Ah... the last argument of the fallen.
Philosophers have known for millenia the fallacy of the Argument from Authority.
Modern amateur polemicists are just catching up.
It's latest manifestation takes the form of the deference to a "study", as final or definitive truth or support to the argument.
"I must be right, if a study supports my argument." thinks the arguer.
However, the simplest retort is to counter-argue, "Studies have shown the opposite".
Yes, It is almost true that for every study's conclusion, a contradicting study's conclusion can be found.
Thus ends the potency of the argument form authority, where "a study" or "studies" are the claimed authority.
But this contradictive approach needs to be made clearer to naive polemicists.
You cannot end an argument by the lazy claims of a study being the final word.
To acheive the goal of your argument, to win the argument, to convince by intellectual force the opponent's argument, you will fail if you choose the argument from authority.
The argument from authority begs the question. The question remains.
By choosing this tactic, you are revealing yourself as a charlatan, whose previous argument was so weak, as to be abandoned in favour of "God says so."
Motivational Poster
Friday, February 22, 2019
Why We Need to Tax the Rich, but Can't
What's wrong with the rich?
Well...
Firstly, they corrupt democracy.
The Rich interefere with and thereby diminish the democratic process.
They either earn or buy access to politicians. They shape and influence political decisions.
They are respected and employed by politicians. Pollies are often even drawn from the billionaire's club.
They are represented by political parties or politicians individually, as though they needed representation in the same way the vulnerable do.
Having jumped in bed with politicians, they then promote policies that are against or indirectly worsen the state of the rest of us: such as employment conditions, job creation, taxation etc etc.
The profits and wealth of the rich are hidden by accountants and lawyers and overseas bank accounts and investments to avoid paying business and personal income tax, at the least.
They got rich through making money by any means, or because they picked the right parents.
The wealth of the rich creates a socially harmful disproportionate imbalance in the wealth of the state, whereby the wealth of the state is held beyond the reach or use of the state, and therefore the state's ability to fund social services is diminished.
The rich are protected by governments from failure, bad decisions and often even crime.
That's just for starters, but it's enough for Our argument.
Here we already have several reasons to take action.
But let's balance the equation. Baby, bath water style.
So, what good comes from having billionaires roaming the streets?
Obvious arguments from apologists usually start with:
-They employ everyone.
-They advance socially required developments, through investment or core business, such as medicine, travel, communication, energy production, which in turn are highly valued by us all.
- The pay the most tax, per capita, providing the most revenue to a state
- They spend more, thus creating jobs and adding to the profit for small businesses.
- They spend more on charities, proportionately.
Is this true? Or even partly true?
If it is true, does it matter?
Can we do without all that? Can we go on living without the filthy rich?
Perhaps a final comment will seal the deal.
Being very rich comes with a world view.
The view of the world they have developed is a direct consequence of their being rich.
They look back at the history of their wealth experience and conclude life lessons.
They make conclusions, hold beliefs and acquire a moral taste on social issues based on their lived experience, their rich life.
Some common examples held among many rich include:
- Some people are naturally superior to others, and others are naturally inferior, as far as societal value, intellect, aptitude for success, people management etc.
- Money is the measure of a person's value
- Money is power
- Money buys happiness and people
- Money is a panacea
- Money buys justice, freedom and politics
- The rich are smarter than the poor
- You make your own luck
- The poor should serve the rich
- It's okay to be cruel to the poor, they deserve it, they are born servile
Imagine these views being the basis for political decisions in a democracy.
A plutarchy would be the manifestation of these conclusions.
It is the ugliness of the rich, morally, intellectually, socially, that demands action from the rest of us.
The philosopher Thomas Hobbes called rule by the few an Aristocracy, not a democracy. This includes so-called representatives of the people.
What happens when the Aristocrats are either the rich, or those representing them? That is de facto Plutocracy.
A solution has been proposed ad nauseum to simply tax the rich, thus more equally redistributing the wealth of the state.
There is a considerble show-stopper to this proposal.
So, returning to the original question, what's wrong with the rich?
Who enabled them in the first place? The government is the only authority that has the power to enable the rich.
Therefore, the government is the only authority that has the power to disable the rich, through such as targeted taxation.
But when the government represents and consists in the rich, we are asking the rich to tax themselves.
So, considering the simplest of actions would never be implemented by the rich upon themsleves, such as to destroy their own status, there is no recourse for the rest of us.
No recourse that is, but rebellion.
Good luck everyone!
Well...
Firstly, they corrupt democracy.
The Rich interefere with and thereby diminish the democratic process.
They either earn or buy access to politicians. They shape and influence political decisions.
They are respected and employed by politicians. Pollies are often even drawn from the billionaire's club.
They are represented by political parties or politicians individually, as though they needed representation in the same way the vulnerable do.
Having jumped in bed with politicians, they then promote policies that are against or indirectly worsen the state of the rest of us: such as employment conditions, job creation, taxation etc etc.
The profits and wealth of the rich are hidden by accountants and lawyers and overseas bank accounts and investments to avoid paying business and personal income tax, at the least.
They got rich through making money by any means, or because they picked the right parents.
The wealth of the rich creates a socially harmful disproportionate imbalance in the wealth of the state, whereby the wealth of the state is held beyond the reach or use of the state, and therefore the state's ability to fund social services is diminished.
The rich are protected by governments from failure, bad decisions and often even crime.
That's just for starters, but it's enough for Our argument.
Here we already have several reasons to take action.
But let's balance the equation. Baby, bath water style.
So, what good comes from having billionaires roaming the streets?
Obvious arguments from apologists usually start with:
-They employ everyone.
-They advance socially required developments, through investment or core business, such as medicine, travel, communication, energy production, which in turn are highly valued by us all.
- The pay the most tax, per capita, providing the most revenue to a state
- They spend more, thus creating jobs and adding to the profit for small businesses.
- They spend more on charities, proportionately.
Is this true? Or even partly true?
If it is true, does it matter?
Can we do without all that? Can we go on living without the filthy rich?
Perhaps a final comment will seal the deal.
Being very rich comes with a world view.
The view of the world they have developed is a direct consequence of their being rich.
They look back at the history of their wealth experience and conclude life lessons.
They make conclusions, hold beliefs and acquire a moral taste on social issues based on their lived experience, their rich life.
Some common examples held among many rich include:
- Some people are naturally superior to others, and others are naturally inferior, as far as societal value, intellect, aptitude for success, people management etc.
- Money is the measure of a person's value
- Money is power
- Money buys happiness and people
- Money is a panacea
- Money buys justice, freedom and politics
- The rich are smarter than the poor
- You make your own luck
- The poor should serve the rich
- It's okay to be cruel to the poor, they deserve it, they are born servile
Imagine these views being the basis for political decisions in a democracy.
A plutarchy would be the manifestation of these conclusions.
It is the ugliness of the rich, morally, intellectually, socially, that demands action from the rest of us.
The philosopher Thomas Hobbes called rule by the few an Aristocracy, not a democracy. This includes so-called representatives of the people.
What happens when the Aristocrats are either the rich, or those representing them? That is de facto Plutocracy.
A solution has been proposed ad nauseum to simply tax the rich, thus more equally redistributing the wealth of the state.
There is a considerble show-stopper to this proposal.
So, returning to the original question, what's wrong with the rich?
Who enabled them in the first place? The government is the only authority that has the power to enable the rich.
Therefore, the government is the only authority that has the power to disable the rich, through such as targeted taxation.
But when the government represents and consists in the rich, we are asking the rich to tax themselves.
So, considering the simplest of actions would never be implemented by the rich upon themsleves, such as to destroy their own status, there is no recourse for the rest of us.
No recourse that is, but rebellion.
Good luck everyone!
Wednesday, February 20, 2019
Arse-Kissing By Any Other Name
Arse-kissing
Brown-nosing
Chair-sniffing
Pandering
Greasing-up
Blowing smoke up their butt
Flattering
Ego-waxing
Sycophancy. We've all seen or partaken of the behaviour these gerunds signify.
