I'm fine with being considered arrogant, Mage, and what you say has some merit, but it is also not absolute. The wisdom comes with experience, which cannot be shortcut effectively, and so requires age. You are right, however, in the sense that just making it a certain number of years does not mean you have experienced the things needed to be wise to a certain subject.
That being said, can you fault the wisdom in steering people toward the actual source, rather than some reporter's version of the source? You, if you recall, only too happily express your knowledge of things like the Patriot act. Have you read it, or have your read someone's summary of it? If you have made your decision based on a news article, a book, or someone else's understanding of the law, which I suspect to be the case as your response to my THOMAS question was a resounding "huh?", then you are acting unwisely, regardless of your age.
Wisdom comes with collective experience, the knowledge from many others. Your own experiences don't make you any more wise than Anouck or anyone else in this thread. Your wisdom comes from yourself and your own experience, but in no way are you more wise than the next man or woman who has experienced another thing.
No one is faulting the wisdom of looking at facts, but you steer people away from knowledge because of your own personal distaste. Telling people to not believe professors or other people who have major experience and knowledge that comes from hundreds passed over generations as education advances, that is not wise. Instead of telling others not to believe anyone and then in an argument when presented with facts you say don't believe what people tell you, which you do every so often.
My comments regarding the Patriot Act were not about the random plops placed in that Bill that probably no person in Congress even read. It was more about the effects afterwards, anything can look amazing on paper, in practice another thing. My not knowing about THOMAS, doesn't make me unwise, nor would it make me wise. I do not study American politics, nor do I scroll through every bill passed and have a good read.
You rely constantly on what you read in Library of Congress, that isn't being wise. You need to do more than just go "Well sounds great on paper." To actually understand the positives and negatives you have to do something you don't like. Read other reports, not just Government legislation, read about the effects from several reports.
I bet THOMAS doesn't mention that USA PATRIOT is being abused.
Though using THOMAS, to keep you happy.
(Sec. 213) Authorizes Federal district courts to allow a delay of required notices of the execution of a warrant if immediate notice may have an adverse result and under other specified circumstances
(Sec. 411) Includes within the definition of "terrorist activity" the use of any weapon or dangerous device.
Defines "terrorist organization" as a group: (1) designated under the Immigration and Nationality Act or by the Secretary of State; or (2) a group of two or more individuals, whether related or not, which engages in terrorist-related activities.
"When they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them: ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer. You are an enemy combatant, and we are going to talk to you about why you joined Al Qaeda.’" – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican Party.
There are many things that you American's would call 'Unconstitutional' about the Patriot Act.
Not to mention what the US Homeland Security actually considers potential terrorist threats.
Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism, produced by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, in which the following characteristics are used to identify terrorists.
- Americans who believe their “way of life” is under attack;
- Americans who are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”;
- People who consider themselves “anti-global” (presumably those who are wary of the loss of American sovereignty);
- Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”;
- Americans who are “reverent of individual liberty”;
- People who “believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”
Tell me, which is wiser, the man who reads from one source or the man who takes in several?