To He Who Must Not Be Named:

I think almost all sane people (I don't know about you) would consider North Korea to be a country with more paradoxes and contradictions than, say, the USA. North Korea is supposed to be a Communist state, where there is the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, individual people have almost NO say over the running of the country, and the proletariat is oppressed and is reduced to scavenging for bark to boil into bitter and possibly poisonous soups while soldiers and The Dear Leader (did I get his title correct?) eat Premium Buckwheat Noodles.

However, across the Pacific Ocean, we find a country which espouses free trade, but has an elaborate and Byzantine system of anti-dumping and "fair trade" laws, coupled with the practice of generously doling out lots of pork for constituents. Incumbents stay in office, by and large, thanks to bizzare gerrymandering. And so on.

With apologies to you, I can say that, "In each state, we can find numerous, shitloads of inconsistencie and absurdities and cruelties. To the point where it's impossible to quantify which has 'more'."

I trust that this example will be enough for you to comprehend my point. So, I ask, wherefore argue anything if nothing can be quantified? Most people can be said to refuse even to debate on "obvious" issues because they (to paraphrase), "feel that, intuitively, (let's face it, it's pure intuition, that their way of life, their way of doing things, their beliefs al, are superior to others'."