Some of us have received it.
What is Sycophancy? What is it, really?
It's seeking the favour of someone, for some personal good outcome, by denigrating oneself or another in comparison, or by exgerrating on, or falesly attributing to, the object's character, reputation, decision, view or acheivement, whilst seeming to believe in their statement whether believed or not.
It can be issue-specific and therefore temporary, or it can be the consistent state of the relationship.
For witnesses, or even the subject and object, it can create a feeling of sickness or disgust.
It is a complex system of lies and withholding of the truth:
- hiding the real goal of the behaviour
- lying about some or all of the statement made
- hiding the true opinion the subject has of the object
- it attempts to hide the closely-held strategic intent of the performer
- it presumes a level of superiority in the object that may not be real
- it distracts from an honest development of the issue previously being discussed
- it reflects some now exposed view or character of the performer
For witnesses, there may be a strong compulsion to call it out.
Those performing the behaviour are often mocked or reprimanded.
It is often easily recognisable, making it a risky exercise clearly worthy to perform and thus the goal must be high-value and worth the risk.
The behaviour is contrasted against praise, diplomacy, tact, admiration, commendation, where a hidden personal good is not sought, but that of a goal to some common interest whereby a strength or positive aspect is identified.
If it be shown that this former behaviour of sycophancy is harmful for no common good, then rational discussion is demanded in order it can be mitigated or annihilated.
The executioners of such mitigation or annihilation, as always in the war against wankers and idiots, can only be those with courage and vision.
So, is it harmful, to what extent, and is it then justified?
Sycophancy, or arse-licking, is a behaviour that seeks to gain an unfair advantage, by achieving a status of being favoured amongst a group.
Thus, the first harm is that sycophancy that achieves its goal is unfair. Instead of favour by merit, there is favour by fraud.
The harms consequential of unfairness, such as getting a head start in a race etc, should not need to be enumerated, as anyone who has witnessed such unfairness can attest.
If it is accepted that unfairness should be mitigated, brought back to balance, wherever it is found, then one must also accept that sycophancy be treated the same.
Extent cannot be a property of unfairness, as all degrees of unfairness have the same value: a little unfairness is in need of rebalance, just as a large unfairness.
Then, is the harm of unfairness from sycophancy justified?
In extreme cases, where lives are in danger, such as between Nazi German POW staff and their Jewish prisoners. Here, sycophancy is justified where a person's life is decided by the behaviour.
However, outside such extremes, as feigning sycophancy to preserve life, in the conduct of everyday modern Western life, there is no justification.
What other harm avails itself?
Sycophancy attributes traits and reckonings of such high calibre to a person, whom has them not.
This falsity causes in all members involded further harmful falsities:
The object of sycophancy is encouraged that their judgment is indeed accurate, good, correct, and may continue an erroneous course of actions on that basis.
Further, witnesses to the sycophancy, having been equally fooled, themselves continue a course of action inspired by the object that is also just as erroneous.
It is assumed for sake of argument that wrongly inspired courses of action are likely to lead to harmful conclusions. QED.
A third harm, may be argued in general, being the standard harm caused by all manner of deception when such is fundamental within a group of people working together for a common goal.
When an organisation of people is infiltrated by institutional deception, such as sycophancy, a culture will develop naturally that has at its root the covering of truths. It is assumed such a fundamental framework based on deception is likely to become toxic and undermine the goals personal and communal of that organisation.
A fourth harm relates to respect and reputation. The witnessing of sycophancy, where it is thinly veiled, has a proportional effect on the respect and reputation of both subject and object.
For savvy witnesses, the respect and reputation of both parties plummets, albeit by different means.
The gullable recipient of sycophancy has their personal value diminshed for being so blind, vane and naive.
The sycophant has their value diminished in the eyes of their peers witnessing, by their having used fraud and deception to successfully compete against them. Further, it is obvious to such peers that the sycophant intends to compete with them and acheive a favour or advantage over them, by immoral and anti-social means.
