No it doesn't't. >being this butthurt by /pol/ Hey if it helps you with the obvious insecurities you have to think people of pol are idiots and neet losers then do as you please. But next time try to actually listen to the arguments instead of trying to create a meme to attempt to refute them and their opinion.
>>24064130 >creates a whole thread bashing pol on a different board with a failed meme >replies to my comment angrily with another meme, and says I'm the one triggered >>24064136 No. That's just you. >>24064172 May, that's just you leftists. It's not that hard to understands pol's beliefs it just takes common sense an d a open mind. But U.S crime statistics from the FBI and other sources are ignored by people like you because of your cognitive dissonance. You at like op, you are insecure in your beliefs that you gave created a delusion that pol doesn't know what theyre saying, they are just losers and rednecks right?
>>24064347 I want you and most of the people here to go back to where you came. You've been here a few months tops because this board use to be a redpilled pol like board. Take all the cancerous black people threads with you. You are not like the majority on this board, you ruin the social cohesion and connections others have on this board with each other. You are like the Normie, the reason everyone wants Normie's to leave because they are different and can not relate or connect to us but will just change the oats like you have.
>>24064418 ive been here since 2009, my political stance depends on what the topic is, im not far right or far left, are you the guy thats been trying to turn this board into pol-lite the past few days? We have our own board identiy here just fuck off desu god I hate you pol fags
>>24063798 How the fuck does /pol/ still trigger people so fucking badly, people have been calling eachother niggers and being racist as fuck on 4chan forever, and "kek" is practically just a synonym for "beta" at this point,
If they make an actual argument, prove them wrong, if they just memepost, ignore them.
Typical conversation with a 17 year old /v/edditor/pol/tard
>shitposting is really serious guys we have to use memes to uncover the jewish conspiracy >MUH REDDIT >I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE 2014 BUT I KNOW HOW TO IDENTIFY REDDITORS THEY ARE EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T MINDLESSLY REGURGITATE /POL/ MEMES
You guys are entertaining but you really need to step up your shitposting. Take a hint from the Ausbros. Australians are the top shitposters on /pol/ right now generating quality content.
>>24064661 > a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts. Any process of evaluation or analysis, that may be called rational, is expected to be highly objective, logical and "mechanical". If these minimum requirements are not satisfied i.e. if a person has been, even slightly, influenced by personal emotions, feelings, instincts or culturally specific, moral codes and norms, then the analysis may be termed irrational, due to the injection of subjective bias.
You can argue that no human can successfully be 100% rational, but you're doing a pisspoor job of it when you actively encourage emotional decision making by actively hating others. Hence, irrational.
Because it's relevant to what you're being pedantic about
>You do know what rational means, don't you?You weren't just using it as a buzz word, were you?
Just explained what it meant, and gave a relevant citation as to exactly why hatred is irrational.
>Why would hating others be more irrational than loving others?
Where did I ever say loving others is rational? >>24064797 That is true, which you would understand if you actually read my post. Nobody can be 100% rational, but you can work towards being as rational as possible. Actively engendering strong, overriding emotions like hate is going in the opposite direction.
I don't understand what you are trying to say. There is no way to make decisions in an "objective" or "rational" manner. Sure, you can try to pretend to be fucking spock to make yourself feel more intelligent about the decisions you make but at the end of the day those evaluations and decisions you make will be based upon your environmental conditioning and emotional dispositions so wouldn't it be better to just accept those things for what they are and try to be self aware about them than pretend to turn yourself into a "rational" robot without having any idea about what is motivating you to make your decisions whatsoever?
>>24064916 >you can work towards not being a human being
Because that's what I said, and obviously not a poorly constructed strawman you're tossing around to avoid addressing what I'm actually saying.
>I don't understand what you are trying to say.
What I'm trying to say is that you're right that people cannot be purely rational beings. What is possible though, is to strive towards rationality, to try and limit the behaviors that lead to irrational thought so you can be as objective and logical as possible. If you're actively encouraging those problematic behaviors, you're straying away from that goal.
>wouldn't it be better to just accept those things for what they are and try to be self aware about them
Being rational would require that you be self aware about them, in order to ensure they cloud your judgment as little as possible, and you can identify when they are. Having no idea about what is motivating your decisions is a perfect recipe for irrational behavior.
