Repetition Fallacy/Empty Rhetoric Example

Background: Added as the first comment to this Facebook Note.
The accusation:
“Issues arent as complex as you make out to be. These type of posts are motivated by a certain level of ignorance about ideologies and the ethics, or lack of shall i say, that govern sociopolitics.
“Take your comment for example. The majority of it was motivated by this desire for some europeans who want things to be forgotten so they can carry on with same practices as yesterday under the corporate model of owning chattel and resources – which is itself modelled on the old East India company style of ownership.
“Saying that humans do something denies the metaethics which govern a people and in doing so, perpetuate the same under a different guise and episteme.
“No doubt, good people exist everywhere and your second part of the comment was partially motivated as response to me being general about Europeans.
“However, you also fail to acknowkedge the comment is made in context of the OP where the ideologies of the past themselves shape the discussion today. To act as though sanity is when you forget whilst you tacitly undermine the motivations of the OP is itself definition of stupid where you do the same for a different outcome when reality is however the same.
“You talk of abolition as though that has any real merit to world politics. Take haiti for example, which actually began the revolution against the french and is now still being used and abused by the same corporate structures yet you have the audacity to talk about others needing to forget whilst these types of posts seek to perpetuate the same mindset.
“I would like to presecribe a reality check. A healthy dose at that.” – A Facebook commenter
The defense: As are most of my comments/posts, this is tough love because I’d rather step on peoples’ toes than walk on their graves. A primary root-level* cause of the graves is our species’ superstitious ruler-ruled paradigm, and my agenda of spreading reason-memes and countering unreason-memes such as those included in your previous benefit all of us: Rulers, enforcers, maintainers, producers, and escapees*. We humans all have an instinctive* desire for our biases to be confirmed by others and a built-in* degree of irritation or worse when others disagree with our positions/statements. However, a main purpose of discussion is problem solving, and in human relationship problem solving there are (empirically speaking) two core categories: The win-win and the win-lose, and psychopaths by definition can only win when others lose. (A single asterisk (*) references a longer explanation at the bottom of this comment after the line and word “Endnotes”.)
The word “argument” has multiple contexts. In one context it means back-and-forth verbal jabbing, in another it means making a case for or against an alleged truth; thus for clarity I’ll say case-argument. The words “reality” and “truth” also have multiple contexts. In one context a statement of reality/truth* means fact arrived at through sound logic* and evidence such as Planet Earth approximating an oblate spheroid in shape; in other contexts reality/truth means conformance to an embedded/chosen* illogic narrative such as the Earth being flat, this or that narrative/religion being the only way, etc. I claim the first context, and in the age of the Internet, keeping/repeating illogic narratives is a sick choice.
All arguments include rhetoric, but some include nothing or little more than rhetoric, *aka empty rhetoric*. I will now provide sound logic and evidence to prove your comment I reference here is empty rhetoric and my comments are not.
You say “I would like to presecribe a reality check. A healthy dose at that.” in reference to my previous comment; i.e., an accusation my comment wasn’t based on reality or didn’t reflect reality. I case-argue yes my comment reflected reality because every statement built a sound logic and evidence based case for the overall point of the comment:
– Although my bad for not stating it as a conclusion, which I’ll do now: Man’s inhumanity to man goes beyond the countless number of intentional cruelties because it includes the fact that we as a species have the resources and technology to provide each member of our and other species with a reasonably* thriving quality of life.
– Unless you state otherwise and even then it may be a hidden-agenda*, I observe your main point to most probably be to use social networking and similar opportunities to ventilate with empty rhetoric; very likely you’re unaware of “your” own agenda because it’s an embedded unconscious-agenda* of spreading fear-based illogic narratives.
“Issues arent as complex as you make out to be.” – You support this statement with “These type of posts are motivated by…”, but nothing about the OP/post or alleged proof by new accusation disproves my statement “all social issues are complex”. The OP/post was not made by me and my previous comment made two points *counter* to the OP: We humans are all one species and sanity includes getting over the past — a complex but doable thing.
“Take your comment for example. The majority of it was motivated by…” – You don’t know me well enough to know what motivates me and claiming to is the illogical equivalent of claiming to have ESP, and again, my comment contradicted not supported the OP unreason-meme as does my life: In 1974 Texas when it was very dangerous to do so, I married outside of my ethnic group (me white her black) and ran into the arms of the USAF because back then it was the only relatively speaking safe place (at the time I didn’t know better about the mil-indust complex, but that was before the Internet). Now my skin in the game is my present Native American wife and I living very frugally despite three healthy incomes because we donate much personal labor and money to our grandkid’s well being, Amnesty International, the ACLU, the independent media, etc.
“…this desire…” – Desire, ditto my counter to your claim about my motivation.
“…for some europeans who want…” – I’m an individual before anything else, an extremely counter-cultural one at that, and “who want”, ditto my counter to your claim about my motivation.
“…so they can carry on with same…” – There may be some Europeans/people of European descent who have that mindset, but if so it’s completely unrelated to me and your placing it in response to my comment qualifies it as the propaganda technique of transfer.
“Saying that humans do something denies…” – So general as to be meaningless and strawman fallacy not at all what I said: I stated specific examples you’re conflating with all human actions giving birth, aging, whatever.
“To act as though sanity is when you forget…” – Strawman fallacy because I didn’t say “forget”, I said “getting over”, and the two have completely different meanings: I mean *get over it* in the context of recovery but not forgetting; i.e., a healed physical wound from surgery has a scar, but an unhealed and untreated wound from surgery oozes puss; the same is true of emotional wounds whether within one’s own lifetime or via the sins of one’s own fathers/mothers or others’ fathers/mothers. Those with agendas of keeping us humans a divided species partially do so by encouraging such wounds to remain open. Conversely, my agenda includes healing the emotional wounds *and* keeping the scars visible (i.e., full/objective education) because that’s the only way to emotionally and objectively get over such tragedies/travesties.
“You talk of abolition as though that has any real merit to world politics.”:
– Another strawman fallacy because I clearly stated the reason for it as an *example* of how social issues are complex and root-level change is multi-generational.
– The merit of my example to world politics is what’s *actionable* and what’s not. For instance, the ruling classes are parasites who can’t be violently revolted against because they have mega-overwhelming intel and firepower, and even if they didn’t, violence as an attempted solution only results in old ruling classes being replaced by new ruling classes. They can, however, be starved of their future generations through what is actionable such as peaceful parenting, freed education, and freed media.
“…yet you have the audacity to talk about others needing to forget…” – Repeated strawman with emotion added.
For all the above reasons your Facebook comment I reference is empty rhetoric.
 
