-10 votes

Conflicting Principles: Sabotaging Potential with a Smile

NOTE: Your down-ratings don't make this any less true and your up-ratings with the willfully ignorant only show you're willfully ignorant as well.

We all have principles that we try to stick to. But something many people don't realize is that sometimes, principles that alone, sound great, can sometimes lead you to sabotaging the potential for good.

What I mean by this is an example I used in some comments on someone elses' post.

A German Christian man during World War 2 holds his integrity at the forefront of his being. It is a principle that defines him. Then, when the Jews were being persecuted and shipped off to camps, the man decided it was the right thing to do, to help protect those who sought shelter in his attic. Defending the less fortunate was also a principle he held in high esteem.

Now the conflicted principles...

A whole Jewish family is hiding in his attic. A full patrol of Nazi soldiers knock on his door and ask if there are any Jews in his apartment.

TWO major principles come into play:
A: Telling the truth...
B: Defending the less fortunate...

He can't choose both.
The key is that one has a much higher moral high ground while the other naturally becomes the more selfish of the two choices.

Which is which?

He can choose to weigh the consequences of both.

"If I lie and they find the Jewish family, I could be killed."
OR
"If I tell the truth, I have a much higher chance of not being killed, but the Jewish family will most certainly be put through hell if not to death."

Most would say that they would lie and justify this lying as not being the same as normal lying, because they're lying for the sake of principle. They hold integrity to them self through the principle of defending the defenseless from unjust treatment. We would see this as the moral high ground... risking oneself for the sake of others.

Some would never the less still say they would tell the truth... and yet again... sacrificing the lives of others for the sake of securing their own... they would tell themselves the same. "I'm sticking to my principles!". The person would even go as far as justifying it with "I did it so I could survive and help others in the future. This family was just unlucky that I couldn't take that risk now" or any other way to deal and live with their looming guilt. Most of us would see this as the selfish choice.

This kind of conflict, two very valid, admirable, and worth copying principles going head to head with each other, happens ALL THE TIME to ALL OF US.

We need to think with our heads, because sometimes our hearts don't always have the greatest intentions. Sometimes the negative feelings we have will influence our thinking in such a way that we justify choosing the "lesser of two saints".

And just like those that vote Obama to keep Romney out or those that vote Romney to get Obama out... they justify it with excuses... so they don't have to feel one ounce of guilt in their decision. They convinced themselves "I stuck to my principles!". That's exactly what both parties rely on.

I had never thought about the conflict of principles until I noticed a post by a user who voted in a CNN poll for "other" in order to signify their write-in vote for Paul, WHILE at the same time writing the post to let Johnson supporters know that Johnson was included in the polls. He told himself he was doing them a service by letting them know that Johnson was receiving more attention that could lead to him getting into the debates when he hits that 15% threshold.

I asked "Why couldn't someone who understood the importance of Johnson doing well in the polls have said they were 'leaning Johnson' instead of wasting their vote as 'other' when it didn't change his actual vote at all?"

Their response was something along the lines of "Because that's who I'm voting for and I'm honest."

"Why are you putting an answer to a poll that's part of a broken electoral process ahead of the positive affects of Johnson getting into the debates?"

Cue the excuses and then silence.

When is the last time you heard someone admit they were wrong on the internet about something they were extremely adamant about?

The answer to that shows our pattern of not being able to handle admitting when we're wrong. We consider being wrong, "failure". We become hurt because we've made the beliefs we fight for in argument part of our identity... so it becomes personal. We make our beliefs part of who we are to FEEL more sure of ourselves and our surrounding world. "I've got it all figured out and anyone that doesn't agree with me is wrong!" Even when we don't say that, the majority of us act that way.

We avoid the truth about ourselves, because most haven't even began to scratch at the surface of their real emotional flaws.

My whole life I've noticed willful ignorance... the pathological denial that people allow themselves to fall into for the sake of emotional security. It usually starts in childhood, but gets worse and worse. A deeper and deeper hole that we never realized we were in in the first place. That darkness is the number one cause of all of the world's problems on ALL scales... between nations, between lovers, between parents and their children, and between all of us that have let us become divided by our unmovable beliefs.

