Quote:
Originally Posted by xholly
I see, so if the cause is considered noble and righteous enough, any means is justified? even resorting to the methods of your "evil enemy"
|
No one said "by any means" that it a false, misleading and absurd attempt at deception to make it appear something was said or suggested which wasn't.
Quote:
|
Perhaps Mao had the same idea as you, after all "you can't create a communist utopia on earth with hugs and flowers and positive thinking"
|
Same as me? Uhmmm I don't have any intention of using the nations children to pursue my genocidal aims and effectively murder 10's of millions of our own innocent men, women and children.
I understand the world is a confusing place for you. I get that it has to be very uncomfortable living an existence in a place that continually violates your own irrational and nonsensical expectations. Being much more intelligent than you, I am also painfully aware of the futility in trying to reason with someone who demonstrates such a diminished capacity for rational thinking.
I may however be able to help you by explaining your bizarre replies. The explanation is 100% true and undeniable fact yet it's going to sting a little and our first impulse is always to push back with defensive reactions but maybe in time, it will sink in to some degree.
What you are feeling...
This conversation and your reply is a classic example of "the trolley problem" in psychology, where two versions of a story are given that yield vastly different responses in spite of being largely the same. It goes more or less, like this:
5 men are working on a track and a train is steaming towards them. They will all be killed. You can push a button to divert the train where only one worker is working and only he will be killed but the 5 will live. Do you push the button and save 5 lives at the cost of 1.
People overwhelmingly choose to kill 1 to save 5.
The second variation goes something like this:
5 men are working on a track and a train is racing towards them. They will all be killed. The only way to stop the train is to push a man off a bridge and onto the tracks. Doing so will save 5 people at the cost of 1?
People now get very confused and flustered and take much much longer to respond and far fewer are willing to kill one to save 5.
Why?
Well, at the core of the problem lies in understanding your brains use of rational and emotional reasoning. Killing the 1 personal to save 5, with no personal involvement or contact is just a rational math problem to most people with an obvious solution. The second dilemma however, is processed differently as it involves direct personal contact/personal involvement and as such engages another part of the brain to use emotional reasoning which causes a flood of questions about the right and wrong, the good and bad, the moral and immoral and so on and so on and so on.
What's happening in your head? It's quite simple. You had an idea "war" and experienced an intense flash of negative emotion and strong feelings against (moral intuition) and then your brain goes to work to try to explain it. Your conscious mind is for the most part, a PR firm or White House Press Secretary for your unconscious mental processes. It's job is to rationalize what was already decided unconsciously, not to re-hash that decision and examine it and look for or be open to, new answers. As such, you are then painted into a corner trying hopelessly to defend irrationality with reason which can't be done without addressing the irrationality to begin with. Your arguments can only get more unintelligent and rely more heavily on misdirection and deflection. This is also where a spotlight will be shown on your woefully low IQ as your silliness continues and you display an ever increasing inability to form intelligent arguments and responses. Though it's great for the amusement of others, t's going to leave you ultimately bitter, frustrated and dissatisfied.
Sent from my phone so grammar police can fuck off.