|
Most issues are only controversial because some retard has a terrible opinion about something. For any given event/process you are likely to run into regarding social ills the facts and various possible workable solutions that increase human happiness are well known. I would say nearly all the major controversies you see in Western media exist purely because both sides of an "issue" are given equal footing even if the facts are clearly one sided - see climate change.
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 13:28 |
|
|
Not murdering people and taking their things because they are in a different tribe is pretty much the solution to all human problems. And I agree, not every issue has two sides, but the Western perspective often boils everything down to this, even though there probably are multiple good solutions to a given problem/issue. The solution to syria is there probably isn't one, because the religious fanaticism fueling parts of it won't be reconciled. People that far out on religion/being militant are mentally ill and any rational argument isn't going to work. I think you can mitigate fanaticism by providing basic needs (Maslow's heirarchy) which reduces the followers behind a given extremist movement but you can never convert the insane true believers. But I suppose that depends on how much of their beliefs are facade to rally people versus them actually believing it ?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Also the answer is dependent on the goal and what you are trying to optimize for and the methods used, which can be subject to arbitrary decision making. Take the issue "solve world poverty", does that mean you reduce the number of poor people by death camps or directly feeding them or ? You achieve the same end point either way.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2014 21:41
|
|