So which conflict of principles is going to let US, ourselves, sabotage our own movement?

A: The principle to vote for who I want to be president regardless of whether they can win or not...
B: The principle to promote the cause of liberty every chance I get and not allow myself to sabotage that potential...

You can do both and STILL tell yourself your sticking to your principles... so... which one is the more morally obligatory and which is the more selfish of the two?

Let's look at them in detail.

The principle to vote for who you want regardless of whether they can win or not is usually fueled by many emotions:
---The feeling of not wanting to feel as though you quit, in the same way a captain goes down with his ship.
---The feeling of making it more than just a "vote", but part of who you are, a representation of you and everything you stand for.
---The feeling of anger towards a broken system and those that cheated the person you wanted to win from the start.

It could be one or any combination of those and more that I haven't listed. The important part to realize is that you have this principle because of your emotions when you self-reflect on what your vote says about you.

The principle to promote liberty every chance you get and not let yourself sabotage positive change's potential is more complicated than that:
---It requires critical thinking and time to do so. It's not as simple as following your heart.
---It requires considering everything in order to be careful of not making the wrong move.
---It requires looking at every possible result honestly in order to choose the best result for the liberty movement versus making yourself feel good.

The first principle only requires your heart, while this one requires your head, is fueled by your heart, and ends up feeding back into it... because following this principle and seeing that you did will make you feel good like with following any other.

Now... why do these two principles conflict with each other?

What if voting for someone other than you want ends up promoting the cause of liberty the most? What if voting for who you want ends up sabotaging the potential for the liberty movement?

Let me explain.
(Please realize that I'm a die-hard Ron Paul supporter who was originally going to write-in Paul until I put A LOT of consideration into it http://www.dailypaul.com/251148/should-we-write-in-dr-paul-i...)

-=Support for Gary Johnson will help get him 15% to enter the national debates.=-
1. Him being in the debates shows the entire country how similar, in the worst ways, both Obama and Romney are.
2. Him being in the debates will get people to be interested in looking up Ron Paul and the meaning of "Liberty" for themselves.
3. Him being in the debates in a time where we have the same tool that helped us more than double Paul's supporters in 4 years time, the internet, INCREASES his chance of garnering the votes of the 46% of Americans who consider BOTH, Obama and Romney, one of "two evils"... to either get the dramatically largest vote that any 3rd party candidate has ever received, or even win the presidency.

(Even though I don't think he is a true libertarian personally, I don't consider him an "evil". To those who dislike him for various reasons... would you rather have the "least evil" or the 2nd worst?)

-=Our votes unified behind Johnson will make a huge impact for the country and our bid for the GOP nomination with a TRUE libertarian in 2016 during our takeover of the Republican party.=-
1. If the GOP loses or only wins by a small margin, and they see a large amount of support behind the supposed "Libertarian", they know exactly who they lost their votes to.
2. If the GOP realizes how many votes they lost because they cheated, pushed aside, and alienated libertarians, for the sake of winning or winning by an even larger margin for the sake of less risk of losing, they not only won't cheat us, but may even promote a libertarian nominee for the sake of getting our vote.
3. Winning the GOP nomination with a true libertarian in 2016 would be the apex of our takeover. The Republican party would almost be synonymous with libertarianism. No more RINOs. Just classic liberty loving Republicans that are the end result of hundreds of years of learning and appreciating what liberty and our constitution are all about.

So now you can see the most positive potential there is for promoting liberty, improving our country and its culture, and furthering the liberty movement and it's Ron Paul inspired agenda for GOP takeover.

So THIS is the conflict...

Do you promote liberty for the sake of these great things with support and a vote for Johnson?

OR

Do you sabotage that potential with a vote for who you want to be president regardless of whether they can win or not?

Which principle is more important to you...

Promoting liberty to your best ability for all of the things listed... or... a write-in vote that only you will remember?

