Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Coroc" data-source="post: 7870139" data-attributes="member: 6895991">I like your examples, but there is one point I miss and that is probably what [USER=7015476]@Son of the Serpent[/USER] wants to say:You are judging (rightfully) the bad intentions of Darth Sidious and the cannibal to be covering up for their evil acts.Still, this does not make their claims invalid or untrue, because peace and stability is overall considered a good thing, and the analysis of Jedi and Republic are fragile is to the point.And although it is very amorally to think about cannibalism as a way to reduce overpopulation and human meat as a protein source, the facts presented are nevertheless true (Although morally absolutely questionable).In a discussion it is the facts presented if you want to convince a logic thinking individual, it is never the person presenting the facts. If the facts presented by an unhonest individual are true nevertheless it would be foolish to ignore them just out of principle.Let us take this further, you got two sides discussing, one is known to have a good reputation upstanding morales and be truthful, the other is the opposite.And for whatever reason the truthful side has got the facts for the specific topic wrong, be it of misinformation, strong dogma or whatever. Furthermore the opposite side got the facts right and presents them with or without second thought, it does not matter.Both sides try to convince two different neutrals observing the dispute which is about something totally morally neutral.One of them is a logic thinker the other a individual relying on his instincts.Then a logical thinking observant will be able to conclude that the "evil" side has got the facts right.The observant who relies on his inner feelings or dogma or something other will judge the book by its cover and take sides with the "good" side, no matter the facts presented are wrong.If those two observers start to dispute afterwards, the logical thinker will tell his analysis of the facts to be true, whereas the instinctive observer will try to convince the logical thinker that he is in the wrong, basically because the (Still true) facts were presented by an evil individual not trustworthy etc.I do not know if this is a fact, it is just my personal experience, which has shown me that more often than not, people rely on their instincts rather than logics, in other words people are sometimes easily fooled by wrong facts because it is the easy and "feel good" option.</blockquote>

Verification