[Santtu]

So, my net got back online.

Ok, I'll answer starting from the first point, reading more of this later etc..

Whether everyone's "jumping on the bandwagon" or confirming some real observations is a matter of opinion. I don't think either of them is happening, tho.

What's superficiality then? Interest to the obvious and shallow as opposed to something requiring study and observance.

I was tempted to say that Gabe's treatment of the issue was superficial. But then again, he pointed out some deep motivational possibilities behind each person's statements. Yay, that's actually digging deeper than what what we usually do. I actually began to think of this.

How much can we expect some factually presented arguments to be backed up by cold logic? How much by intense feelings? How do we choose from T/F explanations anyway? Seeing that some explanation feels good but the logic doesn't quite add up, which side are we to follow? How about something proved with logic, leading to morally unacceptable conclusions? People often have difficulties making up their mind with conflicting left/right side brain impulses, let alone making their minds when the two conflicting sides are not situated in the same skull.

Communication is so much slower and unreliable verbally than what it is inside person's brains.

Yet, I find it absolutely clear that a convincing case can't be established solely on emotional evidence, as it can't be established solely on factual evidence.

Ok, so it's in the tobacco companies best interest to say that tobacco is healthy. Does it logically mean that their positive statements about tobacco will therefore be untrue? No.

Does it mean that a person interested in the truth should weight the evidence from a tobacco company with equal weight as they would weight that from an independent researcher? No.

What I'm saying is that both the deep motivations (which ENFP adeptly finds out, and sometimes invents out of thin air) and the facts presented should be considered when weighing the evidence.