Loading ...x: “Point of view: argument”
y: “Opposite point of view: counterargument”
x: <refutes counterargument>
y: “Well I’m sticking to my point of view anyway”
If you are y, please pay some attention to the logic-section of your brain. Either you can’t make up arguments for your point of view (which is bad, because, if you don’t know why you’re doing something, you are likely to be messed around with) or you’re just stupidorn. That’s stupid and stubborn. In any case, you are annoying, please think it over and fix that logic-section.
Thanks in advance,
ps check mijn website ;D
If you are the author if the manual above, please pay some attention to the humane-section of your brain. Either you haven’t experienced life enough to know life is more than logic, and even involves elements of ethics and true beliefs (which is bad, because you’ve probable been living beneath a rock for quite a while) or you’re just cold an inhumane. In any case, you are arrogant as hell, and will probably be confronted with some shitloads of bugger society has ready for you. Please think it over and fix that humane-section.
You’re right about the shitloads of bugger, I’ve had them and I’m pretty sure I will have them in the future. But this, this is my ethic. My true belief. My true belief is one of logic, one in which there is very little room for irrationality too, yes. I know the world doesn’t center around logic, the last few years I’ve come to face the facts that I can’t just simply ignore “y-people” and will have to convince them in other ways.
You see, when someone brings an argument like “I don’t like that”, it’s unrefutable. If someone doesn’t like something, it ends there, you’ll have to compromise. But I believe that on some points, you can’t simply say “I don’t like that” because it won’t lead to any progress in the discussion (as a counter I could say “I do like that” and then it’s a stalemate).
I do not wish to dissect faith like this, or other beliefs, but on some points, I believe more logic is needed for easier progress in decision making.
Fact is, life ís irrational. You try to comprehend and control this irrational phenomenom by sole rationality, and you should know such a method is by definition [i]logically[/i] impossible.
Rational phenomena such as gravity can be explained and predicted by logic, but people cannot. And even íf we could, there would be to many variables involved to retain a workable moral.
But what’s more, you claim you’re attempts of increasing the amount of logic in some conversations are beneficiary to the amount of progress in decision making. A few critcal remarks; can you define the ‘decision making’ you’re refering to, and the way ‘progress’ relates to it? Second, but more important; in what way does it make ‘decision making’, or maybe more concrete ’social life’, become easier by joking about, generalizing and even insulting ‘y-people’?
Life isn’t rational nor irrational. There’s plenty of rational stuff to which my post applies, and yes also plenty of irrational stuff to which it doesn’t. For instance, I do believe one can predict human behavior to a certain level, by looking at the past, and sometimes plain logical thinking will do. Take a country with lots of unsatisfied people for example, one can predict that crime will be on the rise, people will in general tolerate less and will be looking for a strong leader that (from their point of view) can change their world.
I claim that it indeed is beneficiary. How can one make decisions without (a bit of) logic? The decision making I was referring to was mostly based around keeping (bad) habits. A bit abstract example: A decision is made: X. After 10 years, X can be replaced with a better version of X: Y, due to a change in the variables, be it technology, cultural, whatever. A decision has to be made, the choice between X and Y. But people got attached to X! They don’t want change, they just want things to remain the way they were, without any other real arguments.
This was the decision making I’m referring to. Say X and Y are sorting machines, the change in variables being “better technology, less costs” but people just don’t want to learn the new ways of operating, despite the long-term advantage. The rational choice is to go for the long-term benefits, while irrational choice would rather want instant gratification.
Well I used to have the arrogance that I could ignore the “y-people” you know. I learned that the hard way, but this post wasn’t really about social decisions. More about machinery, new ways of teaching and school exams for example.
Can you give me an example of a cold and inhumane decision in which logic and rationality aren’t the best ways to go?