(Continuation from yesterday)

Whenever we should quarrel with others, we have to do it completely.

I think that any quarrel is good for mutual understanding.

However, the quarrel without "landing site" each other is the worst and the disgusting.

It is said that "a quarrel to compel an enemy" is the worst quarrel in the world.

A good quarrel is to make the enemy realize their win, but to win the quarrel.

In practice, there are a lot of theories and facts, for example, diplomacy, math(e.g game theory), psychology(e.g. behavioral psychology) and history( Germany from Treaty of Versailles to the start of World War II)

-----

Now I believe the government intelligences and reason.

(Though I don't believe people who speak hot words repeatedly as an anonymous by SNSs

I know that diplomacy is important, however, I also ask the government to work for a lot of internal affairs(e.g. work style reform) more.

-----

I had been aroused controversy based on a justice of my opinion.

I don't think that all of them are in vain, however, I think these actions are the worst from the viewpoint of cost effectiveness.

Many people, including me, will going not to lead a correct answer by a logic but to adapt our beliefs into logics.

I don't think that this way is not so bad, because if we don't have our beliefs, we could not get motivations for actions.

On the other hand, I also think that we have to "modify" or "change" our beliefs successively.

However, I am afraid that it is very difficult to modify or change our beliefs with hearing other's opinions.

Especially if the other is a person I hate, my belief is going to be enforced against the person's opinion.

So, I "don't hear opinions of others".

(To be continued)