Random Tyrannical NONSENSE (2nd draft edited still stream of consciousness)

Tyranny of the Father: The fallacy of Stultification and the Argumentum ad fake Dictionarium

Feel free to imagine Cozy Glow on a rant.

Some people say that only two logical fallacies have been developed since Aristotle wrote his original commentary on political discourse many thousands of years ago. Naturally, as a person who is only informed on the philosophy of Aristotle (as opposed to an expert like H.P. Lovecraft, or even someone who took the extra ten seconds to look up the subtle differences on google), I've come to the conclusion that this is something that needs to be explored. Namely, these two fallacies fall into the categories of nonsensical bullshit _or media spin_ and the obfuscation of facts through jargon; which could be a fancy way of applying Plato's argument that slaves are inherently stupid and incapable of both the understanding and rationality of moral calculus, unless they and act without conscience... under the guidance of some moral guardian, king, or master.

Naturally, this person mentioned above would have to be some kind of an idiot god, tyrant, or a literal communist supply side Jesus; notice the special emphasis on the little 'g' and be aware that supply side Jesus is not the true christ or messiah because this is going to crop up more than a few times in the following article. Not to mention, I'm fairly certain Plato meant that anyone could be taught to understand the principles of geometry without using insane troll logic, even if they've somehow deluded themselves into a belief that any rational god created property on the fourth day for the sole purpose of exploiting others.

Thankfully, now that I've explored what I know for sure, what I want to know for future reference, and I am more than capable of reviewing what I've factually learned without any genuine research, I can express this pointless topic in the way it is most often recognized; BEHOLD the never ending Emotional Intelligence vs Ethics debate.

For the record, it is possible I am a cryptofascist, anarchist, or butterfly, rainbow, unicorn, kitty. But, it may not be probable. As such, I have a slant towards epistemological ethics in an ontological direction that is concerned with life, liberty, sovereignty, economic freedom, and the pursuit of happiness with a “why?” And, naturally, I am opposed to the erudite, anti-biased, politically correct, morally sanctioned, Stepford-smiling stance on the side of emotional intelligence being used to weed out useful idiots for the purposes of Mammon's inferior service model. Of course, I wouldn't throw away the baby with the bathwater, but I would question how a preconventional financial relationship negates the heroism of a mercenary, knight, soldier, freelance writer, or some other named field of social justice warrior.

After all, once you've limited the options available to the gift of action and free movement to submission or rebellion, the alternative to war becomes subjugation. In much the same way an ability to respond comes with the consequences of accountability; gifts similarly come with obvious limitations. Sadly, these limitations are blatantly obvious and far from fallacious reasoning. After all, the unchanging goodie-two-shoes (or just world fallacy) that the more resources you have means you have more of god's favor (if not authority), is a lot like arguing that the cost of freedom is an exclusive dust jacket or cover for a book on vigilance against social controls.

However, to quote Cracked's alternative seven deadly sins of online gaming would take a long time when you can easily look up a youtube link to the modern jig economy referenced in the aforementioned description. But, according to this twisted modern vernacular equivalent to the devil's dictionary, it is clearly unrepentant “jackassery” that has undermined and changed the very definition of commonly understood words. For instance, the sin of Avarice (long associated with opportunism and exploitation) retains its more 'communist' definition in a humble _spirit_ of the word. However, this spirit is not retained for farming __more__ renewable resources than you need; rather, the more current definition of avarice includes the act of taking a renewable resource someone else wants before they can get to it or actually need it. Because, not only was that item available to everyone not meant for “you”, it was meant for black market trading, therefore your inconsiderate actions are clear 'item poaching.' Much like a college education, magic, or superpowers in general, it would appear that taking something someone else wants (or needs) before it re-spawns is considered an act of 'thievery.' Which is ironic, because if you look for what you want right when you need it you may find what you've lost within arms reach or something better.

Therefore, if you take initiative without full moral status, lack the actual resources to use the item to it's full potential, or (heaven forgive) actually use the item in question to negotiate for any personal gain or to your best advantage you've somehow failed and acted in bad faith. Because, clearly, only the 'people in charge' or their validation or verification of authority could have been used, or even produced the same resources, and proven results more wisely were that item or opportunity given directly to them. You know, instead of actually using their superior, talents, gifts, and ability to shift blame, cover up their mistakes, and basically confuse some level of coordination, virtue signaling, or headship for the absolute autocratic rule and leadership exemplified by those who think they're angels separating the chaff from the wheat by acting as gods among us.

