Imagine you're arguing with a child, "I don't want to!" says they, and you respond "Why not?", what answer comes next? "I don't like it!", perhaps "Because." I

Imagine you're arguing with a child, "I don't want to!" says they, and you respond "Why not?", what answer comes next? "I don't like it!", perhaps "Because." I think there's a long chain of conditioning that we undergo, and I think it presses people into a genuinely inhumane sense that rationality must be prioritized, that you have to justify everything with some rational argument. The thing is we're human, and there's sort of two sides to every truth[0]. And there's autonomy, viewpoint, personal ethics, emotions, and all sorts of confounding processes that go on that simply can't be explained, but the conditioning compels one to explain it anyways, thus we seek confirmation, without regard for truth. To some extent I think that's what feeds the "misinformation" and "disinformation" markets. Society makes little room for the abstract man, society needs exact predictable units for its theories to function in practice. No free radicals. [0]Quashing infant mortality appears to be good, but there's the argument that it has effectively manufactured population booms in societies that aren't organized for the mass of people, viola, you've got a developing world population that suffers extremes of poverty on a totally unprecedented scale. But that latter argument would probably be discounted, right? It's a little indirect, correlation rather than causative, it presses certain intractable things like the concept of suffering, economic wellbeing, comparitive analysis with historical human condition shit...