Why I Spend So Much Effort On My Facebook Replies

Here’s my view on why I make such great efforts crafting Facebook replies. This meta-response is from a post I originally made December 31, 2015, on “peaceful parenting.”

It discusses my meta views on the differences between Moral Relativism and Moral Absolutism, for which I’m disgusted by those who attempt to declare Moral Relativism as an intellectually lazy way out of attempting to discover Truth and as an an excuse not to back up their statements with Reason and Logic.


“I wouldn’t call this a debate. My comments are just my own beliefs and experiences. I don’t actually believe there is a “right” way of parenting. Anyone that states they have it figured out, I would use the word “delusional”. You get one shot at parenting and even with multiple kids, because all children are unique, one size does not fit all. I adjust my parenting based on what I perceive my child needs. If I was wrong, its the decision I have to live with. It’s a massive gamble having kids…no matter how ” rational” you may be. I see what you hope to accomplish by raising your kids as rational human beings, but as I started off by saying, I strongly disagree with this form of parenting and I just share my own belief on how I choose to raise my children. I could debate your choice of words when we went down the “spanking” vs “artificial discipline” discussion…but its how you see it vs how I see it. I can’t change your view if you have strong disagreement with spanking to begin with. To draw a parallel, I stopped arguing with gun control people because they’re ideology comes from a different place. Hard to have a rational conversation. I have differences with some gun rights supporters as well, but I can definitely understand why they strongly believe what they fight for. Anyway, I digress. At the end of the day, although you disagree with my parenting style and I disagree with yours, they both come from a place of love.”


Thanks for informing me about your views on Moral Relativism. It explains why you remained unresponsive toward sorting out your thoughts to respond coherently toward specific statements I made. When declaring the great “Truth” that there is no “Truth,” you expose your own hypocrisy.

You miss the point on why I engage in these discussions. For someone like you, and others who adhere to this nonsense called “Moral Relativism,” there is no hope for you to be convinced otherwise through Reason and Logic. Those who don’t believe they can come to a greater understanding of what “Truth” is through the use of Reason and Logic are also hopeless to converse with through this medium of text.

Why is it that I engage on this issue? It’s so that I can publicly expose how your views don’t follow Reason or Logic. That your opinions on matters ultimately stem from some kind of emotionally or psychological baseline, that, when exposed to the light of questioning, can be correctly tossed out with superstitions and old wive’s tales. It’s for others to see just how poorly your conclusions are formed.

I come from the tradition of Moral Absolutism that one can come to a greater understanding through the use of rational thought. If two people disagree on a topic, then it’s a matter of coming to an understanding of the fundamental axioms which anchor those beliefs. One can use questioning to break down each step of the logic train to the core axioms. In simpler terms, it’s about living a life on Principles and not one on hypocrisy.

There reaches a point at which core axioms are “taken on faith” and from there one can come to an understanding of why differences emerge.

Unfortunately, for most individuals, taking this journey toward dismantling and questioning all the way down to the core beliefs is too emotionally jarring that psychological barriers get thrown into place. If you look through the history of my Facebook discussions, you will find that those individuals quickly identify themselves, and catch the hint that they don’t want to look like idiots when they make their baseless responses. I suspect most of them have defriended or unfollowed me to protect themselves.

Of course, in your world of thinking, me calling out someone for being an “idiot” is a wrong within itself no matter how objective such a statement may actually be in reality. But take heart in the world you rest in, since most people, when their beliefs are questioned, switch between Moral Relativism / Absolutism at their convenience and loudly proclaim, “Anyone that states they have it figured out, I would use the word ‘delusional.'”

I don’t claim to know the Truth, but I can claim I’m making a good faith effort to discover this Truth through questioning and using Reason despite how much emotional discomfort it causes and the people it may offend. Then I will work to implement such actions to be consistent with those beliefs I understand to be as close to the Truth as possible, despite how imperfect my efforts may be. And as new information comes into play that challenges my core axioms that can be supported with Reason, I will adjust what my views are in order to remain logically consistent.

