Emotion Vs Logic

[FUNKbrs]

What should govern our actions, emotion or logic? Should the world be designed to make everyone happy and love each other, or should it be designed to keep the maximum number of people in the breeding population in order to strengthen the human race? What is the proper compromise of the two?

[BWS]

This really depends on the problem at hand. Think about it:
It would be much more efficient if we exterminated retarded people.
See the problem.

[FUNKbrs]

At 12/14/03 04:00 AM, BWS wrote: This really depends on the problem at hand. Think about it:
It would be much more efficient if we exterminated retarded people.
See the problem.

Right. There are sometimes when logic is better (like when designing a sewer) and there are other times when emotion is better (like figuring out whether to pull the plug on comatose people).

However, I'm of the persuasion that the world political sentiment is much TOO emotional in nature. We spend all our time being offended or in fear, or sending aid to those who don't deserve it. Whatever happened to survival of the fittest? What ever happened to the natural rewards for virtue? Whatever happened to the idea that if a person is smart enough and strong enough, they will MAKE their environment what it needs to be? I'm beginning to feel that our emotions are being manipulated by the media and special interests to specifically control us in ways that if we were logically motivated wouldn't affect us at all.

[TheWakingDeath]

i agree that logic needs to come into play more in the government. first of all, the president is relying to much on our emotions to run the war, and i believe that if we were operating on more logical grounds we'd have more support in the world. remember emotions tell us "france doesn't support us, we hate them!" but logic tells us "hmm, france doesn't support us, but if we don't burn our bridges with other countries, they may be more willing to assist us in our times of need"

another example
emotion
"ew, homo's are gross, we don't like them, they're nasty, lets not let them marry"
logic
:we can apply all taxes for marraige licenses on the increased pool of eligible couples"

and another
emotion
"we need to stop letting our kids play violent video games and watch violent movies because it's corrupting the youth of america"
logic
"being exposed to gratuitous violence at a young age not only sends millions into the entertainment industry but also preps a new generation of ready made cannon fodder(soldiers) to do our bidding in our massive imperialist take over"

boy, i could almost make a good conservative if i had no heart. more irony.

[poxpower]

Put bluntly...

Emotions are for the dominated, logic is for the leaders.

[FUNKbrs]

At 12/14/03 12:18 PM, -poxpower- wrote: Put bluntly...

Emotions are for the dominated, logic is for the leaders.

Damn pox, if I didn't know better, I'd think you were me. I've always said emotions are for the weak, although I try to keep an open mind about it, otherwise the liberals would form a mob, drag me out of my house and hammer a stake through my chest.

[TheWakingDeath]

i think it's funny you should acuse liberals of being preoccupied with emotions when you look at how swayed the conservitives are by their own emotions. everyone has emotions ripe for manipulation. every conservative protesting the war protesters was fired up on emotions and just as illogical as those "no war for oil" idiots.

conservatives think they are the rational ones, then they evoke the name of god went they can't come up with a logical arguement for their believes. that and the "it's just wrong" or the "you're an unpatriotic pinko commy liberal" arguement

[Samuel-HALL]

Between emotion and logic, ALWAYS pick logic. No matter what the topic. Sewer design, abortion, gun control, video games, pulling the plug, gay marriage...use rationality and logic.

[Samuel-HALL]

Between logic and emotion, ALWAYS choose logic. It's like no choice at all. No matter what the situation. Sewer design, abortion, gun control, violent video games, government, pulling the plug...logic is (and excuse the obvious) the LOGICAL answer to everything.

[Xion-Fox]

Just a thought becuase I've actually thought about this allot...

We're talking about humans who are irrational emotional creatures to start with. The main question is what kind of a circumstance are we talking about?

Political- Oh hell doesn't matter, wether you go logical or you go emotional your still gonna piss people off. Politics is too damne dintergrated into our society and minds for it work either way. Although I think it'd be more effective if it was a little more logical.

Life- Cold shrewed hard logic is a nice concept. Too bad it don't work. If we could operate soley off that then when you Girlfriend, boyfriend, husband, wife, or family members died we'd shrug laugh and walk away. Now that's cold. Emotion provides a certain lack of constantism <---Don't think that's a word but ya get the point feel free to coin it ;P> that makes life interesting. With out emotion our lives would be, well dull and pointless. Consider love, or happiness, without these things we would be about as mindless as a colony of ants. Now do we really wanna be a colony of ants? seriously?

Economic- Cold shrewed hard logic. Don't matter if ya gotta pop someone int he fucken face to do it. In economics the ends justify the means.

See, its all dependant ont he circumstances. Personally in life and in most of my interactions of any sort I try to listen to both logic and emotion. It's hard to come to a comprimise between the two of them sometimes but usually its fairly obvious which should be listened to. We need our emotions other wise we become as insects.

[Chaoslight]

"The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few"

Just because something is heartless and cruel does not make it logical. For instance, the example about it being logical to kill mentally disabled people is not logical at all. Keeping them alive means people have to take care of them. This creates jobs.

[fishface59]

Logic, useful, but suppose one of these poor sods in africa came up with an idea truly earth-shaking, which benefits mankind, NOWis it logical to just leave them to die?

[bumcheekcity]

At 12/14/03 04:51 PM, Xion-Fox wrote: Economic- Cold shrewed hard logic. Don't matter if ya gotta pop someone int he fucken face to do it. In economics the ends justify the means.

Really? So Nike making $700bn but using Kids from the Third world to make their products is fine?

What about selling crack cocaine? Is that fine? Would raping and torturing people be fine? For a profit, i mean?

[1337Ranson]

In the end, all that matters is that when you act, you act out of love and compassion to all things. Thus regardless of the results, you have done the right thing.

[karasz]

At 12/14/03 05:33 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 12/14/03 04:51 PM, Xion-Fox wrote: Economic- Cold shrewed hard logic. Don't matter if ya gotta pop someone int he fucken face to do it. In economics the ends justify the means.

Really? So Nike making $700bn but using Kids from the Third world to make their products is fine?

yes... logically speaking the company exists for one thing... to make a profit, having children work for pennies is LOGICALLY speaking the right decision

emotionally speaking i say we cut the throats of each nike exec not trying to stop that then give their money to the families of the kids they are using...

What about selling crack cocaine? Is that fine? Would raping and torturing people be fine? For a profit, i mean?

the selling crack is a capitalist manuever AND logically speaking should be ok... its a product, and goes through normal supply and demand curves and cycles as any product.

raping and torturing is different, you are physically and psychological problems...

the crack is a product that people CHOOSE to do...

the kids in the nike factory CHOOSE to work there for pennies...

not exactly the best defense of it but hey i tried...

im a fan of logic over anything BUT i also know that its impossible to take the emotion OUT of politics...

so as others are getting pissed off at things i will stay on my logical discourse discussion and beat them...

thinking with the head beats thinking with the heart at all times

[Xion-Fox]

<---ADHD, "MUST, PAUSE VIDEO GAME, RESPOND, TO THREAD" *tears himself from the game console*

But that's a questioning issue of exactly what is retarted. Personally, I would say anihalate the giblies. The people who can't function on thier own. Yes they create jobs but they are alos a massive drain on our resources. Personally I think There should be more clothing stores less gibly homes.

<---Slave to fashion

No, look morally, I'm highly aposed ot nike, what they do is morally wrong, but morals are an emotional concept. Personally 9/11 is a perfect example.

My Emotional Response: That's really too bad, it shouldn't hasve had happened and there is no reason for this kinda BS.

My Logical Response: Hardy har har fucken har. You fucken deserved it you shouldn't have been putting your nose in other peoples business.

As for the drug dealing comment, dude I used to do it and still do to a degree, its economic, in the economic world there is no room for compasion and emotion when your trying to turn a profit. In drug dealing, if someone jacks you even if they're your friend, you fucken shoot em. You drown out competition. I didn't at any point say this was right, but its the way of the world. Your views and opinions are shaped by the people your around. Personally I see nothing wrong to selling crack to people who WANT it. I do have issues if someone is forced or otherwise.

Shit geeze, an emotional response :P Look, wether what someone does in business is morally right or wrong, its business. In the corporate world "Nice guys finish last." You don't make money by making comprimise and concessions. You make it the same way a boxer does, kickin the shit out of your opponents.

I tend to be fairly emotional about certain things, but I do draw lines n certain subjects and throw up my hands say "Who really gives two flying fucks?" That is pure logic right there.

[Slizor]

Whatever happened to the idea that if a person is smart enough and strong enough, they will MAKE their environment what it needs to be?

The idea died because it was too bloody stupid to continue. Survival of the fittest, a la ideas.