Next we have the new definition of Envy, this also appears to be a counterintuitive definition that stultifies action and blames the victim. Defined as “Quitting Out” but more frequently known as the “Rage Quit” the motive of the act itself has been redefined as maintaining a record of excellence by dropping out of a competition when 80% of the competitors are better than you to supposedly reformulate your strategy, and presumably improve your personal reputation or psychological status, no doubt to try again later or attempt the challenge again with a different 'server.' Evidently, this will somehow justify your later murder, undermine your credibility, and you will die unremembered mostly because “he who fights and runs away, lives to fight some other day” is no longer considered sage advise.

Naturally, expanding of definitions to the point of shifting the ground upon which a principle stands applies to financial realities as well. For instance, a unicorn is a million dollar start up; a rainmaker is one who is sincere about the promises they make but can only gaurantee success under specific conditions; a show pony is optimistically arrogant about the quality of a presentation. Similarly, as the old saying goes “The Chief doesn't go to the Indians, Indians go to the Chief,” which is ironic because a Captain usually takes a week to select his leutenents, especially if he's a task rabbit. As such, a Captain could be looking for a Jakelope when only a Pucca and Welptinger are available.

Back on the subject of emotional intelligence, it should be readily obvious immature Greifers who teabag, Furries involved in 'cub reporting,' and Internet Trolls interested in binding, domination, sadomasochism, political correctness, and schadenfreude are all guilty of the sin of 'Lust, because everyone knows the internet is really great for pornography, and all its works, such as the transactional analysis game of 'rapo.' The reason this sort of thing is tied with emotional intelligence should be fairly obvious, considering the fact that a truly mature individual, while not devoid of opinions, should know better than to involve themselves in a conflict between _dare I suggest_ Twilight Sparkle and Derpy Hooves (aka Diabeetus, Muffins, Ditzy Doo) over who is best pony. Especially after the more elder tier instinct level god has cut the other in half and covered the weaker party in chocolate milk, which as we all know represents splooge or salt.

Despite the fact that such an incident would lead to the weaker, more oppressed, party to rise up to the challenge when using a spirit bomb after collecting the souls of her worshipers in retribution to chain, bind, or otherwise incapacitate the other participant in said conflict. The fact that the symbolism and metonymy of 'rape' in and of itself lead into people offering emotional support to the underdog, who in this case could actually represent a harmful biological disease (diabetes), hunger (bad habits), or dare I suggest Trump derangement syndrome (theta blocking which is tied to starvation and results in addictive behavior formations like a dog with a bone) leads me to believe objectivity in this case may be slanted in favor of tyranny as opposed to justice or pragmatism. Either way, based on 'the seven deadly sins of gaming' the necrophilia in this case is still seen as a latter day touchdown dance in support of a zombie, with the shifting ground of definitions themselves making either victim a tyrant of the worst order.

Under the more currently corrupted definitions of the seven deadly sins 'contempt' is now seen as an act of gluttony known as level abuse or player killing while asking “where is your god now?” As if you're some cowardly dog who should just roll over and die in the face of insurmountable odds, or that you should expect to be consumed by an opponent who thinks that it is fair to use a looking glass to play with ants. If you have ever seen the Joker from the 2008 Dark Knight movie, or that one guy from the Backlist tv series, then the new definition of the sin of Wrath being the hypothetically Darwinist act of killing your team mates to profit off of their suffering is now in vogue. While I would naturally consider this an act of contempt as well, the new (more current) definition of wrath would say otherwise, and who am I to argue with the dumbest strategy for success ever conceived by man?

What I can say is that Leeroy Jenkins has nothing to worry about as the new definitions of sin, particularly sloth, paints him as a superior strategist to those consumed by narcissus and wrath. The new definition for the sin of Pride is equally a crock of horse pucky. For the purposes of brevity; to describe pride as an act of exploitation is like arguing you are a christian atheist representative of the national realist party. While I do admit having a unicorn as your mascot is fun, and despite one time seeing God as your personal hero is admirable; one can't entirely embrace the fact you've somehow managed to convince a dumb kid he needs to prove you're theory of mind wrong was well conceived...In fact, I'm not even sure if the definition of the word ironic is literally it's own opposite at this point (what? with comics depicting it as Atlas dropping the world on someone's head).

