Political science.

I'm not into ideologies and such faggotry. I prefer rational objective proper empirical methods into deducing what decisions are/were best. Not just in ordinary applications but also socially unacceptable instances, for instance I prefer not to define enemies as the ultimate evil as some view Osama Bin Laden and Hitler, I view them for what they are and I do the same with all other controversial subjects. I get the impression many are offended by my objectivity since they fear that someone who delves so deep into their opponent's ideals may be convinced by them, I am often mistaken for a naive idiot but in truth I merely seek to understand what makes such people tick.

Discuss.

>>2 Not necessarily.
>>3 There is nothing to suggest I am a naive idiot. There is nothing to suggest I am a Nazi terrorist supporter.
>>4 Evil can be defined and exists, I do not allow it to affect my judgement.
>>5 Now we determine what we can learn from this.
>>6 Whether it's evil or not is determinned by science, not opinions.
>>7 Political science works in the same way as ideologies except it cannot use logical fallacies or demagoguery to convince others.
>>8 I use this definition of evil, "Evil is a cause of sufferring unto sapient beings", which makes me a moral universalist. >>4 is a moral relativist.
>>9 I believe >>8 jumped to a conclusion.
>>10 It is profound, just not to people whom the truth in this subject holds any use.
>>11 Perhaps post implied I am a moral relativist, but that is not the case.