The sycophant has thrown down the gauntlet at the feet of their peers, unashamedly, unapologetically.
Further harm is consequent from the suspicion amongst peers that the sycophant may be colluding with one or more of them, thus creating a sense of mistrust and the consequent harms that follow such in any group proclaiming to work together for the common good.
A final harm is the opinion now held by the subject of sycophancy, of the peers against the sycophant. Favour is relative, so the favour of the sycophant having been won, requires the favour of the remaining peers to be relatively diminished, along with their advice and counsel.
Thus far, We have shown the harms created by sycophancy. They are deep and wide, they are self-perpetuating and self-justifying. To this extent, the sycophant must be stopped.
But how?
Calling out behaviour is risky.
Evidence will be required. Yet the sycophant only succeeds after ensuring that evidence is unattainable.
The annihilation of sycophancy can only be acheived by the object valuing the views of many against a favoured one.
The value of a group can only be achieved by the group itself developing its value in the eyes of the object.
Once this is attained, a class action calling out the sycophant will be treated with respect by the object, who is likely to second-guess the sycophant from then on.
Best of luck!
Thursday, February 14, 2019
The Vast Majority of Muslims are Good, but...
The vast majority of Muslims are good. The trouble we're having is with Islamists, who impose Islam upon others and who aim to create a Caliphate with Sharia Law, either outside their host country or within the host country. The means to achieve the Caliphate includes "terrorism", or the killing of innocents.
But we shoudn't leave the good Muslims alone. They have a role to play with Islamists.
The "other" Muslims also cannot shelter behind their "correct" version of Islam, blaming Muslim atrocities on a minority of Muslims holding an "incorrect" version.
This argument from Muslim apologists is the fact that the things Westerners find atrocious in the Islamic culture, behaviour, prectises, beliefs, are the peculiarity of only a small misguided minority.
Sadly, this is not the case. They are both peculiarities of Islam, as a whole. What both views share is a common religion at the fundamental level.
The horrific behaviours seen of some members of Muslim immigrants or their progeny may seem part of a minority group, but their "warped" behaviours derive from their understanding of their ethnic group's "religion". Bad Islam comes from good Islam.
Genital mutilation, child marriage, honour killing, racism, cruel animal slaughter, bigamy, the killing of apostates, killing civilians for represnting a perceived enemy, are all the features of certain organised ethno-religious groups, NOT an individual's personal belief, nor all ehtno-religious groups.
It is enough that certain behaviours derive only from some groups that the group itself is partly to blame.
No Islamist terrorist derives their beliefs outside the Islamic religion they follow.
Mainstream religions are partly responsible for the relatively wayward interpretations of some members, by not clarifying for all members the true or correct interpretation.
If a religion promotes the supremacy of religious belief above reason, there should be no surprise when irrational interpretations of jihad produce mass killing of civilians.
It should be clear to clerics and ideologists that an ambiguous teaching may yield a violent interpretation. The solution is clearly to define the teaching, its scope and limitations.
This clarity does not happen.
Mainstream religious members feel they can sit back and relax that they simply have the correct interpretation and hold no responsibility for the actions of other members, who got it wrong.
In this sense, there seems to be more than one Islam. But Muslims disagree. Both are wrong. There are many interpretations of ONE religion. Some argue, but mine is the correct one. The trouble is, they all say that. So which one is right? They are both correct.
Muslim apologists continue to claim there's is the correct interpretation, so their religion is not the problem.
Problem solved?
But we shoudn't leave the good Muslims alone. They have a role to play with Islamists.
The "other" Muslims also cannot shelter behind their "correct" version of Islam, blaming Muslim atrocities on a minority of Muslims holding an "incorrect" version.
This argument from Muslim apologists is the fact that the things Westerners find atrocious in the Islamic culture, behaviour, prectises, beliefs, are the peculiarity of only a small misguided minority.
Sadly, this is not the case. They are both peculiarities of Islam, as a whole. What both views share is a common religion at the fundamental level.
The horrific behaviours seen of some members of Muslim immigrants or their progeny may seem part of a minority group, but their "warped" behaviours derive from their understanding of their ethnic group's "religion". Bad Islam comes from good Islam.
Genital mutilation, child marriage, honour killing, racism, cruel animal slaughter, bigamy, the killing of apostates, killing civilians for represnting a perceived enemy, are all the features of certain organised ethno-religious groups, NOT an individual's personal belief, nor all ehtno-religious groups.
It is enough that certain behaviours derive only from some groups that the group itself is partly to blame.
No Islamist terrorist derives their beliefs outside the Islamic religion they follow.
Mainstream religions are partly responsible for the relatively wayward interpretations of some members, by not clarifying for all members the true or correct interpretation.
If a religion promotes the supremacy of religious belief above reason, there should be no surprise when irrational interpretations of jihad produce mass killing of civilians.
It should be clear to clerics and ideologists that an ambiguous teaching may yield a violent interpretation. The solution is clearly to define the teaching, its scope and limitations.
This clarity does not happen.
Mainstream religious members feel they can sit back and relax that they simply have the correct interpretation and hold no responsibility for the actions of other members, who got it wrong.
In this sense, there seems to be more than one Islam. But Muslims disagree. Both are wrong. There are many interpretations of ONE religion. Some argue, but mine is the correct one. The trouble is, they all say that. So which one is right? They are both correct.
Muslim apologists continue to claim there's is the correct interpretation, so their religion is not the problem.
Problem solved?
Political Correctness Kills
Political correctness, we argue, is used by a movement of people whose combined global efforts have protected and supported another movement whose activities have included, as one of their goals, the killing of innocent civilians.
So what do We mean by political correctness and how has this behaviour lead to killing?
Political correctness is the reaction against bigotry that has recently existed in government policies, workplace behaviour and individual attacks against minorities, especially the vulnerable and the voiceless.
This reaction includes banning, vilifying and punishing bigoted behaviour, but also has extended to behaviour of a special kind believed to be harmful, mostly psychologically, to some groups. The reaction also seeks to support false concepts about humanity and society that aim to promote attitudes, beliefs and principles of social cohesion that in turn free up a range of behaviour that culminates in killing.
Examples of these false concepts are multiculturalism and tolerance of certain vulnerable minorities, especially immigrants, gays, women and religious groups. Other false concepts include, that some opinions or beliefs are empirically or logically wrong, and some beliefs are morally wrong. Further, a false concept includes the position that discussions that hurt people's feelings are not only morally wrong, but illogical or irrational.
Basically, political correctness has caused certain discussions and behaviours by governments, interest groups and individuals to be ceased that would otherwise be free to examine the global movement of killers, concluding in action against them.
Political correctness therefore stops examination and critical discussion of certain subjects before they can start. Because the issues are never discussed, they are never addressed, and where the issue is the killing of civilians, political correctness plays a vital role in the freedom of violent actors to continue unimpeded with their plans to kill.
It should be obvious then that part of the solution to defeating terrorism, radicalisation and the killing of civilians as a political tool, is to defeat political correctness.
Serious discussions and policies that aim to identify and destroy the organised killing of civilians for political motives must be allowed to continue and develop unimpeded by a reaction against the potential harm that such discussions and policies could inflict upon the feelings or sensitivities of some people.
Concurrently, the false concepts that political correctness creates to justify its reaction need themsleves to be exposed as false concepts invented not out of rational argument, but purely to appear as good reason to stop a discussion that opposes their view.
Bigoted statements can be defeated through discussion, including logical and empirical tests that would defeat them rationally.
Political correctness claims to be used to protect everyone from harm. Conversely, it enables those bent on harm, protects them and even supports them by giving them freedom from criticism and investigation.
So what do We mean by political correctness and how has this behaviour lead to killing?
Political correctness is the reaction against bigotry that has recently existed in government policies, workplace behaviour and individual attacks against minorities, especially the vulnerable and the voiceless.
This reaction includes banning, vilifying and punishing bigoted behaviour, but also has extended to behaviour of a special kind believed to be harmful, mostly psychologically, to some groups. The reaction also seeks to support false concepts about humanity and society that aim to promote attitudes, beliefs and principles of social cohesion that in turn free up a range of behaviour that culminates in killing.
Examples of these false concepts are multiculturalism and tolerance of certain vulnerable minorities, especially immigrants, gays, women and religious groups. Other false concepts include, that some opinions or beliefs are empirically or logically wrong, and some beliefs are morally wrong. Further, a false concept includes the position that discussions that hurt people's feelings are not only morally wrong, but illogical or irrational.
Basically, political correctness has caused certain discussions and behaviours by governments, interest groups and individuals to be ceased that would otherwise be free to examine the global movement of killers, concluding in action against them.
Political correctness therefore stops examination and critical discussion of certain subjects before they can start. Because the issues are never discussed, they are never addressed, and where the issue is the killing of civilians, political correctness plays a vital role in the freedom of violent actors to continue unimpeded with their plans to kill.
It should be obvious then that part of the solution to defeating terrorism, radicalisation and the killing of civilians as a political tool, is to defeat political correctness.
Serious discussions and policies that aim to identify and destroy the organised killing of civilians for political motives must be allowed to continue and develop unimpeded by a reaction against the potential harm that such discussions and policies could inflict upon the feelings or sensitivities of some people.
Concurrently, the false concepts that political correctness creates to justify its reaction need themsleves to be exposed as false concepts invented not out of rational argument, but purely to appear as good reason to stop a discussion that opposes their view.
Bigoted statements can be defeated through discussion, including logical and empirical tests that would defeat them rationally.
Political correctness claims to be used to protect everyone from harm. Conversely, it enables those bent on harm, protects them and even supports them by giving them freedom from criticism and investigation.
Sunday, February 3, 2019
The Fallacy of Arguing for All or Nothing
Not all of a group committed the act, therefore the group as a whole is not a problem, just the uncharacteristic minority.
The group does not represent the act, only because not all members are predicated by the act, so the concern is a generalisation and therefore incorrect.
This is a common counter-argument in debate against those who identify a theme or pattern amongst a group. The counter-argument is to point out the minorism or generalisation and that these are invalid as they argue from particular to universal.
The point of the counter-arguer is to negate the need to discuss an issue, because it seeks to convert a minority to a generality or a wholistic statement.
The logical format of the argument for Minorism - Some is Important - can be stated as, some X does/predicates Y, therefore Y is a predicate of X whether minor or not.
The complaint by anti-minoritists and anti-generalists is their demand for something to be a true predicate, then All members need to have the predicate proposed, not just some or even many, or most as in the generlisation. If All do not have the predicate then the proposal is wrong.
So, someone notices how MOST terrorist attacks are committed by Muslims and argues therefore that there is a problem in Islam to discuss. But before we can proceed, the counter argument is made, "Not all Muslims commit terrorist attacks, therefore there is no problem in Islam. And by the way, you're being racist in even suggesting it.
Many arguments fail to proceed due to this premature cut-off at the minorism or even the generalisation. So that's a problem in need of solution. It's a problem, because the issue isn't discussed beyond the first statement.
We get it.
Not all X do Y. But that's why it's called a "generalisation" or "minorism". Conversely, some argue that if so many of X do Y, there is clearly a problem within X.
Why is it so bad, so wrong, to argue that because most or not all X does Y, we have something significant to discuss and resolve?
Not ALL catholic clergy are pedophiles, but that hasn't stopped a Royal Commission into the Catholic Church and similar formal inquiries across thre globe.
The generalisation was made that so many in the Catholic clergy commit, support and protect paedophile crimes a theme is apparent that demonstrates a causal relation between the church and the crime. This relation has found to be the vulnerability of children in adult care, combined with a sexual desire pervasive among clergy, combined with the power of the church to cover these acts up.
It should not matter that out of 1000 people, 1 person is Y. The minority behaviour or condition is important and should not be ignored because a majority are not Y.
We need to turn this knee-jerk reaction against generalisations around, this attitude that the minority or even majority of a thing does not matter.
Generalisations are made for a reason and are part of how we judge action, value, response. Generalisations help. They identify a trend, a weakness or strength, a tendancy, a strategic issue.
The majority matters.
The majority is how groups are elected, how consumer products are sold on the market and those in the minority are removed, how we decide on whether to visit a place based on reviews.
The majority is how groups decide on what action to take, what policy to hold. It is at the heart of democracy. The majority rules in most decision-making groups.
Not all ethnic groups share the same physical appearance (skin colour, eye shape etc) but we all generalise and use terms like White People, Asians, Blacks, Arabs based on the generalisation that most members of an ethnicity share physical appearance. We do this because it's helpful and it works.
So, why are we always defeated in argument simply because there is a minority that don't fit the proposal, the observation?
Why in important areas of life does the majority rule and become accepted, but in other areas the demand is for total inclusion, not just majority, before the argument can proceed.
If most people in group A behave with type X, we are told we cannot draw any conclusion, design actions, solutions, change or modify policies?
The Law, politics, voting systems disagree; all of these change and modify due to a majority, and do not remain unchanged because one issue falls outside the majority.
We are all treated by the Law, by Tax rules and regulations based on the conclusion by governments that the majority of people behave a certain way.
Not everyone drives, but most do, so we have roads and road rules.
Not everyone in the UK can read English, but most do, so school teachers, signs and forms use English.
Not everyone likes garlic bread at pizza restaurants, but guess what's on the menu?
Most people are not allergic to codeine, but guess what you're given for pain by medical staff (assuming they ask you about your allergies first).
Without generalisations, imagine how difficult your life would be.
You could not SAY certain things anymore:
Politicians lie.
Life is difficult.
Marriage is hard.
I like sausages.
Christians believe in forgiveness.
Melbourne is the best city to live in.
I'm a friendly person.
I'm good at my job.
So, you are reduced to mitigating the sentiment behind these kinds of generalisations:
Sometimes I love you.
Human beings sometimes have legs.
Some restaurants serve food.
Some cars have wheels.
How ridiculous and impractical.
Generalisations should be contrasted to vague statements, such as "We teach an open minded religious instruction in our school."
What the hell does that mean?
A generalisation is not vague, like this. A generalisation summarises a theme shared between multiple issues. It says, "I have noticed that this group shares this in common, not wholly, but in large numbers; large enough to establish a theme so that we can predict the character of other members of that group.
In general, male homosexuals use a lisp in their speech. This is a commonly observed characteristic particularly apparent in a large number of homosexual men, as opposed to the minority of this in non-homosexual males. Therefore, we have the generalisation that male homosexuals speak with a lisp.
When we hear a lisp we can predict a likelihood of homosexuality. This is empirically verifiable.
Generalisations are what most of our positions on the world are to us.
Get over it!
Minorities mean something too.
Peadophiles are a minority, but we treat it with serious action. We don't wait for all humans to become paedophiles before we act against it.
The group does not represent the act, only because not all members are predicated by the act, so the concern is a generalisation and therefore incorrect.
This is a common counter-argument in debate against those who identify a theme or pattern amongst a group. The counter-argument is to point out the minorism or generalisation and that these are invalid as they argue from particular to universal.
The point of the counter-arguer is to negate the need to discuss an issue, because it seeks to convert a minority to a generality or a wholistic statement.
The logical format of the argument for Minorism - Some is Important - can be stated as, some X does/predicates Y, therefore Y is a predicate of X whether minor or not.
The complaint by anti-minoritists and anti-generalists is their demand for something to be a true predicate, then All members need to have the predicate proposed, not just some or even many, or most as in the generlisation. If All do not have the predicate then the proposal is wrong.
So, someone notices how MOST terrorist attacks are committed by Muslims and argues therefore that there is a problem in Islam to discuss. But before we can proceed, the counter argument is made, "Not all Muslims commit terrorist attacks, therefore there is no problem in Islam. And by the way, you're being racist in even suggesting it.
Many arguments fail to proceed due to this premature cut-off at the minorism or even the generalisation. So that's a problem in need of solution. It's a problem, because the issue isn't discussed beyond the first statement.
We get it.
Not all X do Y. But that's why it's called a "generalisation" or "minorism". Conversely, some argue that if so many of X do Y, there is clearly a problem within X.
Why is it so bad, so wrong, to argue that because most or not all X does Y, we have something significant to discuss and resolve?
Not ALL catholic clergy are pedophiles, but that hasn't stopped a Royal Commission into the Catholic Church and similar formal inquiries across thre globe.
The generalisation was made that so many in the Catholic clergy commit, support and protect paedophile crimes a theme is apparent that demonstrates a causal relation between the church and the crime. This relation has found to be the vulnerability of children in adult care, combined with a sexual desire pervasive among clergy, combined with the power of the church to cover these acts up.
It should not matter that out of 1000 people, 1 person is Y. The minority behaviour or condition is important and should not be ignored because a majority are not Y.
We need to turn this knee-jerk reaction against generalisations around, this attitude that the minority or even majority of a thing does not matter.
Generalisations are made for a reason and are part of how we judge action, value, response. Generalisations help. They identify a trend, a weakness or strength, a tendancy, a strategic issue.
The majority matters.
The majority is how groups are elected, how consumer products are sold on the market and those in the minority are removed, how we decide on whether to visit a place based on reviews.
The majority is how groups decide on what action to take, what policy to hold. It is at the heart of democracy. The majority rules in most decision-making groups.
Not all ethnic groups share the same physical appearance (skin colour, eye shape etc) but we all generalise and use terms like White People, Asians, Blacks, Arabs based on the generalisation that most members of an ethnicity share physical appearance. We do this because it's helpful and it works.
So, why are we always defeated in argument simply because there is a minority that don't fit the proposal, the observation?
Why in important areas of life does the majority rule and become accepted, but in other areas the demand is for total inclusion, not just majority, before the argument can proceed.
If most people in group A behave with type X, we are told we cannot draw any conclusion, design actions, solutions, change or modify policies?
The Law, politics, voting systems disagree; all of these change and modify due to a majority, and do not remain unchanged because one issue falls outside the majority.
We are all treated by the Law, by Tax rules and regulations based on the conclusion by governments that the majority of people behave a certain way.
Not everyone drives, but most do, so we have roads and road rules.
Not everyone in the UK can read English, but most do, so school teachers, signs and forms use English.
Not everyone likes garlic bread at pizza restaurants, but guess what's on the menu?
Most people are not allergic to codeine, but guess what you're given for pain by medical staff (assuming they ask you about your allergies first).
Without generalisations, imagine how difficult your life would be.
You could not SAY certain things anymore:
Politicians lie.
Life is difficult.
Marriage is hard.
I like sausages.
Christians believe in forgiveness.
Melbourne is the best city to live in.
I'm a friendly person.
I'm good at my job.
So, you are reduced to mitigating the sentiment behind these kinds of generalisations:
Sometimes I love you.
Human beings sometimes have legs.
Some restaurants serve food.
Some cars have wheels.
How ridiculous and impractical.
Generalisations should be contrasted to vague statements, such as "We teach an open minded religious instruction in our school."
What the hell does that mean?
A generalisation is not vague, like this. A generalisation summarises a theme shared between multiple issues. It says, "I have noticed that this group shares this in common, not wholly, but in large numbers; large enough to establish a theme so that we can predict the character of other members of that group.
In general, male homosexuals use a lisp in their speech. This is a commonly observed characteristic particularly apparent in a large number of homosexual men, as opposed to the minority of this in non-homosexual males. Therefore, we have the generalisation that male homosexuals speak with a lisp.
When we hear a lisp we can predict a likelihood of homosexuality. This is empirically verifiable.
Generalisations are what most of our positions on the world are to us.
Get over it!
Minorities mean something too.
Peadophiles are a minority, but we treat it with serious action. We don't wait for all humans to become paedophiles before we act against it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)