You don’t need gun rights.
You need a set of demands.
And many men to show up and demand them.
And to disrupt data, power, gas, water, transport if they are not met. Germany is economically fragile. The state’s authority is from economics only.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-20 19:44:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1230578912889069571
Reply addressees: @Rudolf42431142
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1230568797930541056
Democrats (liberals) are psychotic, solipsistic, and kleptocratic by nature. Once you grok it’s all genetics, that they’re all cognitively female, and that nothing can be done, there is no possibility for democracy to survive without market pressure on lower class reproduction.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-20 15:17:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1230511769342369792
Reply addressees: @Libertyworld
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1230498352439025666
SECOND AMENDENT ENFORCEMENT
By Jerry Odom.
Any individual, governmental, private representative, or entity at any level of the government that introduces or votes to pass any new law, legislation, ordinance, or resolution on any aspects related to the bearing, holding, carrying, transportation, or storage of firearms, or, any aspect included within this amendment will be considered an act of treason.
Their position will be automatically forfeited; they shall never be allowed to serve in any function of the government whether at the Local, State, or Federal levels for the remainder of their lifetime. Local law enforcement shall remove any individual who does not self-vacate.
In the unlikely event that the local law enforcement fails to act on the same, they also will forfeit their positions immediately and can no longer serve in any capacity in the government for their lifetime as well.
Should the above occur, then any local Constitutional Militia shall have the right and duty, along with full law enforcement authority, including the use of deadly force, to remove the guilty parties and restore order.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-18 09:25:00 UTC
—“so yes, science can tell us what is but not what we ought to do.”—
[T]his is a justificationary position (sophism). |Decidability| = That which is not irreciprocal or false (negatively consequential) -> Value (personal strategy -> Positively Consequential) -> Preference (Inconsequential) [S]cience (law) tells us what we may not do (irreciprocity) – that which is unethical, and immoral. Anything that is not unethical and immoral is merely a PREFERENCE to be settled in the market competition for means and ends. What we ‘ought’ to do is anything we CAN organize voluntarily TO DO that which is not false or irreciprocal. Even so, we can just as equally test positive moral claims by the investments that you make, the externalities caused, and desired outcomes produced. All truth propositions are falsificationary. All moral claims are merely claims that one acts not immorally. All moral propositions, means, and outcomes are testable by reciprocity. All moral propositions are open to triangulation of the returns on investments (compare by ordinality if not cardinality). All moral propositions are decidable by adversarial competition in markets for voluntary production of moral outcomes, given scarcity and competition for means and outcomes. All markets produce empirical results, and as such are scientific. All epistemological questions are the result of falsification by adversarial competition. All moral questions are epistemological questions. All not-evil-immoral-unethical propositions are amoral, ethical, or good, depending upon the means of organizing their production, the structure of their production, and the returns on that production. We can make a claim to means, externalities, or ends, or all three. We can measure the claim, the means, the ends – all three, and do so scientifically. There is nothing in metaphysics, language, psychology, or sociology that cannot be expressed scientifically in these terms. That is a purely scientific statement. Conversely you cannot deny or falsify this statement. Period. If you don’t use these terms one can claim ignorance, on can claim expediency(cost), but one cannot claim anything else. As far as I know, the question of Morality is closed. You can try to create test after test but you will find no test that fails this test.
—“so yes, science can tell us what is but not what we ought to do.”—
[T]his is a justificationary position (sophism). |Decidability| = That which is not irreciprocal or false (negatively consequential) -> Value (personal strategy -> Positively Consequential) -> Preference (Inconsequential) [S]cience (law) tells us what we may not do (irreciprocity) – that which is unethical, and immoral. Anything that is not unethical and immoral is merely a PREFERENCE to be settled in the market competition for means and ends. What we ‘ought’ to do is anything we CAN organize voluntarily TO DO that which is not false or irreciprocal. Even so, we can just as equally test positive moral claims by the investments that you make, the externalities caused, and desired outcomes produced. All truth propositions are falsificationary. All moral claims are merely claims that one acts not immorally. All moral propositions, means, and outcomes are testable by reciprocity. All moral propositions are open to triangulation of the returns on investments (compare by ordinality if not cardinality). All moral propositions are decidable by adversarial competition in markets for voluntary production of moral outcomes, given scarcity and competition for means and outcomes. All markets produce empirical results, and as such are scientific. All epistemological questions are the result of falsification by adversarial competition. All moral questions are epistemological questions. All not-evil-immoral-unethical propositions are amoral, ethical, or good, depending upon the means of organizing their production, the structure of their production, and the returns on that production. We can make a claim to means, externalities, or ends, or all three. We can measure the claim, the means, the ends – all three, and do so scientifically. There is nothing in metaphysics, language, psychology, or sociology that cannot be expressed scientifically in these terms. That is a purely scientific statement. Conversely you cannot deny or falsify this statement. Period. If you don’t use these terms one can claim ignorance, on can claim expediency(cost), but one cannot claim anything else. As far as I know, the question of Morality is closed. You can try to create test after test but you will find no test that fails this test.