_________________________________
Endnotes
* “root level” – http://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-voluntaryist-walker/problem-solving-101-versus-mans-inhumanity-to-man/736337819727374
* “Rulers, enforcers, maintainers, producers, and escapees*” – http://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-voluntaryist-walker/the-five-core-social-classes-of-mainstream-cultures/1132923346735484
* “…instinctive…built-in…”:
– Edward O. Wilson states and completely explains “The genetic fitness of a human being must therefore be a consequence of both individual selection and group selection” in Chapter Six of his book The Social Conquest of Earth by Edward O. Wilson, in ebook and hardcopy available commercially and at most public libraries. I conclude valid and verifiable scientific explanations trump philosophic explanations with the caveat science is by definition too limited in scope to provide as many explanations as philosophy. As science widens in valid/verifiable explanations, philosophy narrows in scope but intensifies in criticality.
– “Here are the best definitions I’ve yet read of human nature and culture: Human nature is the inherited regularities of development common to our species; culture is a set of ideas that cause their holders to behave alike in some way that differentiates one group from another.” – http://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-voluntaryist-walker/how-concepts-versus-instances-separate-free-and-unfree-minds-aka-human-nature-an/595223863838771
* “reasonably thriving quality of life” – Life isn’t fair as in the case of humans born with birth defects, but humans born into grinding poverty or cruel ideologies and practices is due to nothing more than unhealthy human cultures. Concerning other species, it’s possible for us humans to preserve habitats for them to find their own way without our interference, and in the case of domesticated species, it’s possible to phase our relationships with them into the symbiotic rather than exploitive.
* “reality/truths”:
– There are subjective and objective realities/truths. An example of the subjective is Christianity’s Paul the Apostle having a spiritual experience on the Road to Damascus: Perhaps his account was 100% real and true *to him*, but only he can know that; anyone else accepting it as real and true can do so based on faith, but not based on sound logic and evidence — nonetheless, it’s possible Paul’s account was *subjectively* real and truthful. An example of the objective is Lee Harvey Oswald having been shot by Jack Ruby.
– A profound understanding of subjectivity includes the same of objectivity, intersubjectivity, and interobjectivity (not to be confused with Randian Objectivism). I agree with the following quotes by a better writer than I; except he doesn’t address interobjectivity and *I 100% disagree* with his stated position (not quoted below but in his book) that intersubjectivity is a good thing. He may have taken that position because his government would’ve pulled a Michael Hastings on him if he said anything else. Unlike Yuval, I’m a small fish and state my position after his quotes:
— “An *objective* phenomenon exists independently of human consciousness and human beliefs. Radioactivity, for example, is not a myth. Radioactive emissions occurred long before people discovered them, and they are dangerous even when people do not believe in them.”
— “The *subjective* is something that exists depending on the consciousness and beliefs of a single individual. It disappears or changes if that particular individual changes his or her beliefs. Many a child believes in the existence of an imaginary friend who is invisible and inaudible to the rest of the world. The imaginary friend exists solely in the child’s subjective consciousness, and when the child grows up and ceases to believe in it, the imaginary friend fades away.”
— “The *inter-subjective* is something that exists within the communication network linking the subjective consciousness of many individuals. If a single individual changes his or her beliefs, or even dies, it is of little importance. However, if most individuals in the network die or change their beliefs, the inter-subjective phenomenon will mutate or disappear. Inter-subjective phenomena are neither malevolent frauds nor insignificant charades. They exist in a different way from physical phenomena such as radioactivity, but their impact on the world may still be enormous. Many of history’s most important drivers are inter-subjective: law, money, gods, nations.” – Yuval Noah Harari in his book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind – http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Humankind
