Is the glass half full or half empty?
People on either side are arguing their point about the glass. A supposed optimism vs pessimism about a current situation.
But the question being debated is wrong.
The question should be who poured the glass and got people locked in a subjective, perhaps fruitless, debate?
Allow me to explain.
Apply this concept to let's say the current "war" on ISIS. Currently the majority of the world is locked in a heated debate on how to curtail and destroy ISIS. Fervent debates about military strategy; where to bomb when and how exact revenge (at least in the current American political rhetoric it is revenge we are seeking and not justice). Some are saying we're making great progress and let's keep the current bombing campaign while others are saying the civilized world is on verge of inevitable destruction and the threat cannot be eliminated so we need to bomb some more.
People are caught up in that bombing debate. Bomb more or bomb less (or at least sustain the current bombing). While a few are the ones who are taking a step back and asking "who poured the glass"?
You're being ushered into a debate where the thinking paradigm has already been set for you. Debating within that paradigm will not get us anywhere.
Palestinian, Muslim, American, Husband, Father, Academic, Pharmacist, Coffee Addict, Nutella phene, Pseudo writer, Soccer player, former Canadian, Community servant, Pinch hitter imam, interfaith ninja, Intellectual vigilante, and the undisputed KING of snark