[R]ussell’s Paradox (a version of the liar’s paradox), is not a paradox, it’s an ill formed statement (Grammatical error) because it failed the test of continuously recursive ambiguity – which is what ‘grammar’ means: rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. Nearly all seemingly challenging philosophical questions play on some variation of the verb to be. In the case of the liar’s paradox in all its forms, it’s not a paradox it’s constructed ambiguity. Words don’t mean things. People mean things. They use language well or not well to state their meaning – or their deceit. A number is the name of a position, and beyond the base (glyphs) we use ‘Positional Naming’. We can name anything we choose with a position in an order just like we can name anything else. All that matters is that we all rely on the same names in the same order. Numbers exist as names. That’s it. Nothing else. Mathematics is ill-grounded (vulnerable to grammatical errors) because of sets (platonic, ideal, verbal) rather than operations (gears and geometry). If you explain all mathematics using positional names, gears, and geometry (as it was invented) you do not expose yourself to grammatical errors. The same is true of philosophical (verbal) statements. If you state all statements as promises, in operational prose, in complete sentences, without the ‘cheat’ (or lie) of the verb to be, you will have a very difficult time make grammatical errors. So the entire analytic program (sets) was a failure. So was the attempt to discover a via-positiva scientific method. This is because all epistemology is falsificationary and adversarial, with surviving truth propositions competing in networks of paradigms themselves in falsificationary and adversarial competition. Most of philosophy is little more than sophistry. (really) Everything that isn’t sophistry is in the domain of science including that science we call ‘grammar’. === COMMENTS ===
—“Not quite, as Godel presented a mathematical model of this phenomenon. You cannot reduce this to mere positivistic linguistics. On which point, are you not assuming Chomsky’s universal grammar with your definition of grammar? If so, this has been shown to be unempirical.”—Rik Storey
I didn’t say anything like that. I’m saying that he’s correct. I haven’t met anyone other than the author of the best book on the subject that understands the limit of Godel’s argument: (a) we identify new constant relations (experiences) (b) we invent new references (c) we invent new paradigms (d) we require grammars to talk about them (e) we can make ungrammatical statements. Godel said it. Turing said it. Kripke said it. So there is no closure to logic without appeal to the operational, empirical, limits and completeness, and even then there is only closure on falsification not justification. There is nothing positivistic in P. It’s purely falsificationary. Either it survives adverstarial competition by the terms stated in testimonialism or it doesn’t. If more than one does, then we just don’t know and nothing else can be said.
—“Oh very well. In that case, we must still follow Godel’s Platonism because of the assumptions we make in a purely sceptical and empirical worldview. That or nihilism are our two consistent options.”—Rik Storey
I can’t translate that into operational language. I don’t know what you mean. “…we must still follow Godel’s Platonism…” (Godel’s argument was operational, by applying the technique of pairing off (the foundation of mathematics in positional names) producing unique names for operations. Not all statements available in all grammar and vocabulary will be decidable within that grammar and vocabulary. And he did this for the special case of addition as an example, under the presumption the model would hold. But all he is saying is that no language is closed (other than first order logics maybe. Same is true even for math. We can write formulae that are descriptive but not deducible (we can’t write a proof)). and how does that relate to: “purely skeptical and empirical” (Permanently contingent, uncertain, cannot abandon continuous learning and adaptation?) and what do you mean by: “worldview” (means of understanding, predicting, decision making? paradigm?)
—“I made a similar argument on a Philosophy page. Russell’s paradox is just a domain error. A barber in a set of barbers or a tree in a forest. In the objective empirical world, it’s just a grammatical error. In the abstract world of numbers, a set of all sets must contain itself. “All” being transcendent can break the normal rules.”—Andrew M Gilmour
yep
RUSSELL’ S PARADOX ISNT.
Russell’s Paradox (a version of the liar’s paradox), is not a paradox, it’s an ill formed statement (Grammatical error) because it failed the test of continuously recursive ambiguity – which is what ‘grammar’ means: rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. Nearly all seemingly challenging philosophical questions play on some variation of the verb to be. In the case of the liar’s paradox in all its forms, it’s not a paradox it’s constructed ambiguity. Words don’t mean things. People mean things. They use language well or not well to state their meaning – or their deceit.
A number is the name of a position, and beyond the base (glyphs) we use ‘Positional Naming’. We can name anything we choose with a position in an order just like we can name anything else. All that matters is that we all rely on the same names in the same order. Numbers exist as names. That’s it. Nothing else.
Mathematics is ill-grounded (vulnerable to grammatical errors) because of sets (platonic, ideal, verbal) rather than operations (gears and geometry). If you explain all mathematics using positional names, gears, and geometry (as it was invented) you do not expose yourself to grammatical errors.