You can tell yourself you stuck to your principles either way... but which way is the moral high ground?

Are you really going to intentionally ignore the fact that you're sacrificing one principle for the other... just because it's easier to?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

1. I've already explained how

1. I've already explained how there wasn't a single insult within my post. Feel free to quote any that you claimed to have found.

2. My assessment is based on years of studying human behavior, debate, logical reasoning, and every other nuance that people perform daily but pay no attention to... not even their own. Here for example I explained how there are no "insults", just the reader's intentional perceptions of them... and you're then using these non-existent insults as the basis of your "inability to accept" claim.

That's an accurate assessment of your choice to ignore valid reasoning without invalidating it and then make a fallacious claim based on the very belief you STILL want to believe is true when it's already shown to not be. Now why would someone want to ignore a fact and then make a discrediting claim about someone based on something that's not even true?

Hmmmm...

3. You don't have to be in the human race long to realize that the vast majority of people are willfully ignorant to one extent or another. Those "truth-seekers" I mention will NEVER admit to themselves that there's truths out there they can't handle, even when their actions and words show otherwise. Why? Because they made "truth-seeking" as part of their identity/ego and cant handle the idea of feeling like a failure or fake when it's pointed out.

4. The DP attracts a large number of conspiracy theorists. There's a difference. And I'm not angry at all. How can I get angry when I expect willful ignorance from many?

5. "Approach"? I'm not trying to change the mind of the willfully ignorant. That's an impossible task. This is for the ACTUALLY open-minded, not just those that tell themselves they are and act it only when it's convenient for them. But thank you for implying something such as "childish" when you didn't even understand the intentions from the start.

6. If you missed the note at the beginning of the post... I was fully expecting the down-votes. It's not what the willfully ignorant think of what I have to say with their fallacious reasoning that bothers me... it's that they exist in the first place and sabotage the world on every scale... from diplomacy and the lack there of, to domestic policy, to interpersonal relationships.

But please, in your ever knowing wisdom, please quote the things in the post that I should have worded differently... I mean... if it's so obvious.

OR you can continue to prove that you don't understand what you're reading and making claims as though you do.

Prove you're right or continue to prove you're wrong.

Your choice.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

reedr3v's picture

Since we seem to be speaking past each other,

let's not continue this boring exchange. You imagine people are interested in reading long diatribes. Fine. Learn from experience. I offered a critique thinking it might be useful to you. apparently not, fine.

Just because I don't agree

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean you had been talking passed me.

I've replied and countered every point you've made.

If anyone was talking passed someone... it was me talking passed you, because you wouldn't even consider whether what I was saying was valid or not. You intentionally ignored evidence contrary to your beliefs in order to hold onto them. You're being just as willfully ignorant as those I've mentioned.

Also, I've told you that I didn't care if people read it or not. The fact that you're STILL going on about the length of this post shows that you're INTENTIONALLY ignoring what I say.

Of course this is boring for me, your willful ignorance is cliche.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

You're so desperate to

You're so desperate to believe that you only have one principle that you're willing to re-define the meaning of the word. Just another justification used as an excuse.

prin·ci·ple   [prin-suh-puhl]
noun
1. an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.

"Promoting liberty EVERY CHANCE YOU HAVE/TO ITS FULL POTENTIAL" isn't JUST "promoting liberty."

You CAN promote liberty while voting and supporting whoever you want, BUT you CAN NOT promote liberty to ITS FULL POTENTIAL while voting and supporting whoever you want (as explained in pointing out our full potential in 2012 and 2016).

"Only supporting those that adhere and don't violate NAP" is an action based on simplistic criteria.

"Promoting liberty to its full potential" are actions that take a lot of consideration and thought PRIOR to further action.

When you choose the easier of two principles to follow... yes... you are being selfish. ONLY ONE of the principles is the "moral high ground" of the two.

Do you realize how incoherent you sound when you intentionally misconstrue my words and show that you DON'T WANT to understand what you're responding to?

Those that would say Johnson would set us back and their one or two reasons can and have been easily invalidated.

Until they come up with something... invalidate the reasoning I gave regarding our full potential... but you won't... because you can't. This is giving yourself a very weak excuse to ignore the potential so choosing the easier principle to follow is even more easy and guilt free. You're doing exactly what I described and choosing to ignore it.

How is it "rejection of principle" when you're convinced that you you only have one principle? lol

When you're lying to yourself... how can you be making these kinds of claims? I know you try making points... but they're just to feel like you have and made a valid argument... when you haven't. Can't make a valid argument when you're responding to intentionally misconstrued points.

I'm pretty sure the person that intentionally doesn't understand so they can go on believing what they want to believe rather than what's the truth is the confused person. Sad thing is... you'll never realize you're that kind of confused, because you've convinced you're not despite the contrary evidence in this response.

When two or more principles conflict and you choose the one that is the moral high ground (promoting liberty to its FULL potential)... you're not "abandoning" or "rejecting" principle. You're making a choice you have to make.

Sadly, many defuse the choice by lying to themselves and ignoring important points... so they never have to feel like they needed to make one.

Have fun with that.

And so you don't forget how you lied to yourself...
-You INTENTIONALLY ignored the part of the principle regarding "full potential" in order to TELL YOURSELF there's no conflict with "I can promote liberty and vote for anyone".
-You told/lied to yourself that two principles were only one by saying that one of them was an "action"... when in truth... they're both actions and follow the definition of principle. This was how you could TELL YOURSELF there wasn't a choice to be made.
-You TELL YOURSELF that "others won't see it your way" despite that being obvious. The point you INTENTIONALLY missed is that people CHOOSE to ignore the facts so they DON'T HAVE TO see it as accurately as possible. This isn't "my way" or opinions... these are facts that neither you or anyone else has tried invalidating yet, because you can't.
-Ron Paul supports and has said he would vote for a "Fair Tax". If you don't like that about Gary Johnson... you don't like that about Paul either.
-Going through the mental hoops you do in order to TELL YOURSELF something other than the truth... just so you can choose one principle over the other. Yeah... I'm pretty sure you're doing it selfishly seeing as NAP is a personal belief while promoting the cause of liberty, the movement, helping ending the 2 party duopoly, waking Americans up to what's going on, and helping with our part in the GOP is MUCH bigger than just you.
-You're STILL trying to lie to/TELL YOURSELF that the conflict doesn't even exist. If you TELL YOURSELF there's only one principle, you then get to use the "How is voting for a NAP candidate, selfish???" The same exact way you get to TELL YOURSELF you're still sticking to principle when you're in reality CHOOSING the moral low ground of the two principles.
-You then use sarcasm to make the same point "I thought it was good to promote NAP". You doing a write-in that no one else will ever remember compared to getting behind a person who would make people interested in looking up liberty and Paul's ideas regarding NAP would have a MUCH greater impact than your lost and possibly uncounted vote. You're CHOOSING to exaggerate the impact your vote has in order to keep TELLING YOURSELF that it's the better choice when I've explained how it's not. You INTENTIONALLY ignore and attempt to discredit the evidence with fallacious reasoning.
-You INTENTIONALLY misunderstand what I say in order to TELL YOURSELF I said that you were both "choosing the moral high ground" AND "being unprincipled" when I NEVER said or implied that. When here in reality, I said the opposite. Your one/two principles lie to yourself is what allows you to put these words into my mouth.
-He more than "might have a positive consequence". I've clearly explained what would happen... and instead of trying to prove those things wrong... you lie to yourself over and over again as shown here.

All of these points show you to be EXACTLY the "willfully ignorant" I mentioned in the post. Because you're in pathological denial of it though... you can't admit it. Hence why I feel sorry for you. You're in hole and don't even know it in order to get out.

How can you see clearly or truly understand anything when you INTENTIONALLY misunderstand?

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

How can you tell me...

How can you tell me which principle I do or do not hold?

