Monday, 28 May 2012

A point of Prejudice


 
            So what if you wanted to make a legitimate argument but didn’t want to outright offend your opponent which would ultimately result within physical or untimely conflict? Conceivably it is arguable that how you interpret information is subjective to how you stand or read that information given your unique perspective. Additionally it may be fair to argue that how you transfer or relate this information to others impacts upon how they perceive that knowledge.
            Realistically serious matters would need to be dealt with delicately and within this it may be required to project the information in such a manner as to cast doubt upon your own credibility. Within this you take the ‘Hit’ however that does not deject the ‘relevance of the argument’ with the information continuing to be transmitted whilst at the same time ‘Defusing’ or ‘Disarming’ your opponent.

            So at one time I was standing far away and now I am a little bit closer to my objective!

            Within the above statement I have an argument: What if I wanted to highlight ‘State Crime’ and in doing so bring ‘Senior Politicians’ to ‘Justice’ by making them ‘Accountable’ using the law but didn’t want to wake up one day with ‘five Bullets in My forehead’. Clearly the arguments would have to be ‘Managed’ and ‘Projected’ in such a manner that they allowed the ‘Politicians’ and the ‘State’ an opportunity to ‘Dismiss my Arguments’ through means of ‘Prejudice’.

But that does not detract anything away from the argument does it?

So what if all the references to ‘Religion’ and ‘God’ were purposefully included within all my arguments with this being done deliberately in order to discredit myself to some degree, ‘but not entirely’. This projection of ‘Religion’ allows my ‘Opponent’ to dismiss me on those grounds however it also allows my ‘Arguments’ to continue uninterrupted since they like myself are not taken ‘Seriously’.

So what if we removed all the ‘Religious Implications’ from my arguments to date then ask the question: how would these arguments and issues now stand up to scrutiny in relation to rationality and the law?

            Argumentative isn’t it.

Never the less the fundamental points throughout are applicative with these relating to ‘Legitimacy within the Law’, ‘Lawful Service’ and the ‘Truth in all actuality’ (Not Distorted nor Perverted).

So whilst I am sitting here flicking grains of sand into the pond of life and watching the ripples I am wondering what happens when I flick a ‘Pebble’ in;  additionally am I standing here upon issues relating to ‘God’ and ‘Religion’ or am I standing here upon the ‘Plinth of Law’ – which is ‘Justice’. Retrospectively speaking how would you stand to project yourself within the argument?

Christopher © 28/05/2012 (All Rights reserved)

No comments:

Post a comment