Raw LLM Responses

@snakeslither8831 First off I was joking. The way you said emotions are greater than logic sort of indicated you were admitting Hitler did nothing wrong (as that was what the AI kept repeating). However, voluntarily admitting to being an emotional basket case excuses not understanding jokes so I'll forgive you for that. The reason why emotions are the dumbest thing you could possibly use to make decisions: emotions by themselves can be used extremely easily to get a response out of someone into acting a predictable way (especially against their own best interest or against what they are trying to achieve). Lets use a couple examples. The first illustrates this on a personal level you might be able to emotionally sympathize with. Example 1: Sociopath manipulating their coworker or peers at school. You have likely found yourself the victim of this (as not only are you a perpetual victim in your mind, but also easily emotionally manipulated people are usually the target of sociopaths). The sociopath will make up a very emotionally charged accusation about someone, they will go on and on about the brutality and evil of this person, and when questioned on it they will break down crying or break into rage that you would not believe them. Only using emotions you would a) sympathize with their raw emotions b) be angry or disgusted at the "perpetrator", and c) if you lacked the cognitive ability or tools to critically think, unquestionably believe them. This obviously is not the right response. Skepticism and seeking out the accused side of the story would be the logical solution (even if you have a strong emotional connection to the person). Obviously if the sociopath is a family member or something you might not abandon them, but you would try and learn their pattern of lies and deceit and mitigate the damage they do or maybe if you had the courage try and approach them in subtle ways to help them improve. Example 2: A sensational clip or imagery used to stir an emotional response. This you are VERY accustomed to but probably don't realize the extent to which you are convinced to act against your best interest. You likely also will act in a knee jerk reaction since any topic i could use as an example you already have a strong emotional connection to (making it nearly impossible to show you the folly of your emotional method). But alas I will try my best (although you won't listen and I'm hollering into the void of un-hearing robots). Maybe I'll give two so you have a better chance at understanding. The first I'll go from your point of view so you might not have such a knee jerk reaction and show how emotions might be counter productive for conservatives. In the abortion debate, conservatives have an emotional response to abortion. They are repulsed at the idea and therefor there is no compromise: killing a fetus is killing a human in their mind. The problem with their reasoning is that the people who are getting abortions are NOT conservative. In fact the conservatives would look at them as useless degenerate losers who cant get their pathetic shallow, emotional, lives together and who are constantly led astray by emotional gaslighting who would make horrible parents and probably shouldn't even be allowed to have children in the first place. Now Christians actually still have morals and stick to their convictions. So it is a bit different than a purely emotional creature such as yourself or being super rational all the time. But whether its feasible to compromise on your morality if it helps you in the long run is a different discussion (I'm mixed on the idea). My only point is that Christians trying to stop degenerates from getting abortions is a bad thing for Christians since it just means more degenerates and less Christians. This is all simplified since social acceptance is part of it and social media making them the villains etc etc. But it isn't about me being right or wrong I'm trying too show you how emotionally wanting something might wind up back firing if you don't take into account reality. Another example is the cover of Times magazine from maybe 2014 or so. On it was the picture of a dead Syrian boy washed up on the shores of Europe. This image was used to argue for allowing mass migration and allowing the people illegally entering via unsafe boats to obtain refugee status. First there was another picture taken of the news cameras all huddled on the beach together trying to get the perfect angle to take a picture of a dead boy for political motivations (sort of puts the original picture in a new light), and the other issue is that allowing them to claim asylum if they make it to Europe didn't make it legal, instead all it did was encourage more to make the trip (thus drowning more Syrian boys). Logically the only two options (again I'll leave my personal opinion out of this) was to either just make the whole planet open boarders so they would not cross the ocean in flimsy rafts or grant no asylum so there was no insensitive to risk the trip. Instead the emotional idiots could only get asylum granted for those who illegally make it. The amount of people who have drowned since that time is unfathomable. But no one hears about it anymore and your tiny violin heart isn't being played anymore because the politicians and political activists who were pushing for unlimited migration got further towards their goal. It didn't matter that more people would drown as a result (the very emotion argument they used in the first place). I was trying to find the image of the camera crews taking pictures of the dead boy, but I guess they memory holed it. Either way if you actually cared (which you don't since you are an emotional creature strung from one constructed world view to the next) you only need to look up the death statistics for drowned migrants in the Mediterranean to see the point I'm making. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1082077/deaths-of-migrants-in-the-mediterranean-sea/ Now the drownings go down after 2016 but that was due to waaaay less migrants, and some change in European policy. Russia and the Trump government bombed Isis into oblivion (therefor less people trying to flee Syria). But you can see it skyrockets higher in the immediate two years after 2014. Also I think countries like Italy got fed up and stopped letting people through etc. But of course all of this is over your tiny pea brained head. Even though I explained in detail many examples of emotions being used to mislead with partial truths or only focusing on highly emotional angles, you will double down on your delusions and fuzzy picture of the world. You have more reaction to a picture of ONE dead boy than the statistics I linked showing how thousands of little dead boys (whose pictures were not taken) died due to you (or emotional idiots like you) being gaslight.