— My position is intersubjectivity may have allowed our species to remain extant *in our past, but* given our present and future levels of intelligence and technology, us remaining extant will require the next but rapidly approaching phase of our evolution include replacing our present superstitious phase of intersubjectivity with interobjectivity. We presently have *some* interobjectivity, but it’s the exception rather than the rule. An example of present species-wide interobjectivity is global navigation because it has two reference points, the equator and the Prime Meridian. People *could* argue the Prime Meridian was founded by an imperialistic ethnic group and should therefore be thrown out, but no significant culture does so because the ethnic group originating it is a moot point because it works. Thus global navigation is an example of interobjectivity as opposed to intersubjectivity. Obviously interobjectivity for moral navigation is much more complicated than it is for global navigation; but I conclude we as a species can do it even if the system is first established by a counterculture minority.
— “The psychologist’s fallacy is a fallacy that occurs when an observer assumes that his/her subjective experience reflects the true nature of an event.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologist’s_fallacy
— I’m still researching all the above and so far I conclude the right of the individual to be left alone by other individuals is one reference point, and obviously requires a lot of definitions such as but not limited to right, competent adult, and parental responsibility. I’m presently undecided as to whether or not a second reference point is needed as it is with global navigation.
* “sound logic” – The term “logic fallacy” equates to the Latin term non sequitur (“it does not follow”), and if a term is in Latin (habeas corpus, quid pro quo, etc., etc.), you know it’s an issue as old as the hills as are most if not all of the arguments for and against it. There are many subdivisions of non sequitur, the two most common being argument from emotion and argument from authority. A next most common is the ad hominem (“to the man”, attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument) and a cloaked variation is the argument from psychology; i.e., “He says 911 was an inside job because being bullied as a child made him a paranoid adult”, and even if the second half of the quote is true, the first half may have a completely separate reason.
* “embedded/chosen illogic narrative”:
– An embedded illogic narrative example is my parents raising me as a superstitious Catholic when my brain was pediatric and thus defenseless.
– A chosen illogic narrative example is me as a 19-year old choosing the narrative that spirituality could only be achieved through mind/mood altering substances, and although I didn’t know it at the time, I had an agenda of using to lessen the emotional pain of having my mind bound the way some Chinese women had their feet bound as children (http://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-voluntaryist-walker/brainbinding-how-mainstream-cultures-are-the-parent-addiction-and-others-are-rea/1265306576830493).
– Whether embedded or chosen, all illogic narratives have fear as a foundation. Thus before one can politically advise/demand in a moral way, one must find his or her true-self as opposed to embedded/chosen false-self. This was almost impossible before the Internet because first-principle subjects such as philosophy (http://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-voluntaryist-walker/philosophic-red-meat/1113458405348645), science, economics, and politics were prevented from being complete and objective by mainstream culture(s) gait-keepers. In the age of the Internet, keeping/repeating illogic narratives is a sick choice.
* “unconscious-agenda”, “hidden-agenda” – http://drhurd.com/2014/12/02/50104/
This mini-essay posted at https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-voluntaryist-walker/repetition-fallacyempty-rhetoric-example/1303025576391926 and at http://thugsinsuits.com/repetition-fallacyempty-rhetoric-example/.
Posted in article/link/reference, essay/mini-essay, philosophy/science, propaganda/sophism, win-win-politics | Leave a comment

