Dedic aceste consideratii incantatoarei interprete Oana Zaharia.

Abstract. In the section 1., I present and evaluate as imoral some visual or auditory non-linguistic forms of behaviors. In the section 2., I argue for against the duplicitary behavior. And finaly in the section 3., I argue rationaly for the superiority of a emphatical and sympathical mentality and policy, instead os a rasial one.

1. FEW THOUGHTS ABOUT IMORAL MANIPULATION

The visual or auditory non-linguistic form of influence, communication can be used as an imoral form of manipulation. Inhibitive intimidation cannot be a form of moral influence, manipulation. Sure, you can say that even every argument is manipulative, but not every form of influence is moral. For, instance a recursive exaggerate depreciative evaluation both linguistic or only visual or auditory is an imoral form of domination by intimidationis. Not every form of conquest-behavior is moral-good. y5s17sq
An repetitive negative rejective or depreciative firmness can be very inhibitive, imoral, destructive. There are persons (e.g., politicians, students etc.) that use this kind of behavior to conquer or to elude some truths. In addition, the deceptive rethorical manipulation is very used in our days, without any punisment. No Social Moral Agency is prepared, by specialists, to detect, struggle, and prevent this form of evil-moral-behavior. There are many victims, but the human society does not want to recognize or is not able to recognize this kind of evilness, anti-good behavior, though that it is real and wrong. Humans, it appear that, do not want to consent against this form of evilness, by ilegalising it.

2. LOVE OR LIE?

Some people bahave duplicitary. A duplicity can be contradictory. The contradictors cannot be both truth. That is why, some people are liers. Suposse that a girl love a boy, but she behave as she doesn't love it (e.g., as would hate him, or as would ignore him etc.). This kind of behavior is not lier, duplicitary, contradictory, evil-moral? If he would be affected by this behavior, she would can say that he cannot see over the appearences, deceptively, cause no one can interpretate, now, very precisely the brain's states. In society we should not leave as enemies. Even in the most powerfull competitions we should have universal good-moral-principles. We should not win anyway. I hope that the cognitive propagation of this considerations, if they will be shared by many people, will change the world, legaly, in good way. I hate the contradictory bahavior, insincerity, duplicity, hypocrisy, the lie, and the contradiction in general.

3. ABOUT A KIND OF RASIST MENTALITY

try walking in their shoes

Most of us love the beauty (e.g., the beaty girls, womans). Most womans love the force and courage of males. Most of us love some superiorities (e.g., in color, muscles, cognition, intelligence, mony, power etc. He can love as (color and woman) a fair-haired-woman. She can love for its muscular superiority a black man. You can love a gipsy, if it is moraly and cognitively superior. No one can prevent a woman to hate other's color, intelligence, cognitive, or rasial inferiority.
But, a very beautiful and rasialy superior man can be inferior as intelligence, influence, moral, power etc. to a less beautiful and rasialy inferior man. We have some gifts from birth, but the most important qualities we can gain by education, work, and devotement. For instance, I saw many mans that are high, powerfull, and have a big head, and therefore a big brain, but are not superior as culture, moral, intelligence, and even political power to litle mans. A very long experience and devoted brain can conquer a non-experienced but more powerfull brain.
But, now more generaly, it is good for us to love the superior and to eliminate the inferior? Can we evaluate some values and then to love their superiors? It is good, intelligent, and rational this? We should to promote the superiors, in all values, and to eliminate the inferiors? Is this rational? No. Why? The most important superiority is the cognitive one. The most intelligent is the most powerfull. The most wiser is the most happy, in many conditions.
Suposse that, X is the most intelligent man on the world and the society would promote the superiority and eliminate the inferiors. The last being its fundamental policy. Is this a rational and intelligent social order, mentality? No. We are anticipative and imaginative beings. Suposse that X and its society is not able to avoid the death, disease, accident, conspiracy, failure etc.. X can undergo an unexpected accident, remaining less beauty or with an important cerebral lesion. Being imperfect its society should eliminate it, forgeting all that he was. X can imagine or anticipate many things and this risk. That is why, in that society many people would fear of elimination, thereby living less happily. However, the final aim of all the people from society is to live as happy is possible without affecting evily each other, but on the contrary. X is emphatical cause he can imagine others' pains and fear, cause he knows that by an unwilled accident would can arrive itself as other inferiors, but then he would want to live even so, instead to be eliminated or killed. In our society we are more confident, cause we hope that in the case of an accident or othersomething, we would not killed or eliminated cruelly. Our imagination, anticipation, emphaty make our sympathycal mentality and policy much more rational, intelligent, and superior.