Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Coke v. Pepsi

I read a lot of nonfiction books. In particular I enjoy science books, theology and politics books.
I enjoy reading books on both sides of the coin. I like to hear the opinions of both sides so I can make up my mind for myself. I have grown up a member of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" and I enjoy reading books on LDS history and theology. In contrast I also read what many members would call anti-mormon books.
I grew up Democrat and have since progressed towards the Libertarian party. I enjoy reading right-wing and left-wing books because I share many views of each.
In the science arena I also enjoy reading books that challenge my religeous views.
I find that many of these books fall into the category of telling what is wrong with the other side.
Although I understand their perspective I think that all too often their focus is not on what is right about their own argument. Sometimes I feel like I am watching a series of commercials. The first one tells me that Pepsi is better than Coke. The next one tells me that Burger King is better than McDonalds. Having taking many debate and logic classes and having a personal affinity for logic based arguments I think there are many flaws to this logic. Just because Pepsi says it tastes better than Coke does not mean that drinking caffienated sugar water is healthy. Just because Burger King tastes better than McDonald's doesn't make fast food good for you either. The same also flows for the books that I've read. Just because Ann Coulter can point out several flaws in the liberal agenda does not say anything at all about the valitity of the conservative agenda. Just because science can't prove that God exists does not mean that atheism is a healthy and good way to live.
I would like to find a few good books out there that focus on just what they have to offer rather than spending most of their pages pointing fingers at the other guys.

2 comments:

  1. I have a simmilar issue where I work. An incident will occur and a banking branch will be offline. There are 3 parties trying to get it back up and running so the customers are not impacted. However, two of the parties are usually engaged in a heated debate over who is to blame for the outage while the customers wait for the resolution. As the 3rd party I often just say something like, " OK,,, I broke it! Now that we have settled that can we get on to trying to fix the issue?" I wish they would put as much effort into resolution of the problem as they did into deferring blame.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really enjoy your blog! I read your wife's blog, too. :)
    I like to read things that make me think, and reading the books that are "against" one political party gets boring! I would love some good libertarian books, so if you have time, please list some recommendations!

    ReplyDelete