>>24065090 >Even if you're intended goal is for the best outcome for the child, the emotional quagmire people describe as love can lead to pretty irrational decision making.
>woman unable to form emotional bond(love) with her child >woman leave child alone >child gets eaten by wolves
>There is, and I just explained why
No. You quoted something. Seemingly unable to use your own words to explain why. Too bad you also didn't understand your own quote.
>a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts.
Now an emotion can skew your perception, and lead you to favor an irrational conclusion or line of reasoning, but feeling emotion itself can never be rational or irrational. It is an action of the subconscious "mind".
>I have woken up to the patriarchy ever since a cislord oppressor told me my gender studies degree is worthless >Rape >RAPE >You are literally being RAPED right now >Rape >I won't let patriarchal white cis males rape me >All slut-shamers are rapists and privileged shitlords >Rape >RAPE >RAPE >Rape >Me and my sisters played GTA5 for 30 hours to uncover a patriarchal bias >I'm not a damsel in distress who wants to be saved by a tall strong hero >Rape >RAPE >Problematic RAPE >I only have those 8 erotic rape fanfiction stories saved on my computer to wake up my sisters to the patriarchy >RAPE
>>24065179 >woman unable to form emotional bond(love) with her child >woman leave child alone >child gets eaten by wolves
No idea what you're trying to prove with this statement, or how it's meant to disprove what I just posted. Irrational decision making leading to a preferable outcome doesn't make the decision making any less irrational.
>woman is pregnant >finds out child has irreversible, severe condition that will severely reduce quality of life >refuses to abort >child lives a life of extreme suffering and pain >refusal to abort was irrational
Just one quick example how that irrational behavior doesn't necessarily work in the best objective interests of the child
>No. You quoted something. Seemingly unable to use your own words to explain why. Too bad you also didn't understand your own quote.
I did use my own words, which you, as usual, denied and got pedantic over. Allowing one's emotions, esp. strong ones like love and hate, to influence your decision making leads to irrational behavior. I cited that quote to demonstrate why. You're just in a cycle of repeated denial at this point. >Now an emotion can skew your perception, and lead you to favor an irrational conclusion or line of reasoning, but feeling emotion itself can never be rational or irrational. It is an action of the subconscious "mind".
Feeling emotion isn't necessarily irrational, but acting on them is, and when you make your political decisions based on a strong emotion like hate, and defend that thought process, you're engaging in irrational behavior.
>>24065372 >I cited that quote to demonstrate why.
Your own words: You can argue that no human can successfully be 100% rational
Meaningless babble. The quote was your entire "point", only you didn't actually understand it.
>>Allowing one's emotions, esp. strong ones like love and hate, to influence your decision making leads to irrational behavior.
You have a strong subconscious aversion to danger. This leads you to think ahead to avoid getting into dangerous situations. Such as, having no food, having no place to sleep, wandering into an unfriendly neighbourhood.
Now this behavior can only be seen as rational or irrational, when accompanied by a specific objective, for example, to stay out of danger.
On it's own it is neither rational or irrational, it simply is behavior.
Now if you are afriad of dying, you may choose to support an irrational conclusion or line of reasoning that would give you comfort from your fear. It could be the belief that it is possible to survive forever, it could be the belief in a "life after death".
>>24065803 >What is a percentage of rationality? How are you calculating it? >things only count if they can be precisely quantified
Nothing is purely rational. That however, does not make certain things more rational than others. Even if it isn't pure black and white, that doesn't mean the differences in the shades of grey are meaningless, that is a fallacy.
Literally all people. Pure rationality is an ideal. Already explained that the mitigating bias', experiences, emotions, etc present in people prevent anyone from being 100% rational. Being aware of all those factors, and working to minimize their effects can lead to being 'more' rational. On the other hand, actively supporting hate, emotional decision making and the like will go in the opposite direction: to being increasingly irrational.
>Seems like completele nonsense to me.
most people who rely on absolutes and can't understand nuance would think so.
>what made you change your mind
I didn't change my mind; I always thought that the evident rationality, or lack thereof, of a behavior is determined by the pre-identified objective. You'd have no frame of reference otherwise.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.