:: Miscellaneous ::

:: Monday, November 27, 2006 ::

Defining the Term "Apologetics Oligarchy": 

 To start with, I really hope that someday I will be able to sunset this term as one which is no longer applicable to objective reality with regards to those I have primarily in mind when defining it. Having noted that, consider for starters the definition of the term "oligarchies": 

ol·i·gar·chies 1. a. Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families. b. Those making up such a government.

Once you do that, then the definition of the term "apologetics oligarchy" should be self-evident. In a nutshell it is this: 

A consortium of self-proclaimed apologists for a particular weltanschauung -be it secular or religious- who have a greater interest in fostering intellectual dependence by others on them and their supposed "wise sayings" than they do in being charitable or otherwise ethically and rationally consistent. This is done as a way of building in a dependence constituency of sorts for their own personal fame and/or financial benefit from the aforementioned consitutency and the advancement of truth is secondary to the aforementioned aim if it exists at all. 

Such persons as I noted above have no interest in the foundational tenets of logic and reason and have no problem controverting them when it is convenient for them or when such disclosure somehow detracts from their standing amongst others. Similarly, concern for basic ethics and charitable treatment of others takes a backseat whenever said critics presume to be critical of someone in the aforementioned "oligarchy." 

More could (and may) be noted but that will have to suffice for now.

:: Shawn 7:11 PM [+] ::

************************************

Defining the Word "Torture" 

(Since No One Else Will) 

It is unfortunate that some intellectually dependent agenda provocateurs who like to call themselves "apologists" continue to casually throw around terms they do not bother to explain viz. what they mean. The problem with this is that it results in a nebulosity and a bunch of wasted type while these sorts blather on ignorantly and castigate those who do not subscribe to their simplistic and (dare I say it???) fundamentalist approach to these and other matters. 

I have tried to place some borders of sorts around many of the threads that make up the mosaic of this subject and provide a viable hypothesis with which to cogently explain them. This was done in an attempt to stimulate the thinking mechanism of more people and help in overriding the kinds of illogical hyper-emotionalist approaches that more complex issues often generate. Thus far, that attempt has been to little if any avail. 

With not a few people -including this person- recognizing the problem that a lack of definition involves here, I am going to propose at this time a definition of torture that harmonizes with everything I have written thus far on the subject of torture and does not do damage to the collective wisdom of the ages in the name of a novel and magisterially positivist mentally-dependent outlook.

With (i) those things in mind, (ii) in the interest of providing a lynchpin to everything I and others of similar frames of mind have written on this subject, (iii) attempting to deflate the kvetching of those who pontificate on matter of which they know so little, (iv) in the interest of clear-cutting all the reams of rubbish and circular-speak permeating certain sectors of the blogosphere, and (v) because I am beyond sick and tired of these kinds of public displays by the Jerry Springeresque clique of self-anointed "apologists"{1}, here is a working definition for the term "torture" since the agenda provocateur pundits who call themselves "apologists"{2} continually refuse to do so:

Torture: A method or methodology of seeking to obtain confessions of guilt and/or other information from someone both without just cause and against their consciences by (i) methods which can reasonably be ascertained to cause the aforementioned person the loss of bodily limbs, (ii) methods which can somehow irreversibly imperil their life, or (iii) methods which would result in a loss of their life. 

Now then if the contingent of whining agenda provocateurs have a problem with this definition, then I challenge them to provide a definition of their own contra the definition so framed above. If they cannot, then they should have the decency to admit it. If they can though and yet refuse to, then frankly, they (i) are blowhards merely interested in attention and not a seeker of truth and (ii) should shut the hell up on this issue once and for all as they forfeit by their negligence in handling this matter any credibility to speak on it whatsoever. 

Notes: 

{1} And the accompanying silence and/or public attempts to defend such garbage by the apologist oligarchs.

{2} Whom I might add have shown no interest whatsoever in these most fundamental areas of moral, ethical, and intellectual honesty.

:: Shawn 1:14 PM [+] ::

************************************