The same is true of philosophical (verbal) statements. If you state all statements as promises, in operational prose, in complete sentences, without the ‘cheat’ (or lie) of the verb to be, you will have a very difficult time make grammatical errors.
So the entire analytic program (sets) was a failure. So was the attempt to discover a via-positiva scientific method. This is because all epistemology is falsificationary and adversarial, with surviving truth propositions competing in networks of paradigms themselves in falsificationary and adversarial competition.
Most of philosophy is little more than sophistry. (really)
Everything that isn’t sophistry is in the domain of science including that science we call ‘grammar’.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-17 13:39:00 UTC
SORRY BUT SCIENCE SOLVED MORALITY – MORALITY IS CLOSED,.
—“so yes, science can tell us what is but not what we ought to do.”—
This is a justificationary position (sophism).
|Decidability| = That which is not irreciprocal or false (negatively consequential) -> Value (personal strategy -> Positively Consequential) -> Preference (Inconsequential)
Science (law) tells us what we may not do (irreciprocity) – that which is unethical, and immoral. Anything that is not unethical and immoral is merely a PREFERENCE to be settled in the market competition for means and ends.
What we ‘ought’ to do is anything we CAN organize voluntarily TO DO that which is not false or irreciprocal.
Even so, we can just as equally test positive moral claims by the investments that you make, the externalities caused, and desired outcomes produced.
All truth propositions are falsificationary.
All moral claims are merely claims that one acts not immorally.
All moral propositions, means, and outcomes are testable by reciprocity.
All moral propositions are open to triangulation of the returns on investments (compare by ordinality if not cardinality).
All moral propositions are decidable by adversarial competition in markets for voluntary production of moral outcomes, given scarcity and competition for means and outcomes.
All markets produce empirical results, and as such are scientific. All epistemological questions are the result of falsification by adversarial competition. All moral questions are epistemological questions.
All not-evil-immoral-unethical propositions are amoral, ethical, or good, depending upon the means of organizing their production, the structure of their production, and the returns on that production.
We can make a claim to means, externalities, or ends, or all three. We can measure the claim, the means, the ends – all three, and do so scientifically.
There is nothing in metaphysics, language, psychology, or sociology that cannot be expressed scientifically in these terms.
That is a purely scientific statement. Conversely you cannot deny or falsify this statement.
Period.
If you don’t use these terms one can claim ignorance, on can claim expediency(cost), but one cannot claim anything else.
As far as I know, The question of Morality is closed.
You can try to create test after test but you will find no test that fails this test.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-17 12:36:00 UTC
YES EUGENICS WORKS. PERIOD. SO DO MANY THINGS WE DON”T DO.
—“No he’s not, he’s offering support to eugenics. It’s not scientifically, ethically, or socially valid AT ALL. Go read some bioethics.”—Dr Julie Blommaert @drjulie_b
Julie you are a typical product of the feminist postmodern pseudoscience movement. (a) Eugenics would work. (b) So would many other things we don’t do. Even genocide works – it’s the most effective historical means of evolutionary competition. We don’t do it. SO STOP LYING. We have lost a full standard deviation of intelligence above the Hajnal Line in the past 150 years due to reversal. We’re just about to cross the line of 97 in the USA, and evidence is that 95 and 93 are cliff effects that are unrecoverable. That’s before personality trait diffs. So go read bio-ethics yourself. Not propaganda. Not marxist, feminist, postmodernist pseudoscience and sophistry. What is the human cost of reversing thousands of years of soft eugenics by taxation and credit expansion in the middle to profit the top and expand the bottom? Economics (in the Beckerian tradition) should be required to get any degree and any pretense of conception of what ‘ethics’ means. People like you are a cancer for mankind.
YES EUGENICS WORKS. PERIOD. SO DO MANY THINGS WE DON”T DO.
—“No he’s not, he’s offering support to eugenics. It’s not scientifically, ethically, or socially valid AT ALL. Go read some bioethics.”—Dr Julie Blommaert @drjulie_b
Julie you are a typical product of the feminist postmodern pseudoscience movement. (a) Eugenics would work. (b) So would many other things we don’t do. Even genocide works – it’s the most effective historical means of evolutionary competition. We don’t do it. SO STOP LYING. We have lost a full standard deviation of intelligence above the Hajnal Line in the past 150 years due to reversal. We’re just about to cross the line of 97 in the USA, and evidence is that 95 and 93 are cliff effects that are unrecoverable. That’s before personality trait diffs. So go read bio-ethics yourself. Not propaganda. Not marxist, feminist, postmodernist pseudoscience and sophistry. What is the human cost of reversing thousands of years of soft eugenics by taxation and credit expansion in the middle to profit the top and expand the bottom? Economics (in the Beckerian tradition) should be required to get any degree and any pretense of conception of what ‘ethics’ means. People like you are a cancer for mankind.