List of Things I am Against

1.Against when someone gets insulted by someone, they insult them back in an insult worse than what the initial insult was.

The less specific principle is making things worse than what it already is.

2.Against when people treat others by their gender, rather than by their species.

3.Against when someone receives a criticism, they get offended by the fact that the person made the criticism, rather than the actual criticism itself. For example, taking offense to making the criticism, rather than the criticism itself, is a way to ignore that criticism.

4.That if someone changes the topic, they still do not avoid your question. They are welcome to change the topic and also address your question - but not change the topic and avoid your question.

5.That if you just asked a person question B, he would have answered it, but if you asked him questions A, B, and C, together, they choose to only answer questions A and C, ignoring question B.

This is how it is in principle, it cannot be observed in actuality. The logical way, would be that if you only asked them question B, they would not reply at all.

6.Against the belief (and people who hold the belief) - that whenever someone says something bad about a particular group, that that person must also mention every other group in the world that also has the same bad characteristic, or not say anything bad about that group at all.

So if I mention that this group of people does this bad characteristic X, if I do that, I must also list all the other groups of people in the world that also do this same bad characteristic X, or not say anything about that group at all.

7.Against the belief (and people who hold the belief) - that if someone lists a bunch of evils or all the bad things about a group of people, that that person must then list all the good things about that group of people, or not say anything bad about them at all.

8.Against the belief (and people who hold the belief) - that if there is a group that both believes and practices this bad evil, that if there were other people in the group who hold this bad evil belief, but do not actually practice it, does not actually bring the image of this group up.

So suppose there was this belief that killing babies is a bad thing. And suppose that there were people in this group, that held the belief, but did not actually kill babies, but they agreed with the belief. That does not actually bring the image of those that actually kill the babies - it does not bring their image up.

9.Against permanent censorship.

I am against permanent censorship in actuality, but not in principle, if used for the good.

This is not the same as temporary censorship.

Temporary censorship is the principle that, a mother could say to her son, "I'm installing porn filters in your computer. I will remove them on your 18th birthday. It's because I don't want you to see what's behind a girl's bra before you turn 18!"

So then on the boys 18th birthday, the mother removes the porn filters.

Permanent censorship, on the other hand, is much different.

Note that this does not mean we have to force information to people that don't want to know the information, but make it available when people want to know it.

10.Against things that are of the "we would rather have you dead than alive" philosophy.

An example of this is for suing purposes.

Example 1: For example, suppose someone climbs a tall tree in a theme park. It disgusts me when the park ranger goes "Nope, we don't want you to climb that tree. If you fall off that tree, we'd rather have you dead than alive."

11.A forced disadvantage as a consequence of something unfortunate.

An example of this is the "sue you for messing up" in electrocution stuff.

Example 1: I was told, not to go down the electrical sewers, that a touch of the wrong wire, is instant death. I then asked about the employees that worked for the electrical company that worked down there. I was told that if they accidentally got electrocuted, not only would they die, but that the electrical company, would in addition, press charges against them or sue them. So it becomes a double whammy if you survive.

12.Against people taking offense to 'additional' information.

So if the additional information was lacking, they would not have taken offense to it at all.

Example 1: The case with race/ethnicity/religion. Someone could say the sentence "A person did this crime." The person could say the sentence "A __ person did this crime" where __ is the race of the person. Or ethnicity. Someone could go "But what does persons' race/ethnicity got to do with it?" Or even religion. I am against when people take offense to additional information - those are privileges, and additional information can be handled rationally.

13.Hierarchily speaking, when authorities pick people for what they will be, rather than what they are.

By this I mean personality-wise.

14.A system of laws or rules that takes into consideration whether they like or dislike someone.

15.A system that has no power to reverse itself. Or put it another way, a system that refuses to have power to reverse itself for what it did, initially.

Regarding discrimination.

16.Against cases where if it discriminates, it then further discriminates against non-discrimination.

The solution to this is that if it discriminates, it then must not discriminate against non-discrimination.

Example 1: An example of this is, suppose a society has this law where no 1 can wear a bullet-proof vest. And that it would be a felony to wear 1.

Okay, that's fine.

But suppose they made police officers exempt from this law.

Okay, that's fine.

But suppose you wanted to be a police officer - to be exempt from this law. But 1 of the laws of being a police officer, is if you are convicted of a felony, it is illegal for you to become a police officer.

In this case, they need to make an exception. The exception being, if you are committed for a felony for wearing a bullet-proof vest before being a police officer, that you are not discriminated for being a police officer.

If they do not make this exception, then I am against both the law and the department rule, or just against the department law.

You can find dozens of examples related for in the Internet.

17.Particular arbitrary outcomes versus coincidences.

Example 1: Imagine, for example, I see a bunch of company that have a "our 10 company philosophies/virtues."

And it lists 10 good things that their employees practice and live up to, such as... honesty, integrity, etc.

Suppose, for example, they came up with 9 good reasons, but you know, they wanted 10, so they came up with a crappy 10th, to make it "top 10 morals."

Or what if they actually came up with 11 good virtues, but since they thought a "top 10" was a better number, they'll remove 1 from the list - to make it 10.

Obviously, I would be against both those cases.

I will only accept it if they came up with 10 things because it is a coincidence they came up with 10, and only 10.

Example 2: Imagine, for example, if a message board or chatroom decided that they wanted the amount of rules to equal a number. For example, 20 or 25. So if they came up with an excess of rules, they have to remove some of it, or if they cannot come up with enough good ones, they have to make up more, to fit the number they like.

That, of course, is the wrong way to make up rules.

How would you feel, if group staff went "Before making any rules, let's decide on a good number of rules. What number is a good number of rules to have?"

And suppose group staff voted a number, and then, they then decide "Okay, with that number, let's come up with as many rules equal to that number."

.

Luckily, we don't have that problem.

In this case, the rules are relevant, not the *number* of rules that are relevant.

18.Multiple overlapping statutes.

Multiple overlapping statutes result in people pleading guilty to crimes they did not commit and vests too much power in prosecutors. It goes like this, "You commited crime X, and we can get you under laws A, B, and C. Plead guilty only to X under law A and we'll forget about B and C." The net effect is people who exercise their right to a trial get double or triple punishments. We don't want innocent people pleading guilty for strategic reasons.

19.Arguments that can be used the other way around.

20.Against people dictated by time of day.

Or in other words, whether it is day or night does not define them.

This philosophy is *not* being against the hour of the day - but by the amount of sunlight.

Basically, not just being an equal-gender opportunist, but an equal-sunlight opportunist.

21.Synthesis of selectivity.

That's actually the epitome of unfairness.

There are many variations of this same principle.

For example, selectively picking what to be thankful for and what to not be non-thankful for.

Selectively picking what to be optimist about and what to not be non-optimist about.
Selectively picking what to be optimist about and what to be pessimist about.

Example 1: So if something good happens in my life, I will thank the Lord for that. But if an earthquake happens and my house breaks down, but I'm alive, I will selectively choose what to not be non-thankful for. I will not choose to be non-thankful. If I choose to be non-thankful, then I'm choosing to be disappointed at the Lord which I can never be. So I will just remain silent about that.

22.When people do the minimum required thing.

When people don't do something they should do, because it isn't required. Or in other words, when people refuse to do something because they do the minimum required thing.

Example 1: Universities vs. high schools.

Did you know, that in the high schools and below, when there's a school's out due to snow day, the school will make up for it? Hence why the last day of school is dependent on how many snow days are in?

Well in colleges and universities, when school is closed due to a snow day, that day is not made up.

Why? Well, there's no law against it. The law only goes to high schools and below.

Example 2: Nutrition facts of products vs. of fruits.

Did you know when you go to the grocery store and buy products, the box comes with nutrition facts? Well that's because a law requires it.

