{"id":64,"date":"2002-04-10T23:30:10","date_gmt":"2002-04-11T02:30:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.ericbrooks.com\/soapbox\/?p=64"},"modified":"2002-04-10T23:30:10","modified_gmt":"2002-04-11T02:30:10","slug":"you-cant-handle-the-truth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ericbrooks.com\/soapbox\/you-cant-handle-the-truth\/","title":{"rendered":"You can’t HANDLE the TRUTH!!!"},"content":{"rendered":"

Secundum Quid<\/a> – Latin for “according to something”. If you’ve taken Logic in college, it’s also the concept of “Drawing a conclusion based on insufficient information”.<\/p>\n

For example:<\/b>
\nFact #1 Mad people belong in an institution.
\nFact #2 The flat tire made Mr. Jones mad.
\nConclusion: Mr. Jones belongs in an institution.<\/p>\n

Or from the IQ test:<\/b>
\n“If some quips are quods, and all quos are quods…
\nThen some quips are quos?”
\nMakes sense to assume so, doesn’t it?<\/p>\n

Unless you replace the words with:
\n“If some fish are mammals, and all dogs are mammals…
\nThen some fish are dogs?”<\/p>\n

Once you grasp the concept of “Secundum Quid” you can alter the very fabric of reality… using your enemy’s own flawed thinking *against* them.<\/p>\n

So now I pose to you… is the web fake?
\nIs everyone on the web a phony?<\/p>\n

Do you have enough information to draw that conclusion?
\nDo you have enough information to draw that conclusion with those you know in real life?<\/p>\n

There’s three sides to every story. One side, the other side (both using secundum quid, based solely on their perspective.), and somewhere in the middle is a thin, grey line called “the PURE truth”.<\/p>\n

Rarely (if ever) do you see that side of the story. Even in real life “the history books are written by the winners”.<\/p>\n

Weblogs are one-sided accounts based on the perspective of ONE person. You will know *only* what they want you to know. See *only* what they want you to see.<\/p>\n