Whomever you are, wherever you go, whatever you believe, some pushy person will worm it out of you however quiet you stay. I am quite forward because I want to get their barrage of arguments over with (yes, I know, “wishful thinking”) while I learn whom I have to look out for, whom to avoid, and who deserves my trust. They, meanwhile, are doing the same thing.
The indoctrinated nature of religion, plus the indemonstrable nature of most beliefs, plus that most human knowledge is expressed in the form of beliefs tells us that most of what people “know” is only their opinions. That makes it clear that, if they speak the same language and they are so inclined, any two people in the world could find something to argue about and any crowd could erupt into a spreading brawl. That very seldom happens. Why?
That our species is a social animal works some ways for us and some ways against us holds the key:
For us goes the factuality of evolution, wherein cooperative people got protected and loners got eaten.
For us, the top-heavy development of the prefrontal lobe of the brain enabled us to outsmart and outwit predators who wanted to include humans in their diet.
For us, that same top-heavy brain enabled the development of language, and with that the passing on of wisdom that increased through the generations. Language also acted as a defense tool that enabled grunts and howls to evolve into precise shouted instructions, and, eventually, the development of radio enabled instructions to be issued from outside the danger zone.
As described in older and wiser times, good and evil are only the masks behind which the good hides to become evil and the bad hides to become good. So:
Against us is not whether evolution is or is not just science fiction, it is the fact that everything evolves, for better or worse. That differences of opinions lead to arguments likely induced a demand for sameness that led early hominids to develop religions to get some peace and quietude. That apparently offered a temporary solution that ended with the scourge called monotheism.
Against us, that brain we so heartily praise finds it hard to distinguish between fact and fiction and has no built-in principles for guidance. Dupe it at a very early age and that misinformation will be misguiding young minds for generations.
Against us goes the nature of memes, wherein indoctrinated beliefs insist on occupying every potential host. The nature of such memes puts pressure, built into the memes, on hosts they’ve already invaded to attack dissident hosts with (historically) everything from mental and physical abuse thru tortured death.
Against us will be ignorant, frightened humans dwelling amidst all all manner of threats, real and imagined. Threats of little substance of which innocents can be accused out of hatred will earn them undeserved vile-sounding labels for daring to disagree with commonplace ideology.
Personal attacks have no justifiable basis in any setting, but are disingenuous weapons for picking fights, gas-lighting opponents, derailing from a losing topic, and more—all of which mark the attacker as a cheater, and as the person/people on the wrong side of a disagreement.
No one should want that, but very few people are aware there is a right and wrong way to settle a disagreement. Most couldn’t care less, even though people world-wide are killing each other over their opinions. Most people with whom I speak consider argumentation a potentially stultifying subject not worth the dreary hours to master it. It seems like a small segment of the population act the part of eggers, teasers and trolls and consider it only a game. It’s not. A better attitude all around would yield a better, less dangerous world.
A better attitude requires everyone engaged in disputes to recognize that only convincing evidence can dispel doubt as to which side is correct, and that absence of evidence on both sides requires the pitting of opinion against opinion. All unsupported opinions are put forth with an equal value of null, which is why they can only be settled by enforcement. The most dangerous opinions are built of powder and fluff with only words to support them. The origin of the most volatile disputes, such opinions deserve only avoidance. Wiley fluffers will redefine words, change context to conflate the topic, gas-light and Gish-Gallop to gain the upper hand, and attack you with ad hominems and name calling to define you as a person of questionable value. He/She/It has no interest in you beyond getting in some practice at pitching a con. Don’t give in to an urge to respond; rather than feed them, let their evil practices wilt from lack of nourishment. If you must respond, use this as a model:
You seem like a person of extraordinary intelligence. But, since I do not believe in fairy tales and have no interest in them, I will not discuss them with you.
Despite the natural drive of social animals to seek commonality we all live in different bodies and must care for our own circumstances. Those who would make us into clones will fail to end the arguments because of that, even among actual clones.
Written entirely with OPEN OFFICE.