You think of labels more in terms of what you are not; pretty much along the lines as I. It is more desirable, logically so, for me if i were to accept labels to use something like: Anti-Determinist, Anti-Any Moment Flyaway Escapist Theory, Anti-Dispeller of Divine Foreknowledge,
etc., but as soon as I would take a positive label on, such as a Molinist for example, even though I basically agree to what they are grounded to, it seems attach me to all their reasoning, or premises, in how they are rooted to that grounding which sometimes I do not see the same way and thereby don't want to defend the label. So positive labels of agreement can carry with them what I may perceive as some undesirable traits (premises) by suggesting how I would be in agreement with all the aspects (conclusions) which have been “established by others” systematic reasoning for "their" arguments, not mine. But negative labels which specify that which you are in disagreement with tend to not so easily follow with suggestions of how you must reason for what you are against. In others words it is much easier to be specific on the principles you stand against in your reasoning and to tear down a view you are opposed to and to label those things you are opposed to.
In any argument based on logic it takes 2 truth premises working together to be valid before a conclusion can be claimed to be true, but it only takes 1 false premise even if the other is true to end up carrying a conclusion to be false.
T + T = T
T + F = F
F + T = F
F + F = F
The odds are you can more easily prove and maintain your position on something false by claiming it to be false through labeling yourself as being in disagreement with it. If one is going to take on a label it is more fun to be on the side having the winning advantage. :smilewinkgrin:
And yes, to attempt to pin labels on others to gain such an advantge, well, ...this forced on unwanted baggage automatically place him at a disadvantage, so naturally one having that done on him would ...
on that "messed up" idea if he realizes the logic to odds going on here even if the label holds and is true! See, that is like "Determinist" not wanting to be seen to have taken on a bunch of UGLY! baggage and whatever they want to label themselves to hold their position the premises they attempt to hold CAN be truthfully attached to them and easily maintained and defined as being true because of them having to logically rest all their premises to be rooted to pre-determination, thus my favorite and truly defined label for them: "Determinist". So, it can be ethical sometimes to label the other's position and take advantage of that if label acurately defines them and is unescapably maintained as being logically true, whether they like it or not.
Last edited by a moderator:
