excommunication’s impact on group identity to third person parties

in similar manner to my last post about associating creed with non-creed groups/characteristics, there is another form of argumentative hyperbole

another argument irritation:

seccond person (inverse) of no true scotsman

while no true scotsman  remarks about exclusing a person due to not matching citeria. this inverse is excluding a person cause they do match prejudiced criteria. ie you are anti-abortion therefore you are republican.

the difference is that no true scotsman is vague and ambiguous because it deals with proclaiming that attribute failure has no bearing on lineage or association.

i don’t mind people saying “it isn’t a cat because it is having sex with a dog, which cats don’t do.” but at a more basal level there is the style of bullying where one proclaims excommunication from one’s own group due to

which without natural bias against those excomunicated, means there is ideological schism with allot of shitty and minor deviance. this causes a distinct and meritless ideological shift relative to patriarchal ‘reunification’.

excommunication causes words to both gain and lose meaning. it defines and magnifies the meaning to adherents, but it removes further stigma from deviant mascarade. they will say “i’m not a catholic, but i am a christian” and this act of subsuming the premise causes ideological decay of candor and postulate. the act of reducing entitlement to the most reasonable and tacit title subsumes ground from prior works, but again it rarely has the merit to do so.

within every group there will be disagreement on certain topics; heresy. and non-ephemeral exclusion like excommunication quickly ceases to have significance cause the individual who doesn’t bend to group-will will just redefine his or her self without the specific label. “we will make our own religion, with blackjack and hookers”. and because they are operating from similar premise there will be allot of ideological migration and borrowing of premise which will make the meaning to disinterested parties- more ambiguous. it will be tantamount to having the internal conflict but now you just have pnumbra of labels mostly with subtle and inconsequential semantic alterations.

we believe in one god; father son holy ghost

vs

we believe in three gods; father, son, and holy ghost.

 

what this means it that the individual has to spend allot of time and effort merely defining the basic premiss of their creed identity, regardless of ‘religions’ or ‘political activism’ or w/e.

it is putting individual definition before simple class definition. and the first-second person relationship does nothing to help third person interpretation and comprehension of tenets. which reduces the capacity for ideological spread.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: