Where the World’s Definition of Freedom Leads
Whenever someone asks, “why not?” Usually, it seems the right question has been asked, and it’s understood to mean there is not a sufficient reason to think contrary to what someone has said. It is dismissive framing, suggesting either/both ignoratio elenchi or intentional rhetoric to discredit the contrary without engaging counterarguments. This undermines credibility in balanced discourse, prioritizing persuasion over accuracy. This is not unlike the first sin tantamount to: "He said..." which is honest and responsible for the most part, and it is replied to with "but why not? after all, this is really what God is about..." This is similar to the way the world defines freedom or addresses any significant issue regulated by religion, i.e., an undiscerning, uninvestigating, daft, and disinterested Occam's razor interested in mere perpetual apathy via vincible and therefore culpable ignorance. This "ignorance is bliss and I unilaterally decide to strawman an...