I really feel I must reply. In fact my 'proof by contradiction’is not meant to be anything but, and the truth of the matter is in my mind beyond dispute, since the problem of attitude, arrogantly presupposed seems to be the final arbiter.
Arrogance is a optically playing metaphor which appears to eat up the contents of the dynamic manifested results of primary contradiction, which after all is at the heart of the discussion between determining and intentional factors which come into play.
That I have openly come out expressing my opposition to Polish Youngster’s ban, should be ample evidence to where I honestly stand fir a politically neutral sounding board regarding the coming objective validity of a sought after position yet not defined.
This contradictory premise is fodder to conflation thus becomes a reflection of a necessery literal solution vis one where allusion through contingency is manifested through what appears to be control; social or otherwise.
This is no longer an allusion but a manifested break. in the illusive power of contradiction.
What must happen will be seen as one that should happen rather then one that might happen.
The last is the idea of the functional utility any such reduction could have conceived,
Philosophycally speaking it is a conventional way of describing those, who explore these type of issues from the point of view toward and from this type of logic.
An example I can think of, is an MS of yesteryear: ‘Open society and It’s enemies’.