(The links to my brain model are not meant to be a complete model of anything and is an ongoing work in which I store my thoughts and notes. Nothing in the brain should be taken as truth or my attempt to reveal truth. It’s simply a note taking space)
(The Brain is not meant to be a complete model of anything and is an ongoing work in which I store my thoughts and notes. Nothing in the brain should be taken as truth or my attempt to reveal truth. It’s simply a note taking space)
In this video I talk about actions vs words and how to properly focus on what matters. Often times I’ve found that in any “movements” (group thinking, heard-like mentality from cults of action/death) there will be blatant contradictions and fallacies within the movements.
One of the most obvious and commonly used fallacies within any movement is the argumentum ad populum, the logical fallacy most groups come to be guilty of through contradictory axioms which are revealed through false rhetoric and measuring ones works over their words.
We’ll take a section from Wikipedia (not something I’m condoning or deeming as ultimate truth, it’s just a useful link for general information) for a good general idea of what this logical fallacy is:
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “argument to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: “If many believe so, it is so.”
This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, vox populi,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum (“appeal to the number”), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium (“agreement of the clans”). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb “three men make a tiger” concerns the same idea.
This fallacy is similar in structure to certain other fallacies that involve a confusion between the justification of a belief and its widespread acceptance by a given group of people. When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority; if the appeal is to the beliefs of a group of respected elders or the members of one’s community over a long period of time, then it takes on the form of an appeal to tradition.
Fiction, flattering titles, and mans legal matrix of nations, governments and legalism are the bars on the cage we’ve collectively created and accepted in our lives (myself included). Although we can spend time describing all the decorations of this prison an dress up our variations of pleading with evil we are extremely ineffective at changing the conditions for the better.
Exiting the matrix is often a struggle that entrenches one worse than they started out. Leaving them maimed and scorned against the unwavering, immutable effects which have been caused by mans ignorance and apathy toward Nature and it’s laws.
(The Brain is not meant to be a complete model of anything and is an ongoing work in which I store my thoughts and notes. Nothing in the brain should be taken as truth or my attempt to reveal truth. It’s simply a note taking space)
In this video I discuss a comment that was made on my Voluntary Slaves post.
The comment is quoted below:
“I still don’t see the contradictions in “voluntaryism”. I see how we always have choices whether to comply or not, but I don’t see how advocating against monopolistic mindsets is contradictory. There is a belief system that monopoly powers are good for society (commonly called “statism”); there is a belief system in the opposite, that such powers shouldn’t be assumed or supported by anyone… and “voluntaryism” is a good word for that.”
