Regarding ethics.

A person is good or bad not by the things a person does do, but good or bad by the things a person doesn't do. That not only should people be judged on what they do do, they are also be judged on what they don't do. That in order to not be perceived as evil, we have a moral obligation to live for (help) others. That there is a difference between doing good things for good reasons and doing good things for bad reasons. That we need a specific reason, in reference to a specific incident and time, in order to not like someone. That 1 cannot simply not like someone "just because." That If 1 cannot remember why they do not like someone, then they simply don't have a good reason to not like someone. That those whom allow evil or approves of evil, are evil. That when getting insulted by someone, a counter-insult should not be worse than the original insult. And of course, a counter-insult is completely unnecessary if it is irrelevant.

On giving the benefit of the doubt, rather than the disadvantage of the doubt.

That it is better to be easy to be happy and hard to be mad, than to be hard to be happy and easy to be upset.

While we do not have an obligation to right every wrong, we have the right to right any wrong we choose to.

Regarding beliefs.

That things are true to the extent they are known to be true. That it isn't okay to believe something simply because you wish it were true.

Regarding logic.

That a person's belief or opinion should be evaluated the same, regardless of you like the person or not. That a person needs a reason to be depressed. That it doesn't matter whether a person is male or female, only if they act male or female.

Regarding language.

That everything I say is my point. That talking with someone requires consent, and that relevance is an element in the subject when talking with people you don't know or in the absence of consent or both. That it doesn't matter whether someone was being sarcastic or not, all text should be treated the same. That if there are 2 ways to say a word, and 1 is ambiguous while the other is not, that we should say the non-ambiguous word.

Miscellaneous.

That it is better to be sad about something than to be angry about something. That the amount of enemies you don't have is more important than the amount of friends you have. That it is better to sympathize about those that are less fortunate, than to "happify" about those that are more fortunate. That It is okay to be proud of something if and only you chose to be that something, and not if you were born to be that something or don't have the choice to no longer be that something. That it doesn't matter whether someone has a big ego or not, or is arrogant, that they should all be treated the same.

That it doesn't matter if you're in a good mood or bad mood. That good days are the same as bad days. That moods do not define you. That you should be an equal opportunist when it comes to moods.

Regarding legality.

That we value those without lawyers. That if you really are innocent, you shouldn't need a lawyer. That it shouldn't matter whether someone is rich or not, that they should have economic equality before the law. That it is not okay, for a situation where if 1 didn't have a lawyer, he would have been found guilty of a crime, whereas if he had a lawyer, he wouldn't have been found guilty of a crime (a mitigating circumstance is if the lawyer was for free). That we are traditionally against laws the exist only because the economy is bad.

Regarding censorship.

That if a minority group is offended by something, and that thing is censored, then the minority are being rewarded for what they take offense to by having that thing censored.

Regarding philosophy.

That better safe than sorry. And because of that, better to ask for permission than to ask for forgiveness. That proving something that already happened, was unlikely to happen, proves absolutely nothing. That situations should not be made worse than what it already is, "just because."

Language.

-That it doesn't matter whether someone is sarcastic or not, all arguments should be treated the same.

-That if there are 2 words in th English language, and 1 is ambiguous, and the other isn't, then the non-ambiguous word should be used.

Code:

If a = a and b = a or b, and you wanted to mean a, should you use a or b? We would use a.

Specific examples of this philosophy:

1.)The usage of the word gender and sex.

Gender has 1 common definition: and the answer is either male or female.

But sex has 2 common definitions:

Usage 1: What is your sex? Male/female?
Usage 2: Can I have sex with you?

So we know gender isn't used interchangeable, (can I have gender with you?), but sex is.

Therefore, the 1st example of sex shouldn't be used.

If a = a and b = a or b, and I wanted to mean a, why should I use b and not a? So a guarantees a, but b doesn't.

2.)The usage of Jewish and Judaist.

Sometimes Jewish is meant as the ethnicity, or as the religion, or both.

I distinguish the 4 possible possibilities as.

1.A Jewish Judaist.
2.A Jewish non-Judaist.
3.A non-Jewish Judaist.
4.Non-Jewish non-Judaist.

If I simply say 'Jewish,' I simply denote ethnicity (where it's impossible to know if I meant they were religious or not). And if I say 'Judaist,' then you cannot assume I meant the person was Jewish. I use the compound words. Therefore, I will always say 'Jewish Judaist' if I denote both.

3.)The case of asking someone their age.

I don't ask "How old" are you? I ask "What age" are you?