(EQ): Explained By An Average Idiot

Of Conflicts and Catastrophes

How does one control yourself when one gets bad vibes from others and you do wish to fight back?

One weighs the risks and benefits of their responses, and assesses the value versus the costs of potential outcomes. Some fights are worth fighting; though sadly, many are either not worth the risks and costs, or are fought inappropriately in proportion to their initial justifying causes- which can have detrimental adverse reactions for both the aggressor and the aggresse in any given conflict. 

I am white. Why do I feel like I am highly intelligent and superior than they ever will be?

Miss me with the toxic beliefs and confused statistics. This opinion belongs in an 18th century graveyard.

The most unintelligent comment you can make is the one suggesting that the pigment of somebody's skin has any correlation to their intelligence.

Wouldn't people be happier, like myself, if they compared themselves to people hundreds of years ago?

Like many things in life; it's a matter of perspective. It's primarily dependent on what makes you happy and what aspect of life it's being compared to, and factors in things like geographic area and societal-cultural customs as well. Many Native Americans now aren't happier just because they've maintained their reservations throughout the centuries; it doesn't make the violent history of land-grabs (or ceasing land) by violating agreements and manipulating leaders by exploiting a language gap any more justifiable. Though a white kid might think that the discontinuation and elimination of radical methods of white-washing an entire aboriginal population by the use of boarding schools is a clear mark of progress; it doesn't change the social issues that have developed in their culture and society in the years following the mad corruption. But the quality of life Native America had was better before the America's were plundered by an immigrant culture that brought with them guns. If you examined the circumstance of an orphan in London, it would be highly likely that their quality of life now is better than it would have been in an 1800's London. A "Texan" now would have been primarily Native American, Native-Spanish, or Spanish then. A "Coloradan" could have belonged to a variety of different tribes. Being Native American would be living off the land or living through hell, being white would be just as different as it was dangerous. And being African American in a society that supported the intolerable practice of slavery would have been unimaginable. But the abolishment of slavery and establishment of civil rights doesn't stop vital pieces of our culture to suffer through years of mistreatments, and often avoidable hardships. The struggle never really leaves, it seems; it just changes its scope and dimensions throughout the course of history.

If you're only comparing how comfortable the seat you sit in now with what you would have had to in the 1800's, or pondering the leap in transportation methods over the last two-hundred years; I think everyone would agree in an appreciation of the comforts and aid of innovation.

I can't see that China has any need to wage war with anyone. It is quietly becoming the world dominant nation by trade. Why should a war help this?

If you were a great world power and you observed that the 3 other competing powers were in a conflict that was destabilizing their economies, driving their debt higher, weakening their currencies, and bleeding billions of dollars in resources; would you spend your resources on jumping into the mix early in the game, spend limited resources backing the power that would be most likely to submit, or would you wait for the other three powers to drain themselves almost completely before engaging in an act of war? I believe we should recognize the strategic value that China has in sitting passively on the sidelines for the first part of this war.