To simply throw in the towel, become intellectually lazy since it’s too emotionally taxing to trace and correct your beliefs, and then plaster it all over by excusing your laziness with the belief that it all, “come[s] from a place of love” is to me, morally reprehensible and the root of many evils perpetuated in the world today.

“It’s for your own good!”
“It’s for the children!”
“It’s for the common good!”

As they say, “Ignorance is bliss” and “the road toward destruction is paved with good intentions.”

The Death of Reason: Why People Don’t Listen to Reason and Evidence

Interesting physical, psychological, and even genetic discussion on why people don’t listen to reason and evidence.

It seems to be the case that if someone already has an inability or unwillingness to practice Reason, there is no hope for them. To even attempt to show the individual that they are unreasoned would require reasoned means (by which it has already been determined they’re incapable of). Essentially an impossible situation.

Moral Absolutes and Ad Hominem Attacks

When you look at reality from a view that there exists moral absolutes (Moral Absolutism) and that one can come to a better understanding of what those moral absolutes are based on rational discourse, you quickly realize you’re in the small minority of people who actually believe that.

In fact, the mere act of searching for Truth through questioning various positions is met with Ad Hominem attacks from those who believe that all truths are just as valid as any other truth claims (Moral Relativism).

And there are those who are Moral Absolutists, but disconnect it from the intellect: “And honestly, I’m not particularly interested in engaging in a drawn-out intellectual debate on the subject because to me this isn’t an issue of intellect, it’s of basic humanity, compassion, and empathy.”

The disconnect of intellect with Moral Absolutes means that the only means one can come to an understanding of these Moral Absolutes is to simply take it entirely by “faith” or “emotion.” Which morality ultimately “wins” rests entirely by appealing to the changing sands of emotional & cultural predispositions.

Considering the condition of today’s politics and thinking patterns of the world throughout history to the present, it is I who am irrational to have the expectation that most of my colleagues use rational means, rather than emotion, to ultimately address these moral principles.

Would you rather be right, and be alone? Or would you rather live contrary to your Principles, and be embraced by the World?

I’ve already made that choice long ago.


Progressives LOVE to point out how you’re being “hostile,” “impolite,” and “antagonistic,” when you disagree with their beliefs using rational statements in an attempt to discredit the substance of your argument. This “character assassination” is a common logical fallacy called the “Ad Hominem” fallacy.


Sometimes, it’s linked to “Willful Ignorance,” in that Progressives will espouse “Ad Hominem” attacks to justify why they will ignore other evidence, or use Circular Reasoning (“I cannot agree with that source because it is untrustworthy because it disagrees with me”.)


This is not isolated to just Progressives, and also applies to many “on the right” (ie. Drug War, Foreign Entanglements, etc.).

I see this quite a bit with my own family members as well (for which I will now learn to abstain from discussing matters of substance), and unfortunately, I see this behavior very commonly on Facebook when I attempt to discuss Anti-Statist perspectives.

For me, a rational discussion is the only way by which we can peacefully come to an understanding between two, diametrically opposed views. This is very difficult when the other side continually thwarts productive discussion by throwing in logical fallacies such as, Ad Hominem attacks, Circular Reasoning, and Willful Ignorance.

Let’s look at some definitions of words I used above:

HOSTILE – opposed; unfriendly; antagonistic
IMPOLITE – not having or showing good manners; rude
ANTAGONISTIC – showing or feeling active opposition toward someone or something

By definition, merely “disagreeing” with someone on Facebook has automatically labeled you “impolite” or “hostile.” In Korean circles (and probably many other Asian cultures), disagreeing with your Elders, even with rationale, is considered sacrilegious. Perhaps this comes from the Confucius roots, but damned be “the Truth.” The greater good is “harmony” within the community and not what is actually “True.” By disagreeing with an opinion, and voicing that disagreement, therefore is morally abhorrent and discredits any statements you make.

I’ll make a video that fleshes out these concepts as I’ve seen them in real life both in Korean churches, my personal life, and discussions in politics.