New (better) naming scheme.

blog/posts/0105-be-radical.html

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+<blockquote>
+	"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot,
+	I will spue thee out of my mouth." - Revelations 3:16
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Generally I get along with any kind of person. But this isn't to say
+that some kind of people don't frustrate me, as someone who enjoys
+discussing topics such as politics, religion, sciences, etc. However, it
+isn't the person that disagrees with me that frustrates me, but rather
+the person that holds inconsistent opinions, and doesn't follow their
+own logic to its ultimate consequences. And there are these kinds of
+people on all sides of any argument - including my own.</p>
+
+<p>This kind of problem usually occurs when speaking to someone on an
+issue relating to politics or religion. That is to say, anything
+pertaining to the management and governance of the public (i.e.
+politics). The issue in question here is not one where two positions the
+person may hold seem hypocritical, since this is acceptable so long as
+their reasoning can make them compatible. No, the error is when the
+reasoning itself changes based upon circumstances. When exceptions are
+made to the rules.</p>
+
+<p>Typically, a person will make these kinds of exceptions in their own
+reasoning because they dislike following their own logic to its ultimate
+conclusion. They know that for certain cases their very own reasoning
+would lead them to support something they see as evil or immoral, or
+rule out something that is clearly good. So to compensate, they make
+exceptions based upon intuition.</p>
+
+<p>The problem here isn't so much that people see a problem with their
+own logic, but that they make exceptions to it instead of realizing that
+if their reasoning leads them to error, their reasoning is erroneous
+itself. As such, is it truly that difficult to assume that many of their
+other conclusions based upon the same reasoning could also be false? It
+is not proven, but it is very likely.</p>
+
+<p>Essentially, the error here comes from lack of radical belief. He who
+believes the wrong thing for the right reasons is much more righteous
+than he who believes the right thing for the wrong reasons. We must make
+an effort to bring our own reasoning to its logical conclusions, and
+when we discover what those are, we have one of two choices: accept
+where our reasoning has brought us, or reject our own reasoning. But to
+pretend that this inconsistency, this flaw does not exist, is simply to
+lie to ourselves and our conscience. For no truth can contradict
+itself.</p>
+
+<p>As such, be either cold or hot, but detest that which is lukewarm.
+For at least he who is cold or hot may be correct, but he who is
+lukewarm will always be wrong.</p>
+