Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Hedonistic beliefs
Specifically, when a person is willing to turn a blind eye to truth because truth is painful to look at. As a non-serious example, imagine that it is discovered that every time a human being takes a step, they destroy countless billions of civilizations, ala Horton hears a who. In such a scenario, the only optimal decision would be for every human to take their life in order to spare an astronomical number of lives. However, I suspect that an enormous number of people would simply turn a blind eye, or pretend that the evidence isn't there.
As a more realistic example, I suspect that many, many, *many* more people would be on board with PETA - if only doing so would mean that we wouldn't be so greatly inconvenienced. If giving up all kinds of food and putting enormous burdens on your lifestyle is indeed the moral thing to do, then tough luck because not very many people will. The PETA example isn't perfect, given that we are justified in showing scrutiny towards something that would cause trouble, but I digress.
tl;dr
I fear that people are more than ready to completely ignore truth because they can't handle its ramifications, thereby turning a blind eye. If this is the case, then that is just one more unpleasant thing to deal with in politics. It adds the dimension where one must ask "do my opponents have a motive behind their belief?".
(I could make this about specific political things, but I think it's best to leave it like this.)
As a more realistic example, I suspect that many, many, *many* more people would be on board with PETA - if only doing so would mean that we wouldn't be so greatly inconvenienced. If giving up all kinds of food and putting enormous burdens on your lifestyle is indeed the moral thing to do, then tough luck because not very many people will. The PETA example isn't perfect, given that we are justified in showing scrutiny towards something that would cause trouble, but I digress.
tl;dr
I fear that people are more than ready to completely ignore truth because they can't handle its ramifications, thereby turning a blind eye. If this is the case, then that is just one more unpleasant thing to deal with in politics. It adds the dimension where one must ask "do my opponents have a motive behind their belief?".
(I could make this about specific political things, but I think it's best to leave it like this.)
Comments
This one doubts that many people would turn a blind eye to an undeniable truth, though. There are great many things people would prefer not to exist, yet accept that they do. However, people exercise much more scrutiny towards something that might cause them trouble. To go back to your PETA example, there are plenty of reasons for not liking this organisation due to it's more than a little shady, hypocritical and often foolish actions. These are perfectly valid reasons. But people are quite willing to look for said reasons and probably sigh in relief when they find them, while they'd probably won't be so thorough in finding outs shady deals in "Giving everyone a free ice-cream" organisation. Note that if such faults were brought to light people still would be upset and cease supporting it - but they won't go out of their way to find reasons not to.
This one admits that there are certain ideas that make her deeply uncomfortable - and are not 100% proven - so she does not believe in them. Yet some ideas that are also not 100% proven she agrees to believe in. But again, it's not as much closing eyes to the truth as not being willing to exercise willing suspension of disbelief. Were it undeniable - this one would accept it, suffering emotional breakdown in process, of course. But as long as there are valid reasons not to, this one would seek out such reasons.
Implausible hyperbolic hypothetical situations don't really help get your point across. Neither does guilt tripping people. Personally, I think just educating people better is the most helpful way.
Regardless of PETA being nutjobs skirting Poe's Law, it does help to cut back on meat as it requires much more energy to raise animals for meat than to just eat the plants one stage lower on the food chain.
uncomfortable - and are not 100% proven - so she does not believe in
them. Yet some ideas that are also not 100% proven she agrees to believe
in. But again, it's not as much closing eyes to the truth as not being
willing to exercise willing suspension of disbelief. Were it undeniable -
this one would accept it, suffering emotional breakdown in process, of
course. But as long as there are valid reasons not to, this one would
seek out such reasons."
You put it much better than I do; thanks.
how smallwhat they believe in.EVEN THOUGH HUMANS ARE OMNIVORES" bullshit.I don't care how many pictures and videos of animals suffering in captivity and slaughterhouses you show me. I'm still eating that hamburger.
Stop. Generalizing.
Do you want a prize for knowing people Chagen?
I don't care how many paintings and sermons of people suffering in fire and brimstone you show me. I'm still porking that bitch.
If that was true common morals wouldn't exist.
He mean "If that was true the majority of most common morals wouldn't exist."