[FUNKbrs]

At 12/15/03 03:29 PM, Slizor wrote:
The idea died because it was too bloody stupid to continue. Survival of the fittest, a la ideas.

Long time no see, Slizor.

*rolls up sleeves*

What part of strength=good don't you understand? You can't help the poor without the power to do so, so in order for such a thing to be done, the strong *gasp* MUST BECOME STRONGER. The only way you can help the lower class is to create a system where upward mobility is easy. In a capitalist semi-socialist government (like the U.S.) public education and scholarships ensure that the truly deserving can become powerful (ie, the intelligent and motivated). The poor now have no excuse in this system: only the stupid and lazy fail. Unless you plan on rewarding lazyiness and stupidity, you have to reward motivation and intelligence.

And don't kid yourself, there's no way NOT to reward anyone. People are competitive by nature, and will always find a way of keeping score.

[Xion-Fox]

LMFAOROFL@judgeFunk.

You are seriously deluded aren't you. LMFAO. Dude your american system is hardly even a smidgen into socialism. Although there is a vague attempt. And you seem to forget that the people who are poor haven't all chosen to be there. Why don't you actually talk to a homeless person or a drug dealer? Chances are most of them are not going to sya they really want to be there.

On top of that, the strong rule? God that sounds like.... Oh shit, tyrany. I thought you americans were trying to abolish that?

Just becuase your strong doesn't mean you should excersize it purely for your own gain. If that were the case life would be hella dark. With that strength you should help the emfeebled or the under privileged. Not to mention Scholar ships? ha, those are almost impossible to get unless your a 100% student or a god damned all star. Most of us who want a higher education, myself included have to spend hours upon hours breaking our fucken backs and wracking our brains and being bitches to make the money to get there. Some people aren't capable of working two or three or four jobs at a time my friend. If you want a literal concept of what your talking about you have to go full socialist like Sweden.

Education is matter of thought and intellegence, I'm sorry to say but someone in america public schooling is not going to be the same as someone from private school.

Its the same damned thing in canada, but a little better. Consider "smart guy" Your scientists and shit come from us. This should really really tell you something.

Awh shit would you look at this. I got all emotional and off topic. No fair just cause I'm adhd doesn't mean you should take advantage of it. LMAO oh yeah I got me some speed today, legally too :P

[FUNKbrs]

graduated income tax
welfare
social security
unemployment benefits
public schools
scholarships
HUD
and various other grants.

Did I forget to mention my father left Frayser (the poorest neighborhood in Memphis) to join the military and get his Nuclear Reactor Operator license, despite the fact that he had 12 brothers and sisters? He had every reason to be a lazy redneck drunk, but instead he becomes a nuclear physicist under the American system.

I would explain how many poor drug addicts are in my family, but it's not like you'd listen anyway.

[Slizor]

graduated income tax
welfare
social security
unemployment benefits
public schools
scholarships
HUD
and various other grants.

All these ideas are supported by Modern Liberals. They are not "Socialist" in any real sense of the word. Maybe just on the fringe of Social Democracy, but I doubt it.

Did I forget to mention my father left Frayser (the poorest neighborhood in Memphis) to join the military and get his Nuclear Reactor Operator license, despite the fact that he had 12 brothers and sisters? He had every reason to be a lazy redneck drunk, but instead he becomes a nuclear physicist under the American system.

One example doesn't prove a rule. The US has the worst social mobility of any first world nation due to its poor welfare infrastructure. The US is not the "land of opportunity". You can't go out and stake a claim anymore.

I would explain how many poor drug addicts are in my family, but it's not like you'd listen anyway.

If you believe that the US has good upward social mobility then you believe that black people are lazy/stupid/both? That could be the only possible explaination for black male earnings to be 60% of white male earnings (on average.)

[Slizor]

What part of strength=good don't you understand?

You said that the strong can control their environment......which is beyond bullshit. You could be walking down a street and be hit by an asteroid. Coud you control that? No. Shit happens, shit happens which you can't control.

You may be working at a factory and doing adult education classes in the night time to improve your lot. Then bang, a recession hits and the factory closes down. You can't afford the classes anymore and you haven't got a job.

You can't help the poor without the power to do so, so in order for such a thing to be done, the strong *gasp* MUST BECOME STRONGER.

Rephrase, you're not making sense.

