Summary of text [comment] page 14
[What about lasting sin as the definitive turning away from Son of God?
Once iniquity is present, then simple denials of the consequences may not sufficient. The consequences that accrue to others may be too obvious.
Consequently, denials may account for those consequences (as due to something other than thinkgroup). The differences inherent in these denials contribute to the symbolic order of a thinkgroup. Thus, the language of the thinkgroup, as a system3 of differences1, excludes attribution of the consequences to the thinkgroup. Lawdenial becomes more difficult to counter.
Here is an example.
Consider a noisy party. The neighbors complain. How do the partiers respond when police come, telling them to “keep it down”? They call their neighbor’s “old fogies”.
What happened? The party of thinkparty has created the party of thinkold_fogies. The neighbors may not be “old fogies” at all, but now they are branded.
Branding may lead to further issues.
A partier, in disgust at the old fogies, breaks an empty beer bottle on the neighbor’s driveway.
The neighbors now have broken glass on their driveway. They had it coming to them. What else did they expect? The old-fogies.]