Family Tree Pics About We are All One Species

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.4610584678599&type=1&l=a37782e218

Presently and hopefully in the future, photo “albums” on Facebook can be linked to non-Facebook sites.

Posted in article/link/reference, philosophy/science, pic, propaganda/sophism | Leave a comment

social-domination.jpg

social-domination

Posted in economics, history, military, pic | Leave a comment

Family Tree (aka evolution) Pics

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.4610584678599&type=1&l=a37782e218

Posted in article/link/reference, philosophy/science, pic, propaganda/sophism | Leave a comment

big-lie-empty-rhetoric.jpg

big-lie-empty-rhetoric

Posted in pic | Leave a comment

Jack-Webb-Just-The-Facts-Man-Large.jpg

Jack-Webb-Just-The-Facts-Man-Large

Posted in pic | Leave a comment

How Concepts Versus Instances Separate Free and Unfree Minds, aka Human Nature and Healthy vs. Unhealthy Culture

(17 short paragraphs plus endnotes, Release Four 3-18-2016 copyleft Peter Voluntaryistic Walker; Release Five on it’s way because I’ve learned much more since Three and Four was to fix technicalities.)

1. Here are the best definitions I’ve yet read of human nature and culture: Human nature is the inherited regularities of development common to our species; culture is a set of ideas that cause their holders to behave alike in some way that differentiates one group from another.

2. Transhumanism aside, we as a species can impact our future generations’ human nature but to a much lesser extent our own generation’s. However we can and do manage/mismanage our generation’s human nature through culture; and by doing so we influence the next generation, who will influence their next generation, etc.

3. We as a species manage culture through memes. The idea of controlling fire spread among our ancestors and allowed them to eat more and better meat, thus enlarging future generations’ brains. Adults consuming dairy products was a meme: An idea that spreads from person to person, displaces other ideas, and sometimes changes future human nature. Prior to that meme, most human adults were lactose intolerant.

