Thanks for pointing it out of course; it's a valid comment.Who knew, right? I'm here to claim that not many here did.
I can align with that. Yet is it not appropriate to have some parameters we agree on? It's not like a nuclear detonation is going to contain skittles or something. We can agree that devastation is the most probable outcome, no? And base our opinion of that which we see as the most probable? So, why is someone who comes in and says, "I can't see past the horror of this to even contemplate alternate outcomes" so stifling?The only way you can get away with such an approach is to have some library of concrete facts that you treat as containing more of the substance of the world than the world itself displays from moment to moment.
Basically you're saying our own personal wiring and context changes how we view the world, even down to the interpretation of any given question. But you're talking to the most subjective of the subjective types here; to me (Fi dom) such a thing is a given. Do you think that point is not obvious to all?And which changes, among other things, what elements of some internet question will strike you immediately as constituting the substance of that question.