CureZone   Log On   Join
Giving or not giving the benefit of the doubt to parazapper, #461, lordcooler, sdrt123, david1o1, WhoAreYouNormally, SHARKMAN etc.
 
Webmaster Views: 3,098
Published: 4 years ago
 
This is a reply to # 2,301,182

Giving or not giving the benefit of the doubt to parazapper, #461, lordcooler, sdrt123, david1o1, WhoAreYouNormally, SHARKMAN etc.


All the problems we have seen lately on curezone boil down to a single problem:
"Giving someone the benefit of the doubt!"


The Free Dictionary says this about it: "Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is to believe something good about someone, rather than something bad, when you have the possibility of doing either."

The concept of giving or not giving the benefit of the doubt is very important when it comes to replying to any message on CureZone.

We all agree that a poster behind the name "#461" is totally extreme when it comes to not giving the benefit of the doubt. "#461" believes that everyone who disagree with her must be paid by big pharma to hold those beliefs they hold.


In reality, if you have been reading messages on curezone for some time, you can easily come to conclusion that no 2 prominent posters on CureZone would ever agree 100% on anything, not even 90%, hardly ever 80%.

It is even not easy to find people who agree 60% on anything!


What that means is that people have different opinions about different therapies, and we just have to accept that there could be hundreds or even millions of people out there who disagree with our own opinion, even when not a single one of those people have any direct or indirect economic interest in disagreeing with us.


Yes, a person does not need to receive money from anyone (Big Pharma, parazapper, vitamin producers ... ), in order for him/her to disagree with our own opinion.

If you tried herbs, and herbs you tried have not provided any relief to your symptoms and health problems, you have at least 95% right to believe that herbs are not the real answer for the problem you are facing, and that does not mean that you are paid by Big Pharma to hold those beliefs. It may just be that your personal beliefs are 99% based on your own personal experience, and possibly on the personal experience of other people around you.


If you tried different zappers, and zappers you tried have not provided any relief to your symptoms and health problems , you have at least 95% right to believe that zappers are not the real answer for the problem you are facing, and that does not mean that you are paid by Big Pharma to hold those beliefs.


If you tried different prescription medications, different doctors and different mainstream therapies, and those mainstream therapies you tried have not provided any relief to your symptoms and health problems , you have at least 95% right to believe that prescription medications and "Big Pharma" are not the real answer for the problem you are facing, and that does not mean that you are paid by Parazapper or Hulda Clark to hold those beliefs. It may just be that your personal beliefs are 99% based on your own personal experience.


So, we all have to become more flexible, less extreme, especially those who have been involved in the latest name calling debates, and we all have to learn how to "believe something good about someone, rather than something bad, when we have the possibility of doing either."


We have to learn to give someone the benefit of the doubt even when we are 100% sure that that person is a "pharma shill" or when we are 100% sure that everything that person says is just inspired with his desire to sell his parazappers to us.

The reality is, most people are good.
Whenever we make an assumption that someone is not good .... we may be wrong.

How many innocent people ended up on a death row just because someone was 100% sure they were guilty?

How many witches were burned because someone was 100% sure they were witches?

How many innocent people are serving a prison sentence right now because a policeman or a judge or a jury member is 100% sure they are guilty? (far less then the number of those who should be serving the sentence but are walking free, may be your answer. And my answer to that would be " two wrongs don't make right! " )


I believe that #461 is a good and sincere person, who is just unable to see that what makes her call others "pharma shills" is the same thing that makes them call her "paranoid".

All that names calling comes from inability to accept the possibility that other people may have experiences that are totally opposite to our own experiences.


I believe that parazapper is a good and sincere person who sometimes uses personal attacks as a way to defend himself from attacks.

I believe that lordcooler is a good and sincere person who sometimes uses personal attacks and ugly words that we would rather not like to see on CureZone Forums , just because those words may be normal on some other forums or circles where he used to post before.


I believe that sdrt123, david1o1, WhoAreYouNormally, SHARKMAN, etc are all good and sincere people who have their own doubts about different therapies discussed and who get carried out into name calling debates.



If we can learn to give other people the benefit of the doubt, we would hardly ever feel the urge to call them names.


Read also this:
//www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1772458#i




Webmaster
 

 
Printer-friendly version of this page Email this message to a friend
Alert Moderators
Report Spam or bad message  Alert Moderators on This GOOD Message

This Forum message belongs to a larger discussion thread. See the complete thread below. You can reply to this message!


 

Donate to CureZone


CureZone Newsletter is distributed in partnership with https://www.netatlantic.com


Contact Us - Advertise - Stats

Copyright 1999 - 2020  curezone.com

0.719 sec, (3)