Now, you're probably asking yourself what this has to do with the Emotional Intelligence vs Ethics debate. Honestly, I believe it wouldn't matter what your morals are if you have a good set of ethics. Sure, if you've seen that one election movie you know morals come from stories, and stories come from values, but if you were raised in the ways of a bard (and I'm not suggesting you weren't) then most actors know in order to reduce conflict you keep the peace, love all, trust a few, and do wrong to none. If you have any sense of duty, like a martial artist, big brother, or police officer, you will take reasonable and necessary precaution to prevent physical, psychological, spiritual, or social abuse. If you like to 'party' your values would most likely reflect some desire for peace (defined as economic freedom or maybe the opposite of fear) as opposed to subjugation; love (or some romantic idea of liberty that you could speak honestly from the heart as a poet does or from the soul as a miracle worker) without demonstrating conditioned misanthropy; unity or interdependence, finding a common bond that allows one to influence others, manipulate the environment, and manage or regulate their personal needs within the community among others. Another thing someone who likes to party might value is respect of persons, boundaries, or property.

Naturally, mistakes are always made, but the greatest mistake is not to make any at all. Beyond the preconventional and most basic values, duties, and ethics one expects of a bard, child, or dare I suggest thane, there is a level of emotional intelligence that is found lacking in management yet somehow expected of lower tier workers, which in modern vernacular means bend over here it comes again. Emotional intelligence is not genuinely dictated by peer pressure as has been promoted by people who actually know the difference between the Milgram and Zimbardo case studies yet have somehow never heard of Kitty Genovese, or if they have heard of her to suggest Patrick Herst or Yellow Journalism escapes them.

Even when presented with a different case in the same vain such as that of a terrorist named Scott Millgram, who talked a manager into arresting and sexually abusing an employee under false pretence's, one might think how you answer the Heinz Dilemma, or if you know it costs $250,000 to purchase a paper bride through a dating service (which they will reduce the value of by 90%) means you are somehow incompetent or too evil to lead. Yes, I admit it, if I found a wallet on the ground I would pick it up and I wouldn't hand it over to the police if I could mail or port it over to the person who lost it right away. Obviously, if I could take a picture of it with my phone and just leave it there I'd do that instead. I've never actually encountered an abstract or hypothetical situation where I could cover up some mistake in my thinking; and yet somehow it seems as if utilitarian communists are actually considered superior thinkers and given special training in the dark arts of management by Lucifer himself.

And, yet for some unfathomable reason, changing the definition of words makes criminals of us all. Ironic considering being money poor does not mean one is deserving of their fate; as in the 'little goodie two shoes' or 'just world fallacy.' Having no social status beyond one's ascribed characteristics, like the assumption that all 'fat' people are inherently greedy or suicidal, should not determine how one is judged. Being unable to express feelings in a way that seems appropriate (whether passively assertive or aggressive) to a tyrant or moral guardian should not be held against anyone. And, every mistake or difference in philosophy, knowledge, expression, or understanding should not be used as excuse to enslave, suppress, oppress, or otherwise mock, ridicule, and humiliate.

Basically, racketeering influenced coerscion and misanthropy are probably the things that tick me off like a clock that is wound to tightly. I can understand how a lack of emotional regulation can be difficult for others to handle but I don't believe anger or passion is something that needs to be mastered by others. I believe anger, rage, and passion to be healthy emotions despite the stigma against their expression. I also do not believe a difference in philosophy justifies level abuse, and I do not believe an inability to articulate, distill, verify, or express your personal values, consciousness, goals, gifts, purposes, and abilities, gives others the right to crush your spirit like the heart of a baby kitten.

In theory, everybody creates their own religion based on the cosmologies and explainations handed to them in their youth, through their families, and social boundaries. No one is above the laws of the country they hail from, everyone has been punished, and no one is immune to a double standard that helps or harms them as they discover the loopholes and limitations of their dominion, mind, body, spirit, and knowldege. Whether or not your conscience is dictated by God, morals, ethics, or scripture; one always has to answer to themselves before family, friends, neighbors, and government. As a leader one does not traditionally expect loyalty from their followers, but many expect them to be honorable or make the effort to be. Leadership is not headship, and no organization can be successful if they don't expect their workers to become leaders in their own right.