Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

611

A man is sitting in park. He sees a dog run up to a man. That man kicks that dog as hard as he can and the dog runs off. The first man thinks to himself, wow, what an asshole. Another dog runs up to the man and he kicks that one too. The first man gets up and walks off and is like, that man is the biggest asshole I have ever seen. He must hate animals and must be a cruel angry man inside. A third man sees the second man kick the dogs. He is on the other side of the park. He can see a duck following the man. He says to himself, this man must like ducks, he is defending it from the dogs. He goes away thinking that guy did an ok thing. A last man, sees the man who kicked the dogs. He knows the man. He knows that he is actually carrying ducklings in his arms and that is the mother following him. He picked them up from a busy road to move them. He is a park ranger. The dogs that attacked him are wild dogs that are a pest to the park and have been attacking native wild life. If he didn't have the ducklings, he would go back to his truck get a gun and shoot the dogs. Later on the first man walks into the last man and says, man, did you see that asshole kick those dogs earlier? What a douche bag. I wish he was banned from the park.

A man is sitting in park. He sees a dog run up to a man. That man kicks that dog as hard as he can and the dog runs off. The first man thinks to himself, wow, what an asshole. Another dog runs up to the man and he kicks that one too. The first man gets up and walks off and is like, that man is the biggest asshole I have ever seen. He must hate animals and must be a cruel angry man inside. A third man sees the second man kick the dogs. He is on the other side of the park. He can see a duck following the man. He says to himself, this man must like ducks, he is defending it from the dogs. He goes away thinking that guy did an ok thing. A last man, sees the man who kicked the dogs. He knows the man. He knows that he is actually carrying ducklings in his arms and that is the mother following him. He picked them up from a busy road to move them. He is a park ranger. The dogs that attacked him are wild dogs that are a pest to the park and have been attacking native wild life. If he didn't have the ducklings, he would go back to his truck get a gun and shoot the dogs. Later on the first man walks into the last man and says, man, did you see that asshole kick those dogs earlier? What a douche bag. I wish he was banned from the park.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (16).
[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

I wrote this story when discussing american politics with an Australian NPC. The story ends where it does on purpose, because in the end the last guy can not defend the other guy, because he is not him. A 3rd party can not defend a 1st party, even if he knows the truth.

[–] • 1 pt

because in the end the last guy can not defend the other guy, because he is not him. A 3rd party can not defend a 1st party, even if he knows the truth.

To say that any of those people are "third party" suggests that person didn't personally see what happend...but was told by an actual witness of the action (kicking dogs) and now has second-hand knowledge. Such a person would find it difficult to debate an individual that actually saw it happen.

But that's not what you've described. What youve described has no "third party". You have one person carrying out an action and then you got 3 different eye-witness accounts from 3 different angles. The 3rd person you describe doesn't have to "defend" anyone...they just have to retell what they saw and what they know about the ranger. At that point, that first witness knows what they saw and now they know, second-hand, what the 3rd witness saw and what they personally know of the ranger.

If that first witness has any degree of intelligence they'll realize that what they saw (man kicking dogs) is still factual...what might be wrong is their interpretation of that action. If they're intelligent, there's no reason to conclude they cant be swayed by what the third witnessed and reported to them.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

f they're intelligent, there's no reason to conclude they cant be swayed by what the third witnessed and reported to them.

In reality, this is not how people work. And this THE PROBLEM.

[–] • 1 pt

He can try he just won’t always be successful.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

It is not possible. What one persons knows, defines their opinion and understanding. You can say whatever you want, that persons core understandings can not change. It is the difference between intelligence and wisdom.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

How do you define wisdom though?