The only way you can help the lower class is to create a system where upward mobility is easy. In a capitalist semi-socialist government (like the U.S.) public education and scholarships ensure that the truly deserving can become powerful (ie, the intelligent and motivated).

You say that upward mobility is easy, then use the examples of underfunded public education and scholarships which only go to the very very brightest.

The poor now have no excuse in this system: only the stupid and lazy fail.

In a system with a heirarchy not everyone can be on the top. If everyone works hard, some of them will still have to be on the bottom.

And don't kid yourself, there's no way NOT to reward anyone. People are competitive by nature, and will always find a way of keeping score.

Don't kid yourself, people are co-operative by nature.

[Xion-Fox]

I'm gonna play devils advocate here, and if the html don't work sorry I'm putz when it comes to html

Alright, here we go.

JudgeFunk:

Your theories and morals are great. As it stands the strong become stonger and it continues to be that the states does have an increased upward mobility of social standings.

Also, the poor should be helped, and there are given Aspects of the government/economy that helps to allow for this. Americans are on their way to a fairly half decent society.

But, there is always a but. You forgetting that once you have obtained that strength are you going to use it? Once your "strong" as you put it doesn't neccisarily mean you have the capacity to help the less forfortunate. On top of that, once you become strong often times it becomes a vested interest to remain as such. You don't care about who you tread upon your more concerned about staying strong.

And don't bad mouth druggies, we're not all bad, just different. For exaqmple, although I tend to be the exception rather than the rule, I do acid, I used to meth, I still smoke pot and do zoomers, however I'm not stupid not lazy and not anything else. I'm doing the things I should be. Unfotunately I can classify myself among the unemployed, why? becuase I live in a small ass city in central alberta. Word has gotten around about me and now no one wants to hire me.

Note: Alberta is canada's equivelant to texas, alabama, utah, red neck haven

This is proof in vested interests, rather than give me half a chance and risk that I may screw things up for the strong they will not give me any chance. Your dad as well is an exception to the rule. Just becuase someone is smart and such does not neccisarily mean they will climb the ladder accordingly. Strong become stronger, well, the strength and power should be shared.

You do have some socialist based programs but they're not nearly as well thought out as you might think.

Sizlor:

Ummm, well. I agree with you but I'm gonna try and see if there's anything I can come up with against your view...

Well for starters, there are some socialist styled programs in the US, its an attempt, but a band aid is not a cast. Ummm, there is a point at which the strong becoming stronger has its bonus' becuase as Judge said, survival of the fittest. Its just too bad that means that people wind up ignoring the weak.

Shit this hard, I'm not good at playing devil's advocate :S.

Summar:

Umm well, I believe that both of you have valid points but seriously judge. You sound strong, you sound like although it may not be a whole hell of alot you make money and have expendable income, if so, then why not share it with the poor? Why not next time you see a homeless individual instead of turning your head and a blind eye, help and spare coin. And you may, but I suspect you'll more quickly turn your head.

[D2Kvirus]

Emotions work best when you're being fucked over by your Government over something, and they are not paying attention to the will and opinion of the masses - since Logic won't make the blindest bit of difference as it is easier to ignore a well put together statment by one person out of hand, than it is to ignore a protest from a large number of likeminded people.

In theory...

[Xion-Fox]

This is mostly for anyone who is paying attention to judges, siz's and my currently developed argument. It'll clutter up this thread no doubt, so if ya wanna respond I would advise Strong and the weak thread. Logical no?

Siz, and judge come on lets duke it out :P

[Xion-Fox]

he, oops, sorry, and I appologize for any miss quotes I may have made in my last couple of posts, you guys know what you said so adjust accordingly and sorry for the miss spell of you name slizor, Speed is bad makes ya think fast but sometimes you loose track of shit :S

[D2Kvirus]

"A riot is the language of the unheard." - Martin Luther King.

Is there more logic or emotion in that? As I said, to get to that level, logic has failed - or been ignored.

[Xion-Fox]

At 12/17/03 07:11 PM, Bakshi wrote: Whateva happened to our discussion on ADD/ADHD?!

LMAO Something else cuaght our attention? :P

LMAO I got my prescription for speed its not an issue any more :P I dunno

"Ooh looka at that, a sun ray on the water, now what were you yelling at me about sergeant? I don't pay attention? I have no memory how can you.... Ooh look at the big puppy :P Now what was I saying?"