Is it a matter of "It's not what you say but the way that you say it"?

It's not pleasant to have friction between family members. I don't have anything much in common with mine and we rarely even meet each other. It is similar for many of us here on CathInfo.

What does your father want you to apologise for? Do you live with your parents?

One of my Uncles was only able to talk to me for about 5 minutes at this past weekend's Christmas party because he was too angry at what I was saying.

Maybe it would help the discussion if you could remember a few of the truths you told your uncle that you suspect made him upset to hear.

One of my cousins at the Christmas party got very agitated when I told him unemployment is at 32%.

That's a good example of what I'm talking about.

My dad gave me a call tonight and told me if I do not apologize to Him and Mom, we are no longer on speaking terms.

So, are you supposed to apologize for saying that unemployment is at 32%, or are they waiting to hear you say you're sorry for saying that too loudly or whatever?

Are you noticing certain people becoming increasingly hostile to truth?

I know some liberals who take personal offense at things I say, but they're bent on limiting their objection to the volume of my voice when I say them.  But it seems to me that they don't want to hear the content of my words and my volume makes it impossible for them to tune out my voice.  And maybe that's why they'd be saying that it's not what I say but they WAY I say it that bothers them.

.

First of all, might I suggest you take all government and "think-tank" statistics with a grain of salt.  None of them are really the "TRUTH", they convey information that the party providing them wants you to know.

On unemployment:  The government statistics are probably accurate in the way the government defines "unemployment".  If a person had a job for one day during a month, he wasn't unemployed even if he's a rocket scientist who worked for one day standing on the street corner with a sign advertising the furniture shop in the mall having a "Going Out Of Business Sale".  The government also does not consider a person as being unemployed if he's not actively seeking a job AND receiving unemployment compensation or searching for employment through a government agency.

On the other hand, the conservative "think-tanks" count as unemployed anyone who is not working (whether they have given up looking or just aren't looking for a job) AND whose job is such that they should have a higher pay, i.e., that rocket scientist I mentioned above.  They generally count actual house wives (i.e., married women who aren't looking for employment and have no intention of looking for employment because they are raising and nurturing their children) as unemployed.

On politics in general:  It's wrong to assume as facts anything reported by any of the news organizations, political parties, or political "education" organizations.  All of them report the "facts" or the "truth" from a particular world-view.  Often, people make the mistake of assuming a conclusion based on a particular set of facts to be the "truth" and any other conclusion to be false.  While this is true of many things, it is not usually true of political issues.  

For example:  What is the truth about "minimum wage laws" or "unions"?  There are a variety of statistics that can be taken in isolation which seem to "prove" the conclusion that such laws on these issues are beneficial and others that seem to "prove" the conclusion that such laws are detrimental.  What the public policy of such laws are, however, cannot be determined on the basis of statistics alone.  There may be good reasons to support some laws even if they are detrimental to the economy and to some individuals while there may also be good reasons to reject some laws even if they are good for the economy and some individuals.  What is morally right is not always governed by facts, and truth is not always solely a computation of data.

It sounds to me from the post that the "truths" you were discussing which caused the stir were political and economic truths.  When I saw the topic's title, I was thinking that it was about moral truths, but I don't believe that is what you meant.  Moral truths are a bit easier because we have the guidance of the Church from AD 33 until around AD 1960 (the Conciliar sect being utterly useless for moral guidance).  But, if that is what you were talking about, I would absolutely agree that most people in the world show a great hostility towards moral truth and doctrinal truth.  That has been the case since the serpent denied the truth and Adam and Eve took the bait.

Political and economic truth, however, can very often be a matter of perspective.

In my experience when speaking to non- trad catholics (and even some of them) about "sensitive" topics such as worldwide Jєωry, wives being submissive to husbands, 9/11 conspiracy (fact), etc. this is the best way to go about it.

If they are discussing something or you want to bring it up yourself, don't start with as-a-matter-of-fact tone, speak in 'you know this person said this' - 'its been said that this is the truth' etc.  Don't give them all the truth all at once, they will become defensive or even aggressive (if liberal).

Give them hard data and facts, and sound persuasive but not aggressive or in a wrong tone.

Don't belittle them or say they are stupid or ignorant but be the bigger man and remain calm and collected.

Eventually they might think about the things discussed and talk to you again or research it for themselves - but they will still be extremely defensive.

So keep saying the truth because eventually they will get adjusted at least to your point of view, and they might be able to actually talk to you about it with an open mind.

For example when I have talked to people about the h0Ɩ0h0αx, the discussions usually go this way.  I never was afraid to talk about the h0Ɩ0h0αx - even when I was at a Major College, I would use these steps when telling people the facts.  You need to use the best evidence possible and at a minimum the people will realize you are not insane and you do have a point.  

Consider that you have been researching for "eight months".  Your uncle is older than you are and has much more life experience.  Furthermore, saying 95% sounds like hyperbole.  

Additionally, you can not possibly know that the people who sound kooky are the ones who are right about what is about to happen.  No one can know what is about to happen by researching.

On the other hand, the people who have sounded the most kooky in the past are the ones whose predictions have been demonstrated to be correct.

While your uncle might be unjustified in being "angry" (I don't, after all, know how your lesson to your elder was delivered), I would say that if I wasn't already convinced there are problems ahead, your comments would not sway me in the least.  You are an adult, but you are still your father's son and your uncle's nephew and you still can't speak to them the way they speak to each other.

If this is what your father says you should apologize for, I recommend you apologize to your parents and to your uncle for disrupting the party.  Then, in the future, rather than tell your elders what you have learned in eight months of research, discuss specific issues and how the individuals whom others would probably call naysayers have been correct in the past.  This would give them (and you) much more credibility.


And, for goodness sake, please learn how to use "they're", "their", and "there".

I still don't understand what truth you are talking about.  Unemployment rates?

As far as I'm concerned there is no "truth" worth losing family over other than the Catholic Truth.

The truth I am speaking about is all interconnected with Catholic truth.

All roads lead back to the truth of the Catholic Church.