You could read this “Danger” sign at face value, decide to heed its warning and not take your canoe over the dam. Or, you could read the sign as an inconvenience, as someone telling you what to do. You have the freedom to ignore the warning. The consequences still pay out in full.
There are signs everywhere informing our decisions. We make choices based on past experience and present warnings. We may proceed or we may stop and change course.
Signs just give us the information. And again, we may trust the sign and heed its warning. Or, we may disregard the sign and all credible evidence and choose to go forward, knowing full well that there will most likely be consequences. In this case, I would take the path most chosen… by wise people. I would go directly ashore after reading the sign.
Seeing this “Danger”sign today as I walked along the river I was reminded of several critical thinking dialogues I have engaged in. Like the river sign, there were warning signs or red flags that the discussion I was having, the canoe trip, would soon require a commitment to the truth at hand.
Often in these dialogues the person I am conversing with will begin dismissing out of hand anything I say that is contrary to their zeitgeist. My position is considered without merit, without ‘value’ in their eyes, based on their already altered life. They soon begin repeating the party line phrases they’ve heard others in their hive repeat.
As the communication between the two ships “passing in the night” nears, the “Danger” sign of truth I am quickly identified as a Kool-Aid drinker,” as too stupid and no longer human enough to understand that the sign is “more unconventional than life itself and not in keeping with what people really should think.” I am often told that the sign can not be accepted at face value since science has proved otherwise.
From being dehumanized I am then in turn objectified. Now, any human experience I could share that would quickly prove the “Danger” sign to be absolutely valid is deemed as just morally relative existentialist personal experience. Accordingly, in this person’s worldview, there can be no Absolute Truth when ‘feelings’ are on the line. To them only subjective feelings (now called ‘rights”) matter. The feelings of others may or may not matter depending on whether you are “in” or “out”.
As the conversation continues the Skull and Crossbones is raised to threaten me, to keep me at bay. The broadsides begin. I am broadsided with labels.
Labels? Why labels?
Socially, for the sake of “diversity;” paying homage for their vice to virtue.
And, ‘labels’ give the Socially Privileged the means to socially profile someone even though they supposedly “hate profiling” (i.e., the SPLC).
Labels give all sorts of people ‘outs’ and disclaimers.
Drive-by labeling allows the hive-minded self-described “diverse” to avoid the truth and, more importantly, enables them to avoid bearing individual responsibility for the mal-effects of their broad brush labeling via tweets, social programs, ‘right’s agendas, discriminatory government policies and public education (reprogramming) all of which defines who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’ under the Mad magazine-like masthead of “Diversity Means Inclusive: “What-me-Worry?””
Labeling enables moronic activism and anti-social behavior (i.e., White Privilege Conference). The ‘Labelers’ label the ‘other’ as ‘bad’ ~ he/she is not one of us ~ invoking God-like privilege.
Today, being “diverse” means that you can appear all-wise “inclusive” with your ‘peeps’ by excluding, denigrating and literally hating people based on labels.
Talk to a homosexual about their homosexuality. You can’t because you are labeled “homophobic.”
Consider this recent tweet conversation between @witycindy and @torqueflite a same-sex marriage devotee.
When all was said and done Cindy Wity @witycindy was labeled “homophobic”, a “hater”, a “Kool-Aid” drinker, a “bigot,” “a pathetic wretch”. (They labeled Christ, too. @witycindy is in Good Company.)
I believe that you can read the whole conversation for yourself on twitter. (BTW: I made screen capture pdfs of @torqueflite’s public tweets just in case they are erased.)
There are many topics where labeling is used to abort meaningful conversations. Of course politics is one of them.
You can’t disagree with Obama’s fiscal, domestic or regulatory policies, his back door fiats or his lack of coherent foreign policy without being labeled “racist.” You are considered a “racist” solely for not ‘accepting’ the half-black Obama’s total incompetence, his deception or his distaste of America carte blanche.
Labeling is meant to dehumanize the ‘other,’ creating an object of derision.
Hitler labeled the Jews “Undesirables.”
Stalin labeled those who peasants who did not want to participate in collectivism as “kulaks.”
“They often used the term to label anyone who had more property than was considered “normal,” according to subjective criteria, and personal rivalries played a part in the classification of enemies. Historian Robert Conquest argues:
The land of the landlords had been spontaneously seized by the peasantry in 1917-18. A small class of richer peasants with around fifty to eighty acres had then been expropriated by the Bolsheviks. Thereafter a Marxist conception of class struggle led to an almost totally imaginary class categorization being inflicted in the villages, where peasants with a couple of cows or five or six acres more than their neighbors were now being labeled “kulaks,” and a class war against them declared. (from Wikipedia)”
This labeling sounds a lot like a Barrack Obama’s political campaign of labeling the ‘wealthy’ as the “1%” and Christian gun owners as ”bitter clingers” ~ all sounding as if pulled from Saul Alinsky’s style book: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
Labels? Why labels?
The religion of moral relativity or ‘Diversity’ is evangelistic. With its labels and bumper stickers it preaches to us, telling us to “COEXIST” in a world where you are now ‘redirected’ to be PC, to say what you do not believe and can never question under the tyranny of moral relativism. My Lord is nothing like this.
If you believe in a god who accepts everything you do and denies you nothing would this god be a good parent or a Good Shepherd? In truth, such a god is a man-made idol created in keeping with a self-generated belief system, a belief system labeled as “Diversity.”
Like the “Danger-Dam” sign there are plenty of God’s Signs and Wonders pointing us away from sin and darkness and the wide path leading to destruction. Labeling others, as was shown above, is used to tear down those signs.
Labeling, again, as shown above, dismisses by verbal abuse and bullying the most important of conversations, those that involve truth: “Did God really say…” and “Truth. What is truth?” The Evil One does NOT want this conversation to happen. The Evil One would rather crucify the One with Truth.
Label me “In Christ” and willing to discourse about truth.
Stop the label machine! Here is an article from the Illinois Review website: University of Chicago Students offended by Gay Rights Activists Use of a Transphobic Slur!
For more about God’s Signs and Wonders and His natural law placed in the soul of man read Human Rights Repository.
For more about inordinate labeling read The People of the “White Privilege” Lie.
For information regarding the characteristics of evil read “Hell is Empty and All The Devils Are Here.”