blog traffic analysis
This is Previous-Essay <== This-Essay ==> Following-Essay Click HERE on this line to find essays via Your-Key-Words. {Most frequent wordstarts of each essay will be put here.} ========================================================== %JUSTIFY TOOLS DOMINATION CONTROL PREJUDICE BIAS+030107 %BEFORE AFTER ABUSE CONSEQUENCES CAUSE EFFECT DEVIL+030107 %THEORY HYPOTHESIS GOOD JUDGMENT REVEAL DISHONESTY+030107 %KILLED WITNESSES TERRIFIED VICTIMS DISEASE ILLNESS+030107 %DEFEATED WINNERS HOSTILITY ANGER REVENGE JUSTICE+030107 %HUMILITY CIVILITY HOSPITALITY LOVERS INTIMACIES 030107 How might the tools of domination and control be justified without prejudice and bias? They cannot be justified without prejudice and bias before the tools have been used; for before use, the consequences of their actual use cannot be fully known --- they can only be predicted/expected. Those who believe that the consequences will be good will justify use before-the- fact. Those who believe that the consequences will be bad will NOT justify use before-the-fact. Only pre- judgment will be revealed; i.e., prejudice will be revealed. Consider the biases which occur in any effort to justify the extreme use of tools of domination and control --- after the fact of their use and/or abuse: 1. People who were killed cannot serve on the evaluation panel. Their inability to serve --- will bias any evaluation panel. 2. Members of the "enemy-community" which was defeated and whose friends, neighbors, relatives, and co- workers were killed, injured, made homeless, made sick --- are not likely to be invited to be on the evaluation panel which is formed by the dominant winners. Their absence will bias any evaluation panel which is formed by the dominant winners. 3. Can the winners in the hostility be expected to render an unbiased judgment about whether the tools of domination and control were used to "good" effect? Even if all of the winners are satisfied that the tools of domination and control were used to "good" effect --- will it be likely that many of the losers will agree that the winners' judgment was un-biased, not-prejudiced and not- capricious? It would NOT be likely! 4. What if the evaluation panel is formed by people who were NOT involved in the hostility; i.e., by people who were bystanders and uncommitted to either side in the hostility? They will not be well informed about the point of view of the people who were involved --- because the by-standers were not themselves involved. The by-standers will have to gather information second-hand after-the- hostilities are over. How-well will bystanders be-trusted by either the winners or the losers who saw the bystanders as unfaithful during the hostilities --- because the bystanders refused to come to their aid during the hostilities? Will the by standards be in a position to interview any of the living survivors of the conflict and gather reliable information about the positive and negative outcomes of the hostilities? Not very likely! How can they compensate for that low probability? By working in terms of untestable hypotheses? That is not satisfactory! 5. If the dead, injured, alienated, defeated, domineering people, and the bystanders are all unqualified to render unbiased, unprejudiced, non-capricious, and reliable judgment --- who is qualified? No humans! Humans are usually not permitted to learn through experience whether or not the tools of domination and coercion can be justified in terms of the consequences of their use. No unbiased and unprejudiced experiment has been conducted, and none can be conducted, to test the theory that tools of domination and coercion can be properly justified. Only participants in collusive games of mutual self deception can justify the use of the tools of domination and coercion, including: dishonesty, deceptions, pretentions, arrogance, self-righteousness, denigrations, deprivations, ridicule, excommunications, threats, attacks, coercion, torture, violence, abuse, rape, murder, executions, banishments, preparations-for-war, threatening-war, going-to-war, winning-at-war, gaining-through-war. (c) 2005 by Paul A. Smith in (On Being Yourself, Whole and Healthy) ==========================================================