Background: Added as the first comment to this Facebook Note.
“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.
* “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
– 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.
– 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/.