Hi everyone,

So suppose you like metaphorical lawsuits. An adversary looks at your claim, and says, "Aha! Now I can use logic to say that you like metaphors, so I can impose wild metaphors on you, too. I am going to 'metaphorically put you in time out in my metaphorical classroom for talking back to the metaphorical teacher,' and I am going to 'metaphorically lock you in a cage and kill you."

What do you do about such an unreasonable adversary?

The answer is simple: Don't allow inconsistent metaphors. There are constraints on behavior, just like there are lines to lanes on the road when you drive. If someone wants to "metaphorically put you in time out" without your consent, you can point out that that if that involves illegal activity (to include illegal aiding and abetting of crimes), then that is a "literally illegal action," which trumps desires to do anything, including any uses or impositions of metaphors or systems/processes that use such metaphors.

You can also look for non-law based absurdities; if you are operating within the context of a non-illegal "metaphorical lawsuit using metaphorical laws" (where you are perhaps dealing with the rules/laws of Christianity), and try to "metaphorically send someone to time out" within that, if your action violates Christian law, then by your own admission within the context of the ideas you've accepted, you cannot pursue the action--it's "metaphorically illegal" itself.

You also have to watch out for "Constitution fans who want to shred the Constitution"...there might be folks who would assert that the claimed self-evident nature of the principles in the US Constitution to "us" (as in "we the people") suggests that "we" are allowed to interpret the Constitution however "we" want, and perhaps drop rules that are not interpreted in a way that is "self-evident to us as individual citizens." It is very important to be able to spot anarchists in government, who might have some cryptically expressed and slippery, technically illogical but never clearly stated "doctrine" and defense for doing highly illegal, unconstitutional human-rights-violation-type things and calling it "pragmatic patriotism" that merely shows that "the system works" and "all those meanies whom we dared to try to stop us did do some damage but we prevailed at the end!!" Such individuals basically profit by causing the deaths of thousands of people, including thousands of US citizens (often quietly), and dressing it up as "acceptable collateral damage...that was worth it and helped us win the big fight for 'our values'!!" while refusing to accept that the better and ethical way would have led to a much better, safer, happier outcome for everyone. It seems to be extremely easy to lie to the American public about the nature of "service" to the US...basically, many leaders can cause the deaths of thousands of Americans, claim it was necessary and/or someone else who did it, and portray themselves as heroic defenders of "the system," which is asserted to "work" because we have not all died yet.

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)

On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 at 11:16:18 AM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> So suppose you like metaphorical lawsuits. An adversary looks at your claim, and says, "Aha! Now I can use logic to say that you like metaphors, so I can impose wild metaphors on you, too. I am going to 'metaphorically put you in time out in my metaphorical classroom for talking back to the metaphorical teacher,' and I am going to 'metaphorically lock you in a cage and kill you."
>
> What do you do about such an unreasonable adversary?
>
> The answer is simple: Don't allow inconsistent metaphors. There are constraints on behavior, just like there are lines to lanes on the road when you drive. If someone wants to "metaphorically put you in time out" without your consent, you can point out that that if that involves illegal activity (to include illegal aiding and abetting of crimes), then that is a "literally illegal action," which trumps desires to do anything, including any uses or impositions of metaphors or systems/processes that use such metaphors.
>
> You can also look for non-law based absurdities; if you are operating within the context of a non-illegal "metaphorical lawsuit using metaphorical laws" (where you are perhaps dealing with the rules/laws of Christianity), and try to "metaphorically send someone to time out" within that, if your action violates Christian law, then by your own admission within the context of the ideas you've accepted, you cannot pursue the action--it's "metaphorically illegal" itself.
>
> You also have to watch out for "Constitution fans who want to shred the Constitution"...there might be folks who would assert that the claimed self-evident nature of the principles in the US Constitution to "us" (as in "we the people") suggests that "we" are allowed to interpret the Constitution however "we" want, and perhaps drop rules that are not interpreted in a way that is "self-evident to us as individual citizens." It is very important to be able to spot anarchists in government, who might have some cryptically expressed and slippery, technically illogical but never clearly stated "doctrine" and defense for doing highly illegal, unconstitutional human-rights-violation-type things and calling it "pragmatic patriotism" that merely shows that "the system works" and "all those meanies whom we dared to try to stop us did do some damage but we prevailed at the end!!" Such individuals basically profit by causing the deaths of thousands of people, including thousands of US citizens (often quietly), and dressing it up as "acceptable collateral damage...that was worth it and helped us win the big fight for 'our values'!!" while refusing to accept that the better and ethical way would have led to a much better, safer, happier outcome for everyone. It seems to be extremely easy to lie to the American public about the nature of "service" to the US...basically, many leaders can cause the deaths of thousands of Americans, claim it was necessary and/or someone else who did it, and portray themselves as heroic defenders of "the system," which is asserted to "work" because we have not all died yet.
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

An additional comment that could be applied to both US law and Christianity, for example: In terms of "what people should and shouldn't do," either any individual citizen believes in a set of laws that should be followed by a group of people, or not. Regarding "forgiveness" and "the it's not so bad" philosophy: Maybe you can say that if you blow up the state of Mississippi or sell drugs for 5 years, God and Jesus or the courts will get together and forgive you or adjudicate you as "not responsible" for the against-the-rules deed. Nevertheless, either it was OK to do it and not against the rules, or it wasn't. If you believe in rules, you must try to follow the rules as best you can, subject to some definition of "within reason." Forget practical concerns--"No one follows that rule" is irrelevant, either the rule exists and you must (at least try) to follow it, or the rule does not exist, according to you.

-Philip White