05-13-2020, 12:33 PM
(05-12-2020, 06:35 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The basic proposal is that cultures who have lived under threat of instant nuclear destruction are traumatized, more rationally committed to not support leaders likely to commit to a crisis war, or both.
You may have noted the difference between above making a decision emotionally, or rationally. Some people make decisions more emotionally. These are called Feelers in the Myers Briggs system. Others are more rational. These would be the Thinkers. I’m just leaving room for both to make the decision to avoid nuclear war. Both might make the decision to embrace a crisis war, assuming they haven’t lived through one, as the reasons for such a conflict may seem important if you had not lived through a previous such war.
Making a decision to risk a nuclear exchange would be unlikely. I don’t care if one is emotional or rational at core. It is just a bad decision.
And if a guy comes along that insists that you have not made that decision, that you would support such a war, well, it is not surprising that you cut him out of your social circle. The fault would belong to the prophet, not to the man being irrationally preached to. It would be the prophet who had made the mistake.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.