Re: technical terms overhaul

[deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com>]

The Wanderer wrote:

> * If you consider white to be normal, then all the rest (e.g., black) is
> considered to be not normal.
> 
> * If you consider male to be normal, then all the rest (e.g., female) is
> considered to be not normal.
> 
> * If you consider right-handed to be normal, then all the rest (e.g.,
> left-handed) is considered to be not normal.
> 
> In reality, of course, in each of those cases there are multiple
> distinguishable things which all fall within the range of what is
> considered "normal".
> 
> There is no inherent reason why the same could not apply to the context
> you cite.

Bingo! Exactly this is the point.

It is not about being black or white. You are mixing the levels of logic to
operate at. You are not above the ontology - that is the given by God or
Nature (as you wish).
Being black or white, male or female is Ontology - you are born like this.

The problems arise at lower levels where we try to meet an agreement what is
normal and not (deontic/epistemic). 

I once did a research how the great minds of the 19th century came to light.

You know how the school system looked like?

1. 2y Latin Grammar
2. 2y Logic
3. 2y Rhetoric

explained
1. You can't talk if you don't know the language
2. Even if you know the language you can not put forward meaningful
statements if you don't know logic
3. even if you know the language and you know logic, you can not lead a
dispute if you do not know rhetoric

I am afraid people miss that a lot. Let me ask you how many of you did have
Logic at school?