If there’s absolutely nothing I can do to convince you, it isn’t a logical argument you’re going with. It’s a philosophical or emotional one. Logical evidence based arguments would change if compelling contrary evidence was provided.
The problem with telling you is that it helps you fake the evidence. I have to assume that once I tell you, everything you give that looks like that evidence must be assumed to be faked.
Evidence can exist, but human beings are too dishonest to present it. Human beings cannot be trusted - and humanity’s history of dishonesty is all the proof I need for that. I will never trust human beings, as a moral compunction.
humanity’s history of dishonesty is all the proof I need for that.
Also, history books and discussion is more about grand state actors and conquests, not the everyday kindness and selflessness. It’s usually the norm, so not noteworthy to history.
So no one can tell or show you anything to change your mind? Then we’re back to where we started with a philosophical or a moral position rather than a logical one.
Then it’s a moral one. It’s morally wrong to give human beings an inch - especially when it’s practically guaranteed that they use that inch to abuse someone else.
If there’s absolutely nothing I can do to convince you, it isn’t a logical argument you’re going with. It’s a philosophical or emotional one. Logical evidence based arguments would change if compelling contrary evidence was provided.
You haven’t provided contrary evidence.
I’m asking what that contrary evidence would look like for you.
The problem with telling you is that it helps you fake the evidence. I have to assume that once I tell you, everything you give that looks like that evidence must be assumed to be faked.
Evidence can exist, but human beings are too dishonest to present it. Human beings cannot be trusted - and humanity’s history of dishonesty is all the proof I need for that. I will never trust human beings, as a moral compunction.
Also, history books and discussion is more about grand state actors and conquests, not the everyday kindness and selflessness. It’s usually the norm, so not noteworthy to history.
Bullshit. What a weak argument. The entire goddamned point is that your fucking “kindness” is so ineffective it can’t achieve anything.
But you wouldn’t learn that from history books.
Yes you would - that’s what history is - the record of human failure.
But they don’t tell you much about human success where countries don’t go to war and genocides don’t happen. So you can’t compare effectively.
So no one can tell or show you anything to change your mind? Then we’re back to where we started with a philosophical or a moral position rather than a logical one.
Then it’s a moral one. It’s morally wrong to give human beings an inch - especially when it’s practically guaranteed that they use that inch to abuse someone else.
Thanks for doing what you are doing. I know someone is reading this comment chain and you are helping them out indirectly.