People!
Angst is NOT a synonym for Anxiety.
Angst is the German word for Fear.
Furthermore,
Begging the Question does NOT mean, that issue compels us to ask an obvious question.
Begging the Question means someone making a point has not defended their argument or assumption with a satisfactory explanation.
Motivational Poster
Tuesday, August 27, 2019
Thursday, August 15, 2019
Freedom of Speech but with Owning the Consequences
SJWs will argue aggressively that freedom of speech is okay, but the speaker needs to take responsibility for the consequences of what they say and do.
If we use that logic, we can argue that a woman who is raped had the freedom to express themselves in their clothing and therefore need to accept responsibility for the rape.
Not so good now is it.
If we use that logic, we can argue that a woman who is raped had the freedom to express themselves in their clothing and therefore need to accept responsibility for the rape.
Not so good now is it.
Friday, July 26, 2019
The Need for Negative Critical Heated Debate
Arguing is vital for societal and individual progress, resolution, discovery and wisdom. Without unfettered honest argument, we are all doomed.
We start arguing from a young age with our parents. They argue back and the formula we are all familiar with plays out. We learn to defend our views, our values, our egos with words and statements, apologies and other tools to do so. We argue with passion directly proportional to the importance of the subject, the delicacy of our ego, the nature of our temperament and other factors.
It is natural and good for an argument to touch our soul, our raw nerves, our values. It is natural to feel passionate in an argument.
As we get older, we learn more about the periphery of arguing and its structure, its nature and potential to be improved or degraded, its value, the argument itself, becomes a personal life-long subject of inquiry and tool for development.
Then approaching adulthood we meet people who paradoxically argue against arguing. Or if not in pursuit of wholesale opposition, they presume to lay down the limits and scope of argument subjectively in a way to win. The rules and the intellectual prerequisites are argued to be abided by before proceeding. How arrogant. And thus ad hominem is born among other fallacies to win the argument by cheating - through other means than clarity, logic, empirical evidence and the more objective structural attributes of the argument.
Instead, the less cultured antagonist will stoop to mean and cheap cheating to defeat the opponent through insults and fallacies.
As if that weren't enough to discourage the activity or arguing, the honest then face a movement among people that an argument should never be negative, non-constructively critical, or offensive. The argument should not be driven or accompanied by emotion or passion.
With all these rules and limitations, the argument itself faces extinction, if such a movement gains powerful backing and succeeds in its aim.
The aim will remove the human and humanity from an argument.
We argue that these limitations beyond logic and evidence and objective tools and frameworks must be removed.
An argument without passion is merely an academic or intellectual pursuit to solve a harmless puzzle.
And of course the many things in dire need of public debate today are likely to offend by their very nature. Abortion, obesity, sexual orientation, gender identity, terrorism, religion - all gone.
What is needed now more than ever is passionate heated debate, because then we know its honest and truth is the goal, not a trophy for best person.
If we are stopped from seeking truth from the very beginning because we're too negative or too critical or offensive, then those immense complicated and important arguments will not happen and the problem will remain and will grow and will do harm to all.
Fear of arguing is a poor development of humanity. It will lead to more hatred and suffering.
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
The Voice of the Youth... Baaaaaaaa
The Gen Y and Millenial generations are quickly becoming monolithic in their views about serious societal and political issues.
It doesn't seem to matter what the issue is, if it involves a minority, it must be supported and supported without deliberation, argument or any facts.
Whatever the issue, every single person is perfect and good and flawless and correct, without condition.
Thus, if someone wants to identify has a Skoda sedan, they must be supported and any contrary view is wrong and must be crushed.
This axiomatic mindless fundanmentalism is the litmus test of any debate.
But what's behind it?
Fundamentally, there are psychological drivers:
- I don't like authorities telling me what is good or right, so I reject all authority.
- I am weak and politically powerless so I will join a group of likeminded weaklings to feel like I belong and I am supported.
- I lack the intellect and knowledge to argue in support of my personal views, so I will defer to emotion to defeat opponents.
- Logic and science are very powerful and a threat to my ego, so I will join movements that oppose them.
So we can now predict with accuracy the causes Gen Y and Millenials will support based on these fundamentals.
They will support all minorities who suffer existentially from criticism by logic, science, reasoning and other powers behind conventional thought.
- Muslims
- Obese people
- Transgender people
- Feminists
- Vegans
- Homosexuals
- Alternative life stylers
- Ecological warriors and Environmentalists
- Religious people
- Ethinc groups and immigrants from minorities
Our young people will mindlessly support all these groups NOT because they can see a need, but because they are in fashion and they satisfy the fundamental drivers behind their support above.
This is fraudulent, anti-intellectual, and promotes the worst characteristics of human beings:
- Bullshitting to look good
- Knocking others down to make us feel better or more powerful
- Cheating
- Enjoying the defeat of superiors
- Pleasure from defeating authorities
- Schadenfreud
The problem for young is that the smartest of us can see right through this thin veil. We know what you are doing and why. You can't fool us. You are a sheep and you Baa because you are pathetic.
We're on to you.
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
Please Don't Hurt Me... Or I'll Crush You!
The time we are living in will be remembered in history as many things, including the Age of the Vengeful Victim.
In the past, an arguer would be defeated by Logic, Empirical Evidence or deferring to Moral Taste. There the argument would end. The loser withdrawing to their room for contemplation or self-pity.
Today, the Loser in the argument can rebound and make an Appeal to authorities for having had their feelings hurt. A punishment will be sought.
Today, the Loser can conclude the argument by pressing for a breach in social, employment policy or legislation. Thus the Loser gets to win the argument by ad hominem.
The failed polemicist thus converts into The Victim. A victim demanding retribution.
This last resort of the meek is not lost on today's contenders, who are now beginning to shy away from frank and fearless argument altogether.
The fear of being punished by an opponent with the weight of law behind them is prophylactic.
Why risk serious and enduring harm just to speak your truth?
How will this trend evolve?
Honest debate will end. The pursuit of truth cut short. The search for truth and clarity too risky to pursue. What will society look like in such a world?
A society where serious problems go unsolved for fear of the consequences of offering diverse views.
And all the while, the meek shall celebrate the power of professing their views free from criticism and intellectual testing.
This is a world prohesied as warning from Huxley to Orwell to Russell and all those who cherish Freedom of Speech and the merciless pusuit of truth and accuracy and intellligence over emotion and appeasement of psychological fragility.
It is a world doomed to silence. A world ruled by the ignorant, the pathetic, the frail.
We advise all those who have benefited from the sacrifice of Free Thinkers and brave interlocutors hitherto to stand against the oppressive minorities who demand our silence in favour of their being found utterly Wrong.
Dennis Prager argues that a debater should not seek to Win an argument, but only to clarify where the debaters differ. A clarity of difference. But how can we clarify where we differ, when we cannot speak without fear of severe punishment?
Truth-Seekers of the World, UNITE!
In the past, an arguer would be defeated by Logic, Empirical Evidence or deferring to Moral Taste. There the argument would end. The loser withdrawing to their room for contemplation or self-pity.
Today, the Loser in the argument can rebound and make an Appeal to authorities for having had their feelings hurt. A punishment will be sought.
Today, the Loser can conclude the argument by pressing for a breach in social, employment policy or legislation. Thus the Loser gets to win the argument by ad hominem.
The failed polemicist thus converts into The Victim. A victim demanding retribution.
This last resort of the meek is not lost on today's contenders, who are now beginning to shy away from frank and fearless argument altogether.
The fear of being punished by an opponent with the weight of law behind them is prophylactic.
Why risk serious and enduring harm just to speak your truth?
How will this trend evolve?
Honest debate will end. The pursuit of truth cut short. The search for truth and clarity too risky to pursue. What will society look like in such a world?
A society where serious problems go unsolved for fear of the consequences of offering diverse views.
And all the while, the meek shall celebrate the power of professing their views free from criticism and intellectual testing.
This is a world prohesied as warning from Huxley to Orwell to Russell and all those who cherish Freedom of Speech and the merciless pusuit of truth and accuracy and intellligence over emotion and appeasement of psychological fragility.
It is a world doomed to silence. A world ruled by the ignorant, the pathetic, the frail.
We advise all those who have benefited from the sacrifice of Free Thinkers and brave interlocutors hitherto to stand against the oppressive minorities who demand our silence in favour of their being found utterly Wrong.
Dennis Prager argues that a debater should not seek to Win an argument, but only to clarify where the debaters differ. A clarity of difference. But how can we clarify where we differ, when we cannot speak without fear of severe punishment?
Truth-Seekers of the World, UNITE!
Saturday, July 13, 2019
Civil Language
If current trends in social and civil behaviour continue, a number of consequences are likely.
Apart from no one speaking the truth or their true thoughts in discussion, for fear of being charged under the law, there is the gradual removal of even simple historical and cultural greetings and spoken manners.
The following traditional terms will gradually disappear:
- Thank you
- How are you?
- Please
- Welcome
- Nice to see you
- How is he/she?
- You look good/well/great
Two drivers behind the disappearance are developing concurrently:
1. Fear of offense
2. Social-Media Speak
Fear of offending someone is currently annoying, but will soon be a factor prior to all social contact.
Text messaging and email language is now appearing in verbal conversation.
Both developments are changing the language used traditionally without fear or concern.
That change is not seeking improvement of communication or eloquence or respect. That change has a hidden agenda to prevent an opponent from defeating your argument, and thereby your delicate fragile ego.
Thus, the agenda is fraudulent and anti-truth. It must be stopped from developing and shown up for what it is.
Because Political Correctness and the Internet has now given voice to minorities, we are now seeing the explosion of minority views on social communication domains. They thought they could just announce their bullshit minority views without response.
Now they are not happy with the responses and want to shut them down, because the responses seek truth not bullshit and so there is the dispute.
Now the responders won;t be shut down, so the minorities appeal to the law and the politically powerful to shut down their responders.
That's cheating. That's lazy. That is not how we argue and discuss important issues.
But the fear of speaking the truth extends beyond disussion to common traditional greetings and banter.
From here on, people are too scared to say things to others at the point of meeting for fear of offending them. So, it would be safer to say nothing, or something contrived as neutral.
When we live in a world where saying anything can be taken as offensive, people will stop talking all together.
Is that good for a community?
Apart from no one speaking the truth or their true thoughts in discussion, for fear of being charged under the law, there is the gradual removal of even simple historical and cultural greetings and spoken manners.
The following traditional terms will gradually disappear:
- Thank you
- How are you?
- Please
- Welcome
- Nice to see you
- How is he/she?
- You look good/well/great
Two drivers behind the disappearance are developing concurrently:
1. Fear of offense
2. Social-Media Speak
Fear of offending someone is currently annoying, but will soon be a factor prior to all social contact.
Text messaging and email language is now appearing in verbal conversation.
Both developments are changing the language used traditionally without fear or concern.
That change is not seeking improvement of communication or eloquence or respect. That change has a hidden agenda to prevent an opponent from defeating your argument, and thereby your delicate fragile ego.
Thus, the agenda is fraudulent and anti-truth. It must be stopped from developing and shown up for what it is.
Because Political Correctness and the Internet has now given voice to minorities, we are now seeing the explosion of minority views on social communication domains. They thought they could just announce their bullshit minority views without response.
Now they are not happy with the responses and want to shut them down, because the responses seek truth not bullshit and so there is the dispute.
Now the responders won;t be shut down, so the minorities appeal to the law and the politically powerful to shut down their responders.
That's cheating. That's lazy. That is not how we argue and discuss important issues.
But the fear of speaking the truth extends beyond disussion to common traditional greetings and banter.
From here on, people are too scared to say things to others at the point of meeting for fear of offending them. So, it would be safer to say nothing, or something contrived as neutral.
When we live in a world where saying anything can be taken as offensive, people will stop talking all together.
Is that good for a community?
Sunday, June 9, 2019
Friday, June 7, 2019
Being Fat is Good
Another fad spewed out of the little brains of small people across mainstream social media and media is...
Being obese is good.
Woman who are fat are beautiful.
Fat is attractive.
Proponents argue along the same formula we've being seeing now for years:
Pick a minority group that's been picked on and tell the world they are awesome and you the General Public must agree, you must change your minds and behaviour to promote and support this group, you must change your language and your values, because they are WRONG.
As We have said many times before, we live in the Era of the Minority.
The smallest voices now have the loudest voice and power they could only have dreamed of before the Internet and Political Correctness.
So all the stupid, the talentless, the boring, the scared, the pathetic, the morally fucked, now hold the front and centre position on the global stage.
So all the most fucked ideas out there held by 0.8% of humans are now Popularly Held.
Holy Shit.
The New List is long.
Men are Evil Rapists.
You can choose your sexual gender.
Meat is murder.
It's racist to even talk about Ethnicity unless it's a lovely statement.
Opening doors for women is a masculine powerplay designed to bribe a woman into having sex with men.
Words you use must be vetted by minorities in case they offend, and if so those words must not be used and replaced by words minorities have chosen for you.
Ugly is beautiful.
Right is wrong.
Good is bad.
And Super Fat Women are objectively beautiful, if you disagree you are wrong and you are disgusting.
What the fuck!
Can you imagine the world in 10 years if you extrapolate the trend?
It's a future of lies, fear, division, suppression, litigation, where genuine rational people are silenced leaving only morons running debate and establishing the current world view on everything.
The weak will inherit the earth.
The world will be dominated by fad trends and bullshit lifestyles and minority beliefs, dictating the opinions and values of everyone. And if you oppose, you will be crushed. Because the governments will back them up as will your employers.
This freedom ending catastrophe must be killed immediately before it gains even more momentum and it's too late to repair.
Kill it dead where ever you see it.
Before it kills you.
Tuesday, March 5, 2019
Schools Suck - What Should We be Teaching Our Children in School?
We need to start teaching our children in schools what they and we need them to learn, not what they are being taught currently.
We assume here that the fundamental purpose of school education is twofold:
1. To produce school-leavers who will be Good citizens.
2. To develop the social aspects of children, so they become skilled in social success and the management of other people.
If there are other primary reasons for organised schooling, We would like to know them.
As it is, the goals above are assumed as primary objectives, for which every effort in schooling aims.
Now, is the current suite of education programmes acheiving the goals above?
No they are not.
Schools teach what has always been taught and is therefore thoughtless and aimless.
Education departments are run by university graduates with no life experience or philosophy of education training, lead by old teachers and bureaucrats who wallow in a swamp of group think and bland governmental education policy, itself driven by elections and sophistry.
Those with the authority and resources to produce and implement good schooling strategies are politicians and the bureaucrats who serve them. These disinterested and unskilled drones rush to the latest educational research papers and studies to present the facade of "making change" in education, but really only aim to leave their mark, their legacy.
Thus, poorly implemented experimental theories in the latest developments, or fads, in education and schooling are trialled on students every year. Every year a new "idea" is imposed upon schools, whose teachers are then forced to squeeze these squares into round holes and make it work. In the meantime, the students are flung about like a plastic bag in the wind of experimental schooling.
That's the means. Let's look at the ends.
Do we teach our children what will make them good citizens and happy individuals? No.
For example, do we teach children how to manage other people formally? No we don't.
Do we teach children how to persuade, argue, apologise rationally? No we don't.
Do our children leave school with an understanding of how the world works? No they don't.
So many requirements of having production of Good citizens and people who know what steps to take toward managing others are not met by education as it currently stands.
If we assume this to be true, let us move on to what a school should teach its students, Eight Subjects:
Philosophy, Economics, Mathematics, Science, Politics, Classics, PE and Life Skills.
1. PHILOSOPHICAL SUBJECTS
RHETORIC
Public Speaking: Argument, Apology, Delivery (Breath Control, Enunciation, Stature, Engagement, Courage).
Debate: Persuasion, Sophistry, Rebuttal, Retort, Refute, Passion vs Reason
Public Address and Policy Expression
Questioning. Interrogation. Passive Voice. Implication.
Informal Argument and Conflict Resolution
Language development, use and misuse
LOGIC
Argument: premise to conclusion, tautology, dialectic (debate)
Theories and methods of reasoning
Articulation and expression
EPISTEMOLOGY
How we know what we know and to what degree
Claims to know
ONTOLOGY
What is existence? What is real and what is unrreal?
Reality and Metaphysics
RELIGION
Theories of Belief, Faith, Orthodoxy, Sect, Cult
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Atheism, Animism, Totem, Humanism
ETHICS
Wrong and right. Good and bad. The Good Life. Morality.
Jurisprudence: Law, Justice, Crime and Punishment.
AESTHETICS
Theory: Beauty. Taste. Subjective versus objective. Judgment.
Practise: The Fine, Dramatic and Performing Arts (Painting, Sculpture, Architecture, Plays, Dance, Music, Calligraphy), Expression (prose, verse, poetry, playwriting)
Ancient and Modern Fine Art
English Literature: Analytical reading, effective and creative writing.
2. ECONOMICS / FINANCE
Macro and micro.
Finance: trade, currency, banking, capital, securities, debt, crisis, trending, growth, recession, indicators, fiscal and monetary policy
Theories of Economics: Capitalism, Marxism, Keynesean, Adam Smith, Laissez-faire
Personal budgeting, wealth management, investment, saving
3. MATHEMATICS
Why maths matters. Development of Logic.
Arithmetic, Geometry, Trigonometry, Algebra, Calculus, Statistics
Proportion and ratio
Applied Mathematics: engineering, life-skills
4. SCIENCE
SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Observation/Experience, Hypothesis, Experiment, Testing, Proof, Evidence, Peer Review, Apology
Empirical verification and falsification
Research and Articulation: Thesis
History and Philosophy of Science
PHYSICAL SCIENCES
Physics (Quantum Physics, Mechanics, Dynamics, Statics), Chemistry, Biology
Astronomy, Geology, Meteorology, Evolution (i.e. space, earth, sky, life)
HUMAN BIOLOGY
Anatomy / Physiology
Health and Pathology, Biochemistry
Treatment, Pharmacology
Medicine
First Aid
PSYCHOLOGY
Theories of the mind
Mental illness and treatment
5. POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
POLITICS
Types of rule/government: Monarchy, Tyranny, Democracy, Communism, Socialism, Aristocracy, Oligarchy, Timarchy, Plutocracy.
Separation of Powers: Executive, Judiciary, Legislative
Liberty and Control. Concepts of Freedom.
Rights. Authority. Representation. Rule. Participation. Law and Custom.
Current Issues: Terrorism, Globalisation, Labour Markets
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
How political groups relate. Trade, UN, Conflict and Security, NGOs, Treaty, Asylum.
WARFARE
History and Philosophy of human conflict and war
Current Military Studies
HISTORY
Empire, Colony, City States, State Sovereignty, Feudalism
Mediterranean, European, East Asia, Americas, Africa, Oceania
The Renaissance, The Enlightenment, The Reformation, Romantic Period
6. CLASSICAL STUDIES
Ancient Greek and Roman History, Politics, Society and Literature
Classic Literature Ancient and Modern
Classic Languages: Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Chinese, Arabic, Old English, Germanic, Slavic
7. PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT
Mechanical, Game and Competition theory
Physical exercise to develop cardiovascular, musculature fitness, endurance, toughness, adaptability
Martial Arts and Self Defence
Sports: team and individual
Talent discovery
8. LIFE SKILLS
Isolating subjects already studied above, but applied to individual living.
E.g. budgeting, law, politics, health, career, relationships, maths, economics, rhetoric
Domestic Skills: budgeting, cooking, service provider management, maintenance, planning
Consumer Awareness: consumer law, smart buying, due diligence
Substance abuse, addiction, vehicle driving, health maintenance, friendship, sex education, conflict resolution, crime, social media.
How the immediate society works:
City Planning, Local Government, Policing, Council Services, Energy Distribution, Traffic, Education, Health, Social Welfare, Industry, Housing, Labour Markets
People Management: How to engage with people to meet individual interests balanced by good citizenship: conflict resolution, relationship development, character vs persona, influence and persuasion, stress management, applied sociology and psychology.
Social Media: pros and cons, identity protection, predators and trolls, mental health, networking, online communities, freedom of expression vs social responsibility
Conflict Resolution to include: bullying, harrassment, passive aggressive, situational awareness, disengaging and de-escalating, support networks, negative discrimination, mindfulness.
STRATEGY
Strategic thinking, Planning Ahead, Implication
Individually tailored programmes, further education, career options and work experience
Engagement from industry
Job searching, application writing, CV writing, interviewing, career planning
Managing disappointment
PHILOSOPHY
Not itself a subject, but an overarching and fundamental intellectual activity, to be applied across all Subjects. The philosophical method will be taught prior to each philosophical subject.
The children able to learn these subjects are most likely to succeed in understanding from 12 to 18 years of age.
Six subjects at one 50 minute lesson each per day, with all eight subjects spread over two weeks.
Teachers should be taught philosophy, as fundamental to their training.
If our children studied the subjects above, they would become better citizens than if they were taught only the current suite of subjects.
Some will argue this is way too much to learn and teach. Firstly, if you list the hours of subjects currently taught and then remove all the useless lessons, you will see a large gap in which to fill with many of the new subjects above. Secondly, the subjects above can be taught at a basic level, with the teacher focussing on the "gist" of each subject, rather than spending hours on details.
Thirdly, students should be taught the application of each subject in their life, and thus will continue the lessons out of school, as each subject makes an appearance in various situations they face in the course of their daily activities.
Therefore, the teaching method should be to introduce an idea and the student will fill in the details as they mull over them during the lesson and out of school. As each subject has a practical application in life, the student will conduct their own internal lesson, elaborating what they have learned in the course of their daily activities. Outside of school, the student becomes their own teacher, having been taught the skill of self-learning during school.
Some will argue life skills are the responsibility of parents not schools. We refer them to the notion that it takes a village to raise a child, not just two stressed out, time poor, under-skilled parents.
Since we all live together in a society, living under the same limitations, rules, opportunities, strengths and weaknesses, it follows that we all have a responsibility to look after each other as best we can, not just our kin. This is what makes the basics of a good citizen.
If a clod of dirt be washed away, the earth is as much the lesser.
Friday, February 22, 2019
There have been studies that show...
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."
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."
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.
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
The TV News Reports but Never Follows Up
Have you noticed that the TV news media report the news, but never follow it up, never offer advice or lessons to learn from what happened?
Example:
TV news media report deaths and injuries from traffic accidents. But they don't report Why it happened, and How we can avoid the same tragedy.
Why?
If it's in the national interest to report a harm, is it not even more important for the national interest to learn why the harm happened, so we can avoid the harm ourselves?
Who is responsible for following up on things? The Government? The Media?
Who cares?
If you decide to report something and decide not to follow it up, then you are responsible for the omission.
Reporting something and not analysing it for the benefit of those reported to is lazy and irresponsible. The true reason for the report becomes evident: to get ratings to sell their TV time to advertisers. The TV news media prove they have no interest in public safety, public awareness by merely reporting shocking events. They seek only to sell their product, to make money. This is disgusting behaviour.
The TV news is conveyed to us in the same format; decades of the exact same method. The TV news media has not progressed or developed its service one iota since it began decades ago.
The leading and lagging national economic indicators are merely displayed as numbers in the finance section. But no media has ever explained these indicators, why they should mean something to all of us - not just rich investors or political actors.
Gold and oil prices are displayed to the nation, but why they are displayed is never explained and remains a mystery to most watching. What do these figures mean or matter? No one explains.
Stock prices are displayed, and never explained. So why display them?
Employment figures are displayed, but the figures are not enumerated into their categories: part-time, casual and temporary employment figures. Why not?
It makes a difference in viewing employment figures whether they are mostly full-time ongoing jobs or merely casual or part-time (2 hours a week?) jobs. The differences are immense. But no enumeration is forthcoming.
Why not?
What most people want to know day to day is how are we all doing? How are others doing? How does this news affect me? The Media choses not to tell us.
We clearly have a gap of need in society and the need for intelligent analysed information. Since the Media and the Government have no interest to fill this information gap, someone needs to step up and fill it.
Example:
TV news media report deaths and injuries from traffic accidents. But they don't report Why it happened, and How we can avoid the same tragedy.
Why?
If it's in the national interest to report a harm, is it not even more important for the national interest to learn why the harm happened, so we can avoid the harm ourselves?
Who is responsible for following up on things? The Government? The Media?
Who cares?
If you decide to report something and decide not to follow it up, then you are responsible for the omission.
Reporting something and not analysing it for the benefit of those reported to is lazy and irresponsible. The true reason for the report becomes evident: to get ratings to sell their TV time to advertisers. The TV news media prove they have no interest in public safety, public awareness by merely reporting shocking events. They seek only to sell their product, to make money. This is disgusting behaviour.
The TV news is conveyed to us in the same format; decades of the exact same method. The TV news media has not progressed or developed its service one iota since it began decades ago.
The leading and lagging national economic indicators are merely displayed as numbers in the finance section. But no media has ever explained these indicators, why they should mean something to all of us - not just rich investors or political actors.
Gold and oil prices are displayed to the nation, but why they are displayed is never explained and remains a mystery to most watching. What do these figures mean or matter? No one explains.
Stock prices are displayed, and never explained. So why display them?
Employment figures are displayed, but the figures are not enumerated into their categories: part-time, casual and temporary employment figures. Why not?
It makes a difference in viewing employment figures whether they are mostly full-time ongoing jobs or merely casual or part-time (2 hours a week?) jobs. The differences are immense. But no enumeration is forthcoming.
Why not?
What most people want to know day to day is how are we all doing? How are others doing? How does this news affect me? The Media choses not to tell us.
We clearly have a gap of need in society and the need for intelligent analysed information. Since the Media and the Government have no interest to fill this information gap, someone needs to step up and fill it.
Arguing is Wrong?
For time immemorial, it has been a lazy and fallacious argument to rebutt with the terms that the argument itself is not worthy of the products expected.
Today, the lazy arguer in public discourse will defer upon recognition of impending defeat that the nature of the argument is not worth continuing.
In raw terms, a person will stop the argument stating that "You are getting aggressive.", "You are being argumentative.", "You are being negative.", "You are denigrating my feelings or beliefs." etc.
This is a cheap way to end one's involvement in a rational argument. Like kicking the chess board when you realise you are about to lose, or picking up the ball and walking home because you are losing the game.
Samuel Johnson said "Prejudice, not being formed by reason, cannot be argued away through reason."
This explains some of the reason for arguments being ceased by the losing side.
Today, it is common place due to Political Correctness that an argument will be ceased by one side based on the negative nature of the argument. PC reminds us that an argument must never offend one side.
Of course, the most important of all arguments will likely come with prejudice, a dearly held belief, a sensitive ego and the potential to offend. This fact of the sensitivity some views hold is the very reason they need to be argued out. Things that hold none of these sensitivities are not worth arguing about.
The questioning of beliefs, of arguments, of claims of fact, demand by their very nature a critical examination to confirm or deny the weight of their claims to truth, certainty or importance.
If the findings of the examination look set to erode the sensitivities of one side, that side will cut the argument short. Thus the issue is not progressed. Scientific discovery could not have proceeded with this sensitivity and behaviour.
David Hume had a simple test: does it contain not number nor tautology nor statement of some fact? Commit it then to the flames.
Hume cuts off at the knees anything claimed that cannot be tested by logic or empirical verification.
Anything else is likely nonsense. Hume is interested in what can be known, what is true, what is certain or verifiable.
However, an argument often seeks more than the truth. There are reasons beyond truth to argue. An argument is used to convince, to persuade, to correct, by identifying more information, a flaw in reasoning or method, an inconsistency. An argument can enumerate the logic of an argument and why it is held, why it was concluded, from where it derived.
This is why argument with even seemingly irrational persons is so important.
Today, we are taught not to argue. Today argument is a dirty word and no sooner has it begun than one side calls for it to end. This is an effect of PC. The argument by its nature will require the dismantling of close-held beliefs, of ego. Feelings will be hurt. Beliefs will be attacked. Ego will be exposed and weakened.
We all need to grow a thicker skin and stand up for what we argue, rather than folding like a cheap suit when we are criticised rationally.
All argument is good. All argument and dispute and disagreement is necessary to progress beyond the caveman.
The costs of arguing are outweighed by the benefits of enlightened, unmolested exchange of reasoning.
We are our own worst critics, so it is left to others to point out our shortcomings in reasoning.
This can only happen in argument, no matter how much it hurts.
Today, the lazy arguer in public discourse will defer upon recognition of impending defeat that the nature of the argument is not worth continuing.
In raw terms, a person will stop the argument stating that "You are getting aggressive.", "You are being argumentative.", "You are being negative.", "You are denigrating my feelings or beliefs." etc.
This is a cheap way to end one's involvement in a rational argument. Like kicking the chess board when you realise you are about to lose, or picking up the ball and walking home because you are losing the game.
Samuel Johnson said "Prejudice, not being formed by reason, cannot be argued away through reason."
This explains some of the reason for arguments being ceased by the losing side.
Today, it is common place due to Political Correctness that an argument will be ceased by one side based on the negative nature of the argument. PC reminds us that an argument must never offend one side.
Of course, the most important of all arguments will likely come with prejudice, a dearly held belief, a sensitive ego and the potential to offend. This fact of the sensitivity some views hold is the very reason they need to be argued out. Things that hold none of these sensitivities are not worth arguing about.
The questioning of beliefs, of arguments, of claims of fact, demand by their very nature a critical examination to confirm or deny the weight of their claims to truth, certainty or importance.
If the findings of the examination look set to erode the sensitivities of one side, that side will cut the argument short. Thus the issue is not progressed. Scientific discovery could not have proceeded with this sensitivity and behaviour.
David Hume had a simple test: does it contain not number nor tautology nor statement of some fact? Commit it then to the flames.
Hume cuts off at the knees anything claimed that cannot be tested by logic or empirical verification.
Anything else is likely nonsense. Hume is interested in what can be known, what is true, what is certain or verifiable.
However, an argument often seeks more than the truth. There are reasons beyond truth to argue. An argument is used to convince, to persuade, to correct, by identifying more information, a flaw in reasoning or method, an inconsistency. An argument can enumerate the logic of an argument and why it is held, why it was concluded, from where it derived.
This is why argument with even seemingly irrational persons is so important.
Today, we are taught not to argue. Today argument is a dirty word and no sooner has it begun than one side calls for it to end. This is an effect of PC. The argument by its nature will require the dismantling of close-held beliefs, of ego. Feelings will be hurt. Beliefs will be attacked. Ego will be exposed and weakened.
We all need to grow a thicker skin and stand up for what we argue, rather than folding like a cheap suit when we are criticised rationally.
All argument is good. All argument and dispute and disagreement is necessary to progress beyond the caveman.
The costs of arguing are outweighed by the benefits of enlightened, unmolested exchange of reasoning.
We are our own worst critics, so it is left to others to point out our shortcomings in reasoning.
This can only happen in argument, no matter how much it hurts.
Tuesday, January 8, 2019
South Sudanese Gangs
The reports in the Australian media the last few years on South Sudanese "Gangs", or more accurately pack-like mob behaviour of young male South Sudanese committing violent crimes, especially car-jackings, street fights, home invasions, burglary, rioting and if the police are brave enough to intervene, violent resistance to arrest, identifies a nascent local phenomenon of complex social issues and thus becomes a target for analysis.
This phenomenon conflating race, immigration, crime and terror is widely debated in the public, media, politics and academia and therefore needs the attention that all such debates need: open rational and courageous intellectual analysis and discussion.
The first argument from the Left, from politicians, from the courts and paradoxically the media is that "there is no problem"; there are no Gangs.
What they mean is, the Rightist media and the racist bigots sector has blown this phenomenon out of proportion, misunderstood it. The attacks and crimes committed by these groups is a tiny fraction of overall similar crimes and attacks committed by Joe Public.
As if that makes it all better.
A second argument is that the term "gang" is incorrect. A gang is an established organisation of people sharing a common goal and often using violence and crime against the public and authorities to achieve that goal. A gang has a leadership, a structure, a strategy and is in it for the long-term.
The Left argues that these groups do not meet these criteria. Instead, they are disorganised transient random groups joining together for opportunities to thieve and have fun. Typical youth having a bit of fun.
A third argument is that the negative commentary from the general public about South Sudanese Gangs reveals an abhorent un-Australian racism against "black people" and immigrants that needs to be stopped and corrected, so we can all live in a harmonious and tolerant multi-cultural society.
Identifying these actors as a new phenomenon of third world disgruntled migrants ganging up against their Western hosts is seen as racist, bigotted and in need of re-education.
Thus, with these three arguments being true, there is no problem to debate, the actions of the groups are harmless or too minor to worry about or even discuss, and if you disagree you are racist.
These arguments end up protecting the actions of these groups, and give them support to continue their activities. The groups themselves have tested the public, the courts and the police and have found little resistence, little punishment or vilification and even some support. Anyone who sees what they're really doing and speaks out will be targeted as racist.
That must be very encouraging for them.
As with all important debates, one side tries to shut the other down through ad hominem, the fallacy of arguing by authority, and charges of breaches against the sanctity of political correctness.
This is unfortunately a sign of the times. We live in the age of "if you hurt my feelings, I will shut you down, and the law and Leftists will have my back."
So, what are the rebuttals to the arguments above?
What is the problem and what is the solution?
Only a rational, honest, courageous debate will answer these questions and check the validity of the debate-halting arguments.
The first argument uses criminal statistics to show these groups are in a tiny minority of offenders on particular crimes identified in the media.
The argument then concludes that because the groups and their crimes are a tiny minority, there is no cause for public concern or fear, or for political, judicial or policing changes than already exists.
Police have been reported to have said to victims and concerned citizens simply to stay indoors.
This argument that quantity is more important than quality assumes the public only care about quantity and not quality. That argument contradicts public feeling.
It has been found globally since 911 that citizens care more about the quality of the crimes than the quantity. More people die in car accidents per year in any given Western city, than by being kidnapped and beheaded or blown to bits. However, ask anyone what scares them most.
The second argument is the term "gang" being misused. Well, as Bertrand Russell once said, wherever possible in serious debate, replace Names with their Descriptions. So the second argument is moot, once the terms are dropped and we starting describing what's happening.
The third argument is a modern day defence of any arguer against an opponent: you're racist, you're being politically incorrect, therefore your argument has no validity.
This argument is neutralised by the counter-argument, "So you are against freedom of speech."
So, the solutions to the problem of South Sudanese Gangs must begin with open discussion. This is normally where such arguments fail to proceed, as one side is shut down.
Once a motive for the activities is determined, we can move to mitigating them and preventing them.
Better integration programmes can be employed, tailored to address immigrant disgruntlement and a range of deterents, such deportation, jail, targeted police raids etc can be designed.
Ignoring the problem does not make it go away. While we're all fighting amongst each other about the nature of the problem, the problem is growing and will transform into something much worse.
Sunday, January 6, 2019
Multi-Culturalism or Racist Ghettos?
The term Multi-cultural is proudly bandied about in cliché fashion, by the opiated masses to describe what they insist we must all seek in our modern, good, tolerant societies. The apparently self-evident, endlessly benficial aspiration all modern Western countries must strive for in hosting immigrants: an idyllic, eclectic society of societies, under the paradoxical banners, "We are one, but we are many", "We are the same but different", a society fully integrated yet concurrently needing to be tolerant, a society of "cultures" living together, but not actually together, in a beautiful catatonia-inducing harmony.
The assumptions are impressive: different "cultures" always compliment each other; a multi-cultural society is the best society; a multi-cultural sociey is harmonious; there is no alternative but death and racism; racism is not a feature of a multi-cultural society; there is little to worry about with multi-culturalism; multi-culturalism is good for individualism and can accommodate or compliment all the various types of "cultures" (We call these "ethnosities" rather than "cultures", as "culture" entails growth, development, evolution and change, rather than tradition and conservatism); multi-culturalism is always acheivable, only impeded by racist bigots.
That's the talk. But what are the facts?
Look on the ground at these multi-cultural societies, these Ethnosities, and you will see something different from the rhetoric.
The "cultures" that move into their host countries are almost always from the third or developing world, particularly countries that have been torn apart by racist, religious, ethnic and cultural wars, intolerance and conflict; countries that have failed economically, socially, politically, ideologically. Countries that are either too young to have reconciled with, and transitioned into, modernity, or are too old to break with their barbaric dark-age traditions.
The "cultures" arriving on our desirable shores aim only to inhabit our wealthiest largest cities and then head straight from customs and immigration to the ghetto occupied by only their own kind.
These lucky people then proceed to segregate themselves by choice from their host cultures. No sooner have they borded the airport-city bus than they are met by their people; people from support groups that are set up to support and induct them and only them to their new home (our home).
These are the facts, verifiable by empirical evidence any moron can conduct by walking the streets.
Multi-culturalism on the ground is exclusively metropolitan and more accurately named Multi-Ghetto-ism. Thus anyone can visit, see for themselves, the various ethnic-based ghettoes that feature without deviation in all the world's Western capital and major cities. Their journey has been a time-travelling experience, skipping through the ages of human development into the future, from 7th century goat-herding deserts to 21st century Western civilisation.
Within these ghettoes, each "culture" creates effectively an exclusive community within a community. How integrated is that? Why do they do it?
The goals of multi-culturalism appear in stark contrast to what is seen on the ground: a group of people striving to create a ghetto of their own kind, separate from but living off its host community. Almost exclusively, these cultural ghettos feature only the societal aspects of their former homeland: their religion, their language, their food, their marital practises and ethical belief systems.
The kind of exclusions practised within these ghettos are racist by the very definition used by multi-culturalism advocates themselves:
As if this voluntary separation and exclusion weren't enough to contradict the tenets of multi-culturalist propaganda, these ghetto communities then go further to extend favour and opportunity to only members of their own culture. They hire people only from their culture, buy houses and businesses together, lend money to each other, send their children to schools only from their culture, marry within their own culture, shop at only their shops, let rental properties favouring tenants from or interests that serve their culture, starting small businesses that cater only to their culture, etc etc.
That behaviour is by definition the practise of racism. How ironic that the immigrants are more racist in practise than their hosts; hosts who accuses each other of racism, and the need for the host country to stop being racist.
There is even a common practise for older immigrants not bothering to learn the host language. They don't see the need. Why understand the host if you don't need to? One wonders whether they have any idea which country they're even living in, when there's so much separation between guest and host.
The mainstream public discussion of multi-culturalism is normally at best a bland, neutral one, at worst a self-congratulating, self-righteous utopianist one.
However, as with anything in this Age of Political Correctness, the hardest, most important, discussions are quickly aborted upon the hint of mentioning multi-culturalism might be bad, might be subject to criticism or critical analysis. Such philosophical proponents are vilified, labelled bigots, racists, morally corrupt.
So, fundamentally, there is one simple problem facing any critical, intellectual analysis or even discussion on multi-culturalism or ghetto communities or racism from immigrants:
People are not telling the truth.
People are lying about their true feelings, their true beliefs, their true rational conclusions.
Why?
Three reasons:
1) Ego:
Many people are powerless and insignificant, so they take up causes that can't lose and rave from the soap box their elevated morality, their superior intellect. Taking up a huge global cause makes them feel powerful, righteous, loved, admired, respected. It doesn't matter the cause, as long as it's got tonnes of support, especially in the online mainstream communities.
2) Fear of Retribution:
Many people won't admit the truth, as they don't want to be vilified, accused of racism, or being attacked for inciting hatred or bigotry, and fear being killed for saying what they really think.
(how ironic: the discussion is racist, but the exclusive practises in the ghettos are not.)
This fear of offending is even solidified with the protection of people's feelings by the Law.
We are talking here about the decades old age of Political Correctness: you can't say anything offensive.
If you asked someone what they really thought about multi-culturalism or living side by side with different cultures, they would be too afraid to tell you the truth.
3) Propaganda:
If you asked different immigrant cultures why they segregate themselves within their host country, choosing to separate themselves from their host culture, they would lie for the same reasons, but in addition they want their culture to appear to be wonderful and harmless.
They will lie to keep up the facade that their culture is harmless and wonderful and tolerant.
So we've established that racism exists across the table, from the immigrants themselves against the host, not only from the host community.
So why is "Racism" (the practise of excluding people and favouring others based on their "race" defined nowadays as culture or ethnicity) so pervasive, globally and historically?
A fundamental truth ignored or feared in debate is the simple fact that people just don't like people who are different from them.
It's instinctive. It's a hard-wired survival instinct practised between and within all species, to preserve the species or sub-species. Fear of strangers is an animal and therefore human quality. It is not cultural or rational. It is not a mental disorder that can be cured. It is not a misguided opinion. It is raw instinct and the compulsion to express it is evidently less than most can bear.
However, there are rational practicalities to explain or justify this instinct. If you share nothing with another group or person, nothing shared in beliefs held most dearly, you cannot expect support, understanding or collaboration. You cannot expect empathy.
We are all drawn to people who share our dearly-held beliefs and understandings about the world, about how to treat people, how to live. You can't expect to maintain your cultural identity and the survival of your own culture, if it has to be compromised by accommodating another.
We are therefore drawn to those who look and behave like us, and equally, we are repelled from those who appear different. This compulsion is directly proportional to the level of difference. The more different you appear, the more repulsive you are. Think of dating websites that match people with people like them, people of similar interests, beliefs, backgrounds.
It's not right or wrong, bad or good, it just is. Look at the world, look at history. War and conflict is fundamentally caused by the repulsion between two groups. The preservation of one culture against dilution by another.
Then there is the resentment by the West of wasted effort.
Western societies spent centuries fighting, dying and suffering to preserve their hard one cultural evolution: the separation of church and state, the empowerment of women and vulnerable groups, the education of their children, especially their daughters, the equality between all, treatment of those with different sexual orientations and genders, treatment of animals.
What did our forefathers, our ancestors fight and die for? Our values, our beliefs, our evolution to modernity.
Many of the immigrant cultures come from countries that have not evolved their own beliefs and societal systems, laws and customs, from the dark ages of humanity we spent centuries escaping at great cost and sacrifice. Many people feel threatened by all this sacrifice and effort being wasted when a culture arrives that practises and even promotes those things we died getting rid of long ago. We're back at square one!
Therefore, there is a stark contrast between the fundamental beliefs and customs of host and guest cultures.
Other contrasted cultural behaviour can be quite patently antagonistic: e.g. the Muslim sacrificial ceremony and Halal practise of slitting the throats of cattle, in contrast to the Hindu protection and reverance of cattle. Thus, the splitting up of post British Raj India into Pakistan, Bangladesh and India.
There are many other irreoncilable practises between cultures living within the same society.
Arranged marriage, marriage of minors, treatment of women, kinds of punishment for crimes, genital mutilation, treatment of animals, influence of relgion in law and politics, dressing in public, shaking hands, covering woman in blankets, the list goes on.
Many claim to tolerate these differences and accuse others of intolerance.
Tolerance is a telling choice of word.
Tolerance becomes a poor indicator of the best kind of acceptance expected between different cultures. Why? Because tolerance in common usage means, "putting up with". Should we not progress from tolerance, if we are to integrate harmoniously with others? Yet tolerance is as far as we have come and it is the greatest level of acceptance expected.
Why should we feel proud that we have only achieved a level of tolerance toward each other? Imagine that as a wedding vow. I promise to tolerate you. How well would that be received?
The old tried and tested term "foreigner" is understandable. We call things and people that make no sense to us, that we can't relate to, that are so different from us, "foreign". And we call immigrants and even tourists, "foreigners".
Look at the different uses of the term: this is all quite foreign to me; foreign affairs.
The French use the term "L'etranger", also meaning "stranger", for our term "foreigner". To the French, people from other countries are "strange". How true.
The proponents of Multi-Culturalism are self-righteous liars and they must be stopped. They propound a corrupt understanding of the problems we face integrating foreigners into our homes. Those seeking truth must unite and take their place in mainstream public debate, so that the discussion can proceed without fear of vilification toward the truth.
Should Multiculturalism be accepted as a society that includes several cultures living side by sude in a parallel culturalism, or should it be the aspiration for diverse cultures to live together?
The term multicultural is meant to signify a society in which multiple cultures live together in one harmonuious nation, but in reality a multicultural society is a society in which different cultures live alongside each other in separate societies withing a society.
Acknowledeging this truth is only the beginning of the conversation in achieving the outcome multicultuarlism pretends to achieve.
Wednesday, January 2, 2019
Terrorism or Islamism?
The millions of open and public debates across the world over the modern phenomenon of Islamist attacks share a common thread of argument.
One side argues: We need to understand the relationship between the attacks and Islam.
The respondents argue: These attacks have nothing to do with Islam, or "true" Islam.
In every debate where Muslims are present, this defence is consistent: the problem is not Islam or Muslims, but something, anything else, but especially: Western interference, racism, crazy non-Muslim Muslims, mind-altering drugs, gun laws, wrong perceptions of Islam, the Muslim-offending victims who provoke an attack, the minority of such attacks, the weather.
Instead of the debate progressing through defining the problem toward establishing solutions, we're still stuck at debating the definition of the problem.
Therefore, debate does not progress, because it is stopped at the accusation that those identifying Islam as the problem or part of it become themselves the discussion for debate. Anti-Muslim debaters are vilified as racist, intolerant, misguided, immoral and themselves accused of offending 1.5 billion Muslims.
Muslims in the debate want to end the debate before it starts.
This is understandable.
"Good" Muslims are unwilling to have their wonderful religion blamed for atrocities.
If we agree that the murders are caused by a version of Islam, then all Muslims feel victimised and accompliced. Their wonderful belief system is the problem. They feel attacked in debate.
Calling proponents Racist is illogical. Islam is not a Race, it is a belief. Race cannot be chosen. Belief is a choice.
So, calling people racists for arguing that Muslims or Islam is the problem, is not using the term Racist consistently with common usage, as is the case calling a banana an apple.
Islamaphobe is a worse term of which to accuse someone.
A phobia is a psychological disorder that prevents sufferers from carrying out their activities of daily living. A phobia is debilitating to a person's daily life.
So, accusations of Islamaphobia are falacious.
So, the goal of Muslim apologists is to stop the debate, or censor it, to protect the belief system they hold most dearly. It is an ego survival tactic. They use political correctness and laws against vilification to defend their apology and simultaneously stop the debate from investigating the role of Islam.
This is nuts.
Murderers claiming to be Muslim, practising Islam, claiming the tenets of Islam to justify their murder of civilians, shouting Allahu Akbar during their attack, claiming the purpose of their attack is a Muslim jihadi campaign against non-Muslims to replace global society with a Mulsim caliphate, are judged as acting with no relation to Islam. Really?
In public debate, is our goal to preserve people's feelings, or to fight for the truth?
Who today has the courage to call out the inconvenient truths?
How can society address the issues threatening the peace and peace of mind of us all, if we can only debate those things that won't offend or upset people?
The term Terrorist Attack is a euphamism. What people are thinking when they use the term is Islamist Attack, or Attacks by Muslims.
Bertrand Russell once said, the pursuit of precision destroys certainty. In the same sense, the pursuit of truth destroys political correctness.
And vice versa.
One side argues: We need to understand the relationship between the attacks and Islam.
The respondents argue: These attacks have nothing to do with Islam, or "true" Islam.
In every debate where Muslims are present, this defence is consistent: the problem is not Islam or Muslims, but something, anything else, but especially: Western interference, racism, crazy non-Muslim Muslims, mind-altering drugs, gun laws, wrong perceptions of Islam, the Muslim-offending victims who provoke an attack, the minority of such attacks, the weather.
Instead of the debate progressing through defining the problem toward establishing solutions, we're still stuck at debating the definition of the problem.
Therefore, debate does not progress, because it is stopped at the accusation that those identifying Islam as the problem or part of it become themselves the discussion for debate. Anti-Muslim debaters are vilified as racist, intolerant, misguided, immoral and themselves accused of offending 1.5 billion Muslims.
Muslims in the debate want to end the debate before it starts.
This is understandable.
"Good" Muslims are unwilling to have their wonderful religion blamed for atrocities.
If we agree that the murders are caused by a version of Islam, then all Muslims feel victimised and accompliced. Their wonderful belief system is the problem. They feel attacked in debate.
Calling proponents Racist is illogical. Islam is not a Race, it is a belief. Race cannot be chosen. Belief is a choice.
So, calling people racists for arguing that Muslims or Islam is the problem, is not using the term Racist consistently with common usage, as is the case calling a banana an apple.
Islamaphobe is a worse term of which to accuse someone.
A phobia is a psychological disorder that prevents sufferers from carrying out their activities of daily living. A phobia is debilitating to a person's daily life.
So, accusations of Islamaphobia are falacious.
So, the goal of Muslim apologists is to stop the debate, or censor it, to protect the belief system they hold most dearly. It is an ego survival tactic. They use political correctness and laws against vilification to defend their apology and simultaneously stop the debate from investigating the role of Islam.
This is nuts.
Murderers claiming to be Muslim, practising Islam, claiming the tenets of Islam to justify their murder of civilians, shouting Allahu Akbar during their attack, claiming the purpose of their attack is a Muslim jihadi campaign against non-Muslims to replace global society with a Mulsim caliphate, are judged as acting with no relation to Islam. Really?
In public debate, is our goal to preserve people's feelings, or to fight for the truth?
Who today has the courage to call out the inconvenient truths?
How can society address the issues threatening the peace and peace of mind of us all, if we can only debate those things that won't offend or upset people?
The term Terrorist Attack is a euphamism. What people are thinking when they use the term is Islamist Attack, or Attacks by Muslims.
Bertrand Russell once said, the pursuit of precision destroys certainty. In the same sense, the pursuit of truth destroys political correctness.
And vice versa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)