Something my parents bring up commonly are political issues with moral opinions. Some include global warming, nuclear power, Trump, and more. They usually have a different opinion than is voiced in social media, like being skeptical of global warming, and I usually see some truth in what they are defending. However, I also like to try to see the opinion of the opposition, which is much more accepted among peers. I choose to spend my time with people that understand me and welcome the same ideas as I, along with other criteria. What makes me confused is when all of my friends share an opinion that my parents do not agree with. Hearing both arguments, I see that one could go either way. But I cannot seem to pick one side only based on what I hear from family and friends- which leads me to sourcing evidence. I have heard countless times not to rely on what I see on the internet because statistics are easily, and commonly, manipulated. So, unable to analyze any data and ask for an opinion from anyone, I am stuck in the middle of a hot topic, left without an opinion. I could spend hours figuring out which datum online is reliable, but, being very busy, I choose to spend my time on other things. This leads to my issue with society today. Why can’t we just have reliable data that is not defending either opinion, but that shows truth? And, why can’t the data values have meaning? Not: “X percent of the elderly die of lung cancer, so smoking is bad for you.” First, there is no correlation between elderly and smokers, and elderly people are more susceptible to disease and death, so they aren’t good sources for data anyways (not to say that smoking is good nor bad). This example proves how data that seems credible can actually be unreliable, based on a number of changeable factors. Anyways, I am off to start day 2 of my band adventures. Loving the music by the way.
Until next time, さよなら