But when you buy fruits in a box, the box does not come with the nutrition facts. Why? Because there's no law that requires natural foods to have nutrition facts, only artificial and manufactured foods.

Example 2b: What if the law was abolished? Should all the food companies stop putting out nutrition facts on their labels because no law is enforced?

You can come up with a boat load of examples. Some examples I list you may hate and other examples you can come up with you agree on. So you either like or dislike this philosophy depending on the examples of course, not what it is in principle.

23.When such that it makes no observable difference whether to do A or B, they prefer and request 1, and not the other, and refuse to tell you why if you don't ask.

Example 1: Paying cash and not writing a check.. Why is it if you can pay a landlord like $550 or $475, you can write them a check or pay in cash, but they request the cash? If you give them the check, they can withdraw the cash. So why do they have a preference? Why is it if you present to them the check they just say "I prefer cash."

Or in other words, there may be external (hidden) variables involved. Something about reporting taxes and the I.R.S. come to mind.

24.When people refuse to do something that can benefit them and doing so does not disadvantage them in any way, due to their own claimed policy or for an unstated reason.

Example 1: Surveillance cameras.

A crime scene happens outside a store that has surveillance cameras looking outside. After the crime scene, you walk in and tell them about it and the manager refuses to use them to help you on your police report.

Sigh, true story.

25.When people tell you to do something that disadvantages you, but do not tell you why.

Example 1:A person invited me to his house 1 day, and I got to meet their grandma. Then he takes me to the Internet, and goes on a website, and fills out a form for my information. He types on the keyboard and I say to him what he has to type, including my name, mailing address, and phone number.

But he also asks for my social security number and debit card numbers. Then the next day that I go on the Internet, I see a $79 charge on my bank account. Why didn't he tell me what it was for?

26.Courtesy of demands in reference to priority.

That when I am walking somewhere and someone sitting down sees me, hollers at me, and tells me to go sit with them just to talk to me. So I have to walk back just to sit with someone.

If I were sitting somewhere and I saw someone walking and wanted to talk to them, I'd get up and follow and walk with them to talk to them, not have them come back and sit with me.

This is the only example.

27.Certainty of beliefs.

That we must only be 100% or 0% certain of a belief.

Of course not. We can be all the possibilities in between.

28.

Example 1: On September 27, 2009, Sunday, I finally received a text message from a guy at 12:10:32 p.m., that said "I just woke up now." The previous day, we agreed that I was to come over to his place to help him out as that day was the day he moved into his new place.

I told him I'll be over in half an hour. He text replies at 12:14:03, "Come over at 2pm. Going to wash some clothes and clean up a bit."

I got off the Foster bus (to his place) at around 1:45 p.m., to see a text message from him that said "Come over at 315pm" and so I spent over an hour walking around a radius of his place, to get to explore his new neighborhood.

At precisely 3:15 p.m., I sent him a text message "Ding, dong!" and shortly threw a baby apple to his bedroom window. He's at his window on the 2nd floor and gives me an index finger I think, which I interpret it as "1 moment."

So I stand around his alley, waiting. He called me at 3:18 p.m., telling me to come back in "15 to 20 minutes." What does that mean to me? That I come back in 17.5 minutes, or 3:18 + 17.5 minutes = 3:35.5 p.m. or 3:35:30 p.m.

And so I walk off, and go sit somewhere in a playground for a while. And spent the 2nd half sitting on a sidewalk regarding an apartment finder book.

Anyways, at 3:24:08 p.m., I got a text message from him that said "Just come back around 4pm. Sorry, I will treat you to lunch."

At 3:49:51 p.m., got another text message from him that said "415. Last change."

And so it follows, at precisely 4:15 p.m., I sent him the text message "Ding, dong!" (as the doorbell would be for the whole house rather than his 2nd floor), and at 4:18 p.m., he called me on the phone saying he'll be down in 3 minutes.