I hope that everyone else can identify with this as well.

I'm looking forward to more passionate discussions. Let's keep them coming.

"Keep Conscience clear, then Never Fear."

'tener cojones'
We need some Balls here on the DP

Do you think our Founding Fathers were war-hungry ego maniacs looking for a fight?? No, they were just good and logical people that had been pushed just far enough...

Tener Cojones, por favor
Speak the Truth!

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

"People see what they want to see."

Well, I want to see the truth. Not some projection of the truth influenced by my beliefs, but the actual absolute truth. Please show it to me...

"The world is a dynamic mess of jiggling things, if you look at it right." - Richard Feynman

"That's not debatable" -

"That's not debatable" - Alex Jones


Truth as a final value

Quoting a DPer who agreed to its use:

"If my need to be Right is greater than my desire for Truth, I will not recognize it when it arrives." - LibertyBelle

"To the morally inverted, war appears as a quick, clear path to the top." -- Preston Parker

Where is LibertyBelle,

Where is LibertyBelle, haven't seen her around here in a while?

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

In order to see,

the eyes and mind must both be open.


Is there anything that people in power would NOT do to stay in power?

Would they steal, rape and murder to hide their crimes?

So, Why do we fight about the details of their evil instead of trying to
"Light this Darkness"

Natural Order

Facts Are Not Subjective

Facts are not subjective. By their very definition, they are objective. There is objective reality so to say "everyone sees what they want to see" should really say "people who see what they want to see are not objective." Remember, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts.

This was obviously posted because of all the religious whackadoodle posts that have dominated this place lately driving people away.

I couldn't care less what you believe. You believe in zombies that rise from the dead after 3 days, star children, and sky fairies? Fine by me. In fact, I'll fight to the death to defend your right to believe those things.

But the moment you want to use gov to force people to conform to your beliefs, you are no longer part of the liberty movement. You are just another statist, no better than any of the rest of them. You become an enemy of liberty.

You don't get to pick and choose what is liberty. If there is no victim, there is no need for government to get involved. You are not a victim if two people of the same sex get married, or 5 people of the same sex get married, that's their business. If you had any real interest in liberty at all, you should argue government has no business in marriage PERIOD! It has no business conferring special rights on people who are married. So when you want government to be involved here, you are just another hypocrite who doesn't want to give up your freebies.

This will get voted down here, but that just proves why this place has become a laughing stock in the liberty movement. So you guys have fun talking about 9/11 Truth, Chemtrails, yada yada yada while the rest of use continue to do the heavy lifting while having to walk through the muck you make confusing the issues.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

"There is objective reality"

How do you know this for certain? Do you accept this on faith?

Sadly, zombie Jesus is more real to most Americans than:

And those other little clues that point to the truth.

Share this:


I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

You introduced a fallacy by

You introduced a fallacy by the third sentence, and by the second paragraph you're resorting to ad hominem attacks and leading the mob.

It's a pity, because for the first two sentences you almost seemed like you were saying something.

Everyone sees what they want to see has nothing to do with declaiming objective reality. People look at what they look at, stand where they want to stand, and examine what they want to examine. They are not omniscient. It's called having a point of view - very necessary when the world isn't one dimensional.

FYI - http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

So far, you're wrong on your

So far, you're wrong on your prediction about being downvoted (not a bad thing, indeed!). However, I do have clarifying questions on a particular statement you make, above all others:

"If there is no victim, there is no need for government to get involved."

This would seem to imply that government exists only to remedy the instances in which actual victims exist.

But this begs two questions (to begin with): namely, (1) How does one (or, more specifically, government) determine that there has been a victim, and therefore, that "there is (a) need for government to get involved"?

And (2) Even if there has been a victim, why does that necessitate government involvement, de facto?


I can't believe you are even

I can't believe you are even asking that question on a liberty forum. A victim, by defintion, is someone who has their rights violated by force or fraud. That is the very basis of all liberty. If you don't understand that you need to go back to square one and start over.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed