Conscious inaction; an action in itself?

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

You dislike rhetoric. OK. I dislike deeply ingrained cognitive biases which lead to fallacious modes of thought. It doesn't mean I dislike you, just what seems to be a substantial portion of you. If it makes any difference you're one of the most likable people I've conversed with in this respect, in terms of lack of relative foolishness.

Does "Damning with faint praise" count as a logical fallacy?

Would you blame the forest which surrounded a tree struck by lightning for not attracting the lighting themselves? Of course not, a tree has no animus. But what is animus except the utilized ability to act, to effect causal change? You're a superstitious fool, plain and simple.

I agree with the first portion of your definition, and disagree with the second. Deciding to not directly effect the situation is utilizing your ability to act. You appeal to the lack of causal effect by saying "If I wasn't there, things would be the same" except that you -are- there, and making the animated choice to maintain the situation as it is.

If, for example, a government decides to maintain a standing law, they are viewed as having made an -active- -responsible- decision...that has no direct causal effect on the way things had been previously. The law existed, they elected to not remove it, but they are held responsible for the consequences of the upholding of that law.

Being the 1 in 6 billion unique person that you are, you'll no doubt point out that there are all kinds of trivial laws on the books since days of yore which have never been removed, but which people simply acknowledge as being non-entities as far as considering them or paying them heed is concerned, but since your stance is one that says there is -never- a case as described in which your belief fails to apply, even if you appeal to millions of cases where you are correct, I need have only one where I am.

This leads back to where you openly criticized me for having vague and ambiguous terms. Well, your stance is one of 'zero' and my stance is one of 'non-zero' as any mathematician will tell you, the actual size of the non-zero is completely irellevant when just comparing 0 and !0.

Let's look at the role emotional language plays in your formulation. It looks to me like it's.... total. A total role. "Afraid" "coward" "apathy". You're using observed bad character synonymously with responsibility, in this case, pejoratively, "guilt". Again, a little too convenient for me to take your language as a serious measurement of reality.

So...because your belief says "Emotional language is invalid" my use of emotional language causes you to dismiss my point...okay, please provide varifiable, objective universal proof that emotional language is -always- invalid in this case ie. other than "Because I believe it isn't"

Yeah, and? Think up all the examples you want, it won't change reality. Of course you don't have the strength to abandon the role of emotion in formulating your world view, so correspondingly of course you are incapable of seeing the truth of my position.

Ought we to call you Friedrich from here on out? I can practically hear your will powering. As soon as you can provide proof for your negative (Since disproving one is inherently impossible, and thus the burden of proof is yours) namely, that you have the aforementioned provable, universal truth that in absolutely no case, ever, does emotion have a necessary function in ones worldview, I guess we can continue.

I know. I forgive you.

Well, isn't that consoling.