If I say I only adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle, that means I only adhere to the Non-Aggression Principle.

You seem to believe you can force upon me a "principle" that I do not hold, then accuse me of violating it.

All my actions are guided by Non-Aggression, nothing more and nothing less.

I don't hold this magical "Principle B", you keep accusing me of violating.

Furthermore, you haven't addressed any of my points, you just continue to ramble on about some "principle" you've ascribed to me, which I do not hold.

I do not hold a principle, that says The ends justify the means, in the promotion of liberty.

I am not a consequentialist, you may be, but I am not.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

1. "The ends justify the

1. "The ends justify the means" is not a principle or part of one. It's a reasoning that allows you to choose one over another. Just as in my Nazi Germany example... lying was justified for the sake of the Jewish family.

2. I did respond to every point you made, but you ignored them all. They're listed at the bottom of the last comment. Feel free to quote the points you made that I supposedly ignored. I know you can't do this, because when you attempt to, I'll just quote my response I already gave... which then proves you CHOSE to ignore my counter-points.

3. You're right. I assumed that one of your principles was that you "promote liberty to its full potential". Are you saying that that is not one of your principles? I ask, because that's one of the principles of a libertarian... to promote, NOT sabotage, liberty. Choosing something other than what gives us the full potential is the same as sabotage.

PS Add to that list...
-You TOLD YOURSELF the definition of "principle" was something other than what it was so you could ATTEMPT to discredit one of the two I listed as not being a principle at all. Which backfired seeing as "it's not a principle, because it's an 'action'" also invalidated "Only supporting and voting for those that adhere to NAP" as a principle as well when the definition clearly says it can be an "rule of action".

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

I will say it again...

You are incredibly confused.

You are telling me that I am unprincipled and contradicting myself for standing on the Non-Aggression Principle, and not accepting that the ends justify the means.

But I reject consequentialism entirely!

I do not believe that supposed ends of "Promting liberty to its fullest potential" justifies the means of violating NAP to support "Pragmatic", "Fair Taxing", "Humanitarian War" supporting Gary Johnson.

I Am a Deontological libertarian, I believe in the Non-Aggression Principle, I believe in Natural Rights, I am NOT a consequentialist.

I do not share the same "principle" you share.

I do not believe that positive consequences outweigh moral transgression.

You may be a consequentialist, BUT I AM NOT!

I hold a completely different philosophy than you, I will promote liberty as much as I can WITHIN the limits of the Non-Aggression Principle, I do not believe in violating it for perceived positive consequences.

I am not contradicting your "principle", because I do not hold it.

You really need to learn about the differences between Deontological and Consequentialist.

Goodbye, you can argue with yourself, because you aren't worth my opportunity cost.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Your whole argument is

Your whole argument is invalid, because the "ends" that are justified by the means is possibly violating NAP LESS now, versus the same if not worse NAP violations with your other viable choices (Obama or Romney with your write-in), and having a greater chance of getting a true libertarian nominated through the GOP in 2016 in order to NOT violate NAP at all.

You're sabotaging the potential we have of violating NAP less now and not at all in the future.

A person that sabotages that potential might as well be a part of those opposing it. You've convinced yourself to be an enabler of WORSE NAP violation without having to acknowledge the consequences of your actions (because you didn't put much thought into it) RATHER than help us make NAP violation less and then non-existent.

You consider your vote as only a means to protest of "I don't agree with violating NAP!" when in reality its greater potential is in working towards violating NAP less.

Again, your over-simplistic principle sabotages itself when you don't put much thought into it and all of the aspects of right now and the future.

"It has been established that devotion to a consequentialist system of ethics does not necessarily entail a shunting of personal responsibility onto a moral calculus of utility. The question remains whether those who choose consequentialism in fact do so in order to avoid personal responsibility."
-http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/objection_to_consequentialism.html

A deontologist uses a cynical ASSUMPTION of others in order to object consequentialism.