4. Memes are reason or anti-reason, and meta-memes pass or discourage new ideas/memes. The reason-meme of planets orbiting the sun was discouraged by The Inquisition unreason-meta-meme, but later encouraged by the scientific method reason-meta-meme. However, court (pseudo) intellectuals ensure new anti-reason memes abound to replace old ones. Present mainstream examples are the left-right paradigm, the cliche of not discussing religion or politics, and the scapegoating of human nature.

5. Instances and concepts are the two core building blocks of memes. In his 30 minute talk “Concepts and Instances – The Battle for Freedom” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIlOtkBhRvI, Stefan Molyneux says to control concepts is to control the world. To paraphrase in words he also uses, “Language is The Matrix” (a metaphor borrowed from the movie of the same name). This fact goes back millenniums (for instance Plato’s The Republic) because concepts versus instances is at the heart of reason and anti-reason. Instances always trump concepts in the free mind; vice versa in the domesticated human livestock (sheeple) mind.

6. An instance is tangible, aka concrete; a concept is an imperfect and intangible record, aka abstract, in the mind. It could be of an instance like “human” or of an instance grouping like “family”. An instance is a perfect representation of itself; a concept is an imperfect virtual copy based on perception. An instance is a single thing; a concept is an artificial label for that thing or a category label for a group of single things. An instance is a physically joined thing; a concept isn’t. A human is an instance; a family is a concept. Its members may be metaphorically joined, but not physically. A person with a metaphor in his or her mind can touch you, but the metaphor itself can’t because it’s only a concept. Thus instances are of the natural realm, for instance science defines human; but concepts are of the artificial realm, for instance culture defines family.

6.a. Another example is the condition of hunger versus the condition of spirituality. Hunger is an instance because it’s scientifically provable; spirituality is a concept because it’s not. The closest thing yet to it being scientifically proven is for researchers to conduct experiments and then interpret them unscientifically.

6.b. Using unprovable concepts as a reference point for personal reality is an example of placing concepts above instances. If I have three bolts of red, white, and blue cloth I have three instances of cloth. If from them I accurately cut out the pieces of a USA flag, I have about sixty more instances of cloth. If I accurately sew them together, the sixty become one instance of cloth in the form of a USA flag. If I publicly damage it or a similar flag, I stand a good chance of being beaten, arrested, or even killed as in 1930s Germany. Not because of the instance of a flag, but because of the unprovable desecration concept placed above the instance of cloth.

7. Labels are complicated because they can be concepts or instances. This makes them both a most useful and abused type of concept.

7.a. In the case of a librarian attaching a Dewey Decimal (DD) label to a book, the label is an extremely useful concrete object. Without it, finding a specific book in a metropolitan library would be the equivalent of finding a needle in a haystack.

7.b. The book example uses labels to accurately identify a single instance among other like instances. But the DD label also identifies the classification a book falls under, and each classification is a concept. Does a eugenics book get classified as philosophy (DD 100 series), social science (300), science (500), or ? Such complications are one reason there are college degrees in library science, and why sophists constantly present labels that classify as instances. For instance some politicians have publicly stated that accused terrorists don’t have human rights. This is the equivalent of saying that terrorists are not human, but those unskilled in critical thinking are vulnerable to overlook the illogic; that it’s standard human rights for a human to be proven guilty before sentencing, as opposed to being labelled and assassinated in one step of pseudo logic.

7.c. Just as it takes a high level of thinking to correctly DD label a library book, so it takes a high level of thinking to detect whether or not a label put on a person or group of people is accurate or inaccurate, true or false. For instance to label me human would be ridiculously redundant because the word human represents an instance. But do I get classified as an anarchist? Although I accept successful anarchy as an alternative to the social institution of the state, I reject it as a label because it means different things to different people. So my only chosen self-label is nonsophist philosopher, and both of those words represent very complex subjects and contexts.

8. It’s in an ultra-elite’s interest to have all others use higher level thinking for employment, but not for analyzing the ultra-elite, aka superclass, aka global over-class. Thus present mainstream culture traumatizes, dumbs-down, and coerces people from cradle to grave into accepting authority’s provided concepts. Logic remains in parts of the mainstream brain (aka the true self), but another overriding part (the false self) is incapable of thinking. Instead it processes concepts according to indoctrination, as in the above example of enforcing flag sacredness.

9. We humans keep livestock, and for an ultra-elite global tribe called the superclass, present mainstream culture enables their most profitable livestock to be us other humans. They keep us on tax ranches euphemistically called countries. The borders are virtual fences around large territories where most of us are open range livestock. The superclass discovered the rest of us to be more creative, productive, and easier to domesticate when we choose our own occupations, locations, and believe ourselves to be free. Superclass members sometimes trade us to each other via emigration  extradition, or rendition.

10. Though less common, penned and butchered human livestock are also profitable. Some of us are penned for non-victim crimes as a cloaked version of chattel slavery and to help intimidate potential nonconformists. Superclass members also sometimes disagree among themselves over borders and territory ownership, and settle such issues by using us to destroy things and pen, torture, or butcher each other and sometimes opponent superclass members.

11. Some of us resist domestication and are at a higher risk of being penned or butchered. However most resisters partially escape and a few fully escape. To be undomesticated is to be mentally free of illusion and physically free as much as possible. Some say you’re either free or not; no middle ground. But I agree with Harry Browne, who in his 1970s book Living Free in an Unfree World (you can google the .pdf and find it free) said most people are only about 30% free when they could be 70% free, and he explained how. I define freedom as the absence of illusion and initiated coercion, so I consider myself 90% illusion free and 50% physically free, for a 70% escapee rating.

12. Thus to be domesticated is to live in a world of The Establishment’s concepts rather than one’s own; a world where concepts can be false metaphors for things worth mindlessly blowing out of proportion from their original nature.

___________________________

Endnotes:

Para. 1: The human nature definition is from E. O. Wilson, although where I say “development” he says “mental development”. The culture definition is from David Deutsch with me adding about usually differentiating groups, a point from Wilson.

Para. 4: Chapter 15 from The Beginning of Infinity by Deutsch is about culture and memes; the terms memeplexes and metamemes both have articles in Wikipedia.

Para. 6:

– An energy instance is physical world energy joined into an event of physical impact due to electricity, gravity, pressure, chemical reaction, or similar forces. Energy converted into matter and vice versa (e=mc2).

– I could similarly make a USA flag out of other materials or even digitally; but the digital version would be a virtual instance.

Para. 7: Alleged terrorists, for instance the thousands of US drone strikes, not to mention the collateral damage maimings and assassinations.

Para. 8: The true self is eclectic and the false self is parochial as explained in my essay/FB Note “Problem Solving 101 Versus Man’s Inhumanity to Man”.

Para. 9:

– From the ultra-elite’s perspective, a person not working but instead receiving state “benefits” supports bigger government and is thus very cheaply paid off to be a co-parasite.

– The superclass have their own tribal culture. For instance the king of Saudi Arabia has exponentially more in common with the president the USA then he does with the average person in his country, and vice versa.

Posted in essay/mini-essay, philosophy/science, propaganda/sophism, win-win-politics | 6 Comments

Aristotle’s Three Laws of Thought Condensed Into Plain English

(About ten short paragraphs, Revision One copyleft 5-21-2016 Peter Voluntaryistic Walker.)

Introduction: “Formal logics were developed in ancient times in China, India, and Greece. Greek methods, particularly Aristotelian logic (or term logic) as found in the Organon, found wide application and acceptance in science and mathematics for millennia” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic). The Three Laws of Thought credited to Aristotle are the Laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction, and Excluded Middle. There’s much more to logic, but this set of three will do for starters.

1. The Law of Identity says a thing can only be itself.

1.a. For instance Shakespeare said a rose is a rose by any other name, and the same is true of a human being. An example violation is when people dehumanize each other, a textbook case being when Hitler dehumanized anyone he tagged “Jew” as being less than human.

1.b. All namecalling dehumanizes and is filler, meaning a replacement for content in an argument (argument in the context of making a case for or against something being true). Rudeness in general is also a form of namecalling because it’s a practice of treating humans as less than human.

2. The Law of Non-contradiction says everything has an opposite and a thing cannot be its opposite.

2.a. For instance some people argue against property rights while simultaneously using parts of their body as they see fit in order to communicate their message; thus refuting the existence of the very thing they’re doing. These are self-defeating arguments.

2.b. Claiming a knowledge exists when it doesn’t is also self contradicting. An example is people stating as fact they know what you think, understand, like, etc., when it’s impossible for anyone but you to know without sensors wired directly into your brain. They can can calculate probabilities based on your observable behavior, but there’s a large gap (aka does not follow, aka non sequitur error) between brain and outward behavior. For instance you may understand something and simply choose not to let on that you do.

3. The Law of the Excluded Middle says an argument can’t be true and false at the same time. “Either I will call my mother tomorrow, or I won’t call my mother tomorrow. One or the other of these statements about the future must be true. The principle that either a given statement or its denial is true is called the ‘Law of Excluded Middle.'” (David Hunt)

3.a. This law primarily addresses the semantics of accurately stating a problem or proposition. For instance, if an agreement has good and bad parts, it’s not a 100% good or bad agreement; to accurately describe it, it has two or more parts needing to each be understood separately from the other part(s). Thus I also call the excluded middle *conflation*, similar to what Ayn Rand called The Package Deal. It’s a critical law of logic because, whether intentionally or not, semantics often mislead.

3.b. Another conflation error is to conflate the already unconflated. For instance the non-aggression principal (NAP) says it’s immoral to initiate coercion. Many say this is a too simplistic “truncated argument” because it allegedly ignores things such as the alleged necessity of central planning or the alleged social contract. But according to The Law of Identity, adding such things would make it no longer the NAP. In such cases the avoided NAP core proposition is whether or not initiating coercion is moral — a complex argument involving definitions and interpretations of coercion, morality, initiation, and complex circumstances such as lifeboat scenarios and raising children. Therefore the NAP isn’t over simplified or truncated; rather it’s either a valid or invalid premise to be argued on its own merits. If it’s accepted as valid, then issues such as central planning and social contracts can be measured against it. If the NAP is invalid, obviously it’s irrelevant; but simply refusing to consider it is a non sequitur.

3.c. An equally common conflation error is goldplating; a textbook example being contractors for the USA Department of Defense writing specifications for hammers and toilet seats that made perfectly usable generic items unacceptable. Doing so provided the very same contractors with opportunities to sell hammers and toilet seats meeting their own specifications at multiple times the profit of generic items. Goldplating applies to present mainstream culture portrayals of critical thinking; that is, mainstream culture presents the tools of critical thinking such as logic as too complex for anyone to understand other than the spokespersons for the ruling classes, aka presstitutes and establishment-approved pseudo intellectuals.

__________________________________________

Endnotes

I’ll write more mini-essays about logic and add the links here.

 

Posted in essay/mini-essay, philosophy/science | Leave a comment

Democracy or Selfocracy? (Mark Corske pic-meme)

13220906_1014083962009578_4668442196394026861_n

Democracy as people power, the book Engines of Domination by Mark Corske, p. 232.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/engines-domination/
https://youtu.be/JWq5YnH6n6c
http://www.enginesofdomination.com

Posted in article/link/reference, pic | Leave a comment

A Heterodoxic Pic of the Left-Right Paradigm

left-vs-right

Posted in pic, win-win-politics | Leave a comment