In reality... a deontologist that objects something, but doesn't do something ACTUALLY productive and proactive about it... is really just stroking their own ego about how pure in principles they are when their actions show otherwise. Again... willful ignorance is bliss regardless of how you make your decisions. It must be nice.

You convincing yourself that your write-in does ANYTHING to help stop the violation of NAP is the lie you tell yourself... and even if you acknowledge that it doesn't but that you're still going to do it... you won't admit that it's really just to tell yourself how great you are in sticking to that principle.

You're the guy that doesn't pick up a gun and fight to defend your home because you don't like guns. Sure the consequence would be your home being destroyed, but you're not a consequentialist... you're pure and touching a gun would be against your principle and who you are. You would rather choose possible death than defending your home.

You would rather tell the truth and give up the Jewish family in the attic because telling the truth is what you do regardless of consequence and you still get to pat yourself on the back for it.

Thanks for giving me the interest to look up the difference.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally

One last thing...

Just because this is such blatantly ridiculous ad hominem:

"You would rather tell the truth and give up the Jewish family in the attic because telling the truth is what you do regardless of consequence and you still get to pat yourself on the back for it."

WTF are you on about?

What does a Jewish Family in Nazi Germany have to do with any of this at all?

First of all, It would be a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle to assist criminals in rounding up and murdering people.

Secondly, if you think lying is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle, you are very mistaken. (I really don't think you understand the NAP)

Finally, I watched you hurl insult after insult throughout the conversation, but I didn't think you would sink that low.

You really should be ashamed of yourself, you have a lot of learning to do.

Also this: "You're the guy that doesn't pick up a gun and fight to defend your home because you don't like guns. Sure the consequence would be your home being destroyed, but you're not a consequentialist... you're pure and touching a gun would be against your principle and who you are. You would rather choose possible death than defending your home."

Now I really think you don't understand the Non-Aggression Principle!

NAP states that the only justifiable use of force is in DEFENSE, you are most definitely justified in defending your home!

I can assure you that I am not afraid of guns, my 9x18mm Makarov PM is sitting about 5 feet away from me right now.

This is just laughable!

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

First off, I find it

First off, I find it laughable that you COMPLETELY ignored the fact that I just showed how you in "sticking to your NAP principle" the way you CHOOSE to are in fact allowing yourself to enable the violation of NAP to happen more and sabotaging the greater chance of it not being violated in the future. If anyone here is avoiding responsibility for the violation of NAP... it's not the consequentialist... it's the deontologist who says "Hey guys, I know I didn't do anything to help stop or lessen the violation of NAP now or in the future... but I did vote for the only person that wouldn't violate it... so that absolves me of any responsibility!" Again... you use your vote as protest only to tell yourself you were in the right while ignoring that your vote could be used as a much more useful tool to help our government get closer and closer to not violating your own principle. By sabotaging your own principle, you become unprincipled, but willfully ignorant of it.

Then onto the only thing you focused on and were wrong about.

If you don't know what the Nazi/Jewish Family example is... then apparently you didn't read my post that you decided to comment on. That example took up nearly 1/3 of the post from the beginning to explain the concept of conflicting principles.

It wasn't a baseless ad hominem. It was an observation AFTER your argument was already invalidated, taking your self-proclaimed deontologist logic and applying it to the example I started the post off with.

The two examples I give at the end are NOT about YOU or YOUR "NAP principle"... they're about the flawed logic and reasoning of a deontologist ("you") who doesn't take consequence into their reasoning.

I only think lying is a violation of NAP if it violates NAP. You would come to that conclusion after misconstrue what was said.

So thank you for again, showing you didn't even know what you were commenting on, as well as your ability to misconstrue things for the sake of ammo, such as "ridiculous ad hominem".

To prove it's not an ad hominem... even without it... the points I made still stand. The fact that you instantly go to something you misconstrued to start off your response shows how much you're reaching.

The fact that you ASSUMED I thought you were afraid of guns with no reason to think so, again, shows how far your stretching.

Please, after considering all of this information that clears up what you misunderstood... please quote the "insults" that I should be ashamed of?

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally