Supreme Court: Bakers and Gays.
(sorry, just had to crank this one out at 2:45am)
Arguments before the court are incorrect. There is a vast difference between personal conviction, small business between individuals, enterprise policy, and practical monopoly.
There is no practical monopoly of cake bakers, there is no enterprise policy forcing interpersonal rejection, and so this is an interpersonal matter of a difference in ethics.
I mean, I wouldn’t ask a jew to make a nazi cake. I just wouldn’t because that would VIOLATE RECIPROCITY.
And I wouldn’t confuse my personal conviction with corporate policy, nor near monopoly policy depriving choice in a market, nor political policy determining rights under rule of law before the courts.
I don’t let certain people service me in stores because I do not want to reward their manner of dress or speech or behavior, or ‘attire of separatism’. But I am happy to simply move on to someone else, and aside from utilities, I don’t see any commerce I can conduct that is a near monopoly.
So this has been a travesty since the beginning.
Voluntary Reciprocity provides the answer to everything.
Form: Argument
-
SAYING “SCIENTIFIC PROOF” OF A POSITIVE JUST MEANS YOUR STUPID. –“Scientific Pr
SAYING “SCIENTIFIC PROOF” OF A POSITIVE JUST MEANS YOUR STUPID.
–“Scientific Proof Is A Myth. We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That’s an impossibility for science.”—
This is the dumbest bit of idiocy I’ve heard in quite some time.
Priests, Philosophers, and lawyers, create JUSTIFICATIONS of compliance with scripture, text, moral pretense, or law.
Mathematicians construct PROOFS of the possibility of deducibility using the preservation of constant relations, by the preservation of ratios.
Scientists accumulates FALSIFICATIONS. Science doesn’t construct proofs or justifications. It accumulates produces, and provides alternative opportunities for investigation.
All non trivial knowledge is contingent. Science collects evidence that tells us what is not true. The purpose of science is to end ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, by the continuous reduction through falsification. Conversely, the purpose of justification is to make excuses for priors.
One justifies as one makes excuses for one’s actions.
One constructs proofs as a merchant weights goods on a scale.
One falsifies as a sculpture chisels away stone.
We never know what is true. We just know what is false, or what cannot be claimed to be true. Excuses may be valid but they are only true if they survive all attempts at falsification by deflation (decomposition into constant relations) and measurement (science)
Philosophy is more often a vehicle for lying than for truth. Science produces falsehoods and possibilities, but never claims truth except by survival.
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-04 12:24:00 UTC
-
SAYING “SCIENTIFIC PROOF” OF A POSITIVE JUST MEANS YOUR STUPID. –“Scientific Pr
SAYING “SCIENTIFIC PROOF” OF A POSITIVE JUST MEANS YOUR STUPID. –“Scientific Proof Is A Myth. We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That’s an impossibility for science.”— This is the dumbest bit of idiocy I’ve heard in quite some time. Priests, Philosophers, and lawyers, create JUSTIFICATIONS of compliance with scripture, text, moral pretense, or law. Mathematicians construct PROOFS of the possibility of deducibility using the preservation of constant relations, by the preservation of ratios. Scientists accumulates FALSIFICATIONS. Science doesn’t construct proofs or justifications. It accumulates produces, and provides alternative opportunities for investigation. All non trivial knowledge is contingent. Science collects evidence that tells us what is not true. The purpose of science is to end ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, by the continuous reduction through falsification. Conversely, the purpose of justification is to make excuses for priors. One justifies as one makes excuses for one’s actions. One constructs proofs as a merchant weights goods on a scale. One falsifies as a sculpture chisels away stone. We never know what is true. We just know what is false, or what cannot be claimed to be true. Excuses may be valid but they are only true if they survive all attempts at falsification by deflation (decomposition into constant relations) and measurement (science) Philosophy is more often a vehicle for lying than for truth. Science produces falsehoods and possibilities, but never claims truth except by survival. -
SAYING “SCIENTIFIC PROOF” OF A POSITIVE JUST MEANS YOUR STUPID. –“Scientific Pr
SAYING “SCIENTIFIC PROOF” OF A POSITIVE JUST MEANS YOUR STUPID. –“Scientific Proof Is A Myth. We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That’s an impossibility for science.”— This is the dumbest bit of idiocy I’ve heard in quite some time. Priests, Philosophers, and lawyers, create JUSTIFICATIONS of compliance with scripture, text, moral pretense, or law. Mathematicians construct PROOFS of the possibility of deducibility using the preservation of constant relations, by the preservation of ratios. Scientists accumulates FALSIFICATIONS. Science doesn’t construct proofs or justifications. It accumulates produces, and provides alternative opportunities for investigation. All non trivial knowledge is contingent. Science collects evidence that tells us what is not true. The purpose of science is to end ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, by the continuous reduction through falsification. Conversely, the purpose of justification is to make excuses for priors. One justifies as one makes excuses for one’s actions. One constructs proofs as a merchant weights goods on a scale. One falsifies as a sculpture chisels away stone. We never know what is true. We just know what is false, or what cannot be claimed to be true. Excuses may be valid but they are only true if they survive all attempts at falsification by deflation (decomposition into constant relations) and measurement (science) Philosophy is more often a vehicle for lying than for truth. Science produces falsehoods and possibilities, but never claims truth except by survival. -
HITLER SIMPLY CO-OPTED THE TERM “SOCIALISM”. NATSOC HAD NOTHING IN COMMON WITH I
HITLER SIMPLY CO-OPTED THE TERM “SOCIALISM”. NATSOC HAD NOTHING IN COMMON WITH IT.
Hitler used the term for a marketing measure, just as the communist party in china uses ‘socialism with chinese characteristics’. The soviets and the early chinese practiced socialism. NatSoc combined nationalism, an aesthetic nationalist religion, something approximating economic autarky, and a total prohibition on criticism. All governments shift between direction of the economy in war (Total War under Napoleon) and relatively free markets. Germany was attempting to fight off international communism – particularly Russia and Hitler mobilized an economy for total war under the Napoleonic model. I tend to use the term Fascism for this purpose. But technically speaking, we have no technical definition of fascism. I am still not convinced that the combination state-private industry, and otherwise private property, with strict constraints on the retention of profits within the polity, and total suppression of opposition isn’t a good thing. The difference is that I would write a constitution of natural law so that it could not be abused. In fact, in most of my work I advocate what I call market fascism for the simple reason that I do not think opposition to rule of law and nationalism should be tolerated. If the courts exist then that is sufficient means of protection of the individual. The court of public opinion, as the 20th century has demonstrated, consists almost entirely of gossip, pseudoscience, and lies.
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-01 16:56:00 UTC
-
HITLER SIMPLY CO-OPTED THE TERM “SOCIALISM”. NATSOC HAD NOTHING IN COMMON WITH I
HITLER SIMPLY CO-OPTED THE TERM “SOCIALISM”. NATSOC HAD NOTHING IN COMMON WITH IT. Hitler used the term for a marketing measure, just as the communist party in china uses ‘socialism with chinese characteristics’. The soviets and the early chinese practiced socialism. NatSoc combined nationalism, an aesthetic nationalist religion, something approximating economic autarky, and a total prohibition on criticism. All governments shift between direction of the economy in war (Total War under Napoleon) and relatively free markets. Germany was attempting to fight off international communism – particularly Russia and Hitler mobilized an economy for total war under the Napoleonic model. I tend to use the term Fascism for this purpose. But technically speaking, we have no technical definition of fascism. I am still not convinced that the combination state-private industry, and otherwise private property, with strict constraints on the retention of profits within the polity, and total suppression of opposition isn’t a good thing. The difference is that I would write a constitution of natural law so that it could not be abused. In fact, in most of my work I advocate what I call market fascism for the simple reason that I do not think opposition to rule of law and nationalism should be tolerated. If the courts exist then that is sufficient means of protection of the individual. The court of public opinion, as the 20th century has demonstrated, consists almost entirely of gossip, pseudoscience, and lies. -
HITLER SIMPLY CO-OPTED THE TERM “SOCIALISM”. NATSOC HAD NOTHING IN COMMON WITH I
HITLER SIMPLY CO-OPTED THE TERM “SOCIALISM”. NATSOC HAD NOTHING IN COMMON WITH IT. Hitler used the term for a marketing measure, just as the communist party in china uses ‘socialism with chinese characteristics’. The soviets and the early chinese practiced socialism. NatSoc combined nationalism, an aesthetic nationalist religion, something approximating economic autarky, and a total prohibition on criticism. All governments shift between direction of the economy in war (Total War under Napoleon) and relatively free markets. Germany was attempting to fight off international communism – particularly Russia and Hitler mobilized an economy for total war under the Napoleonic model. I tend to use the term Fascism for this purpose. But technically speaking, we have no technical definition of fascism. I am still not convinced that the combination state-private industry, and otherwise private property, with strict constraints on the retention of profits within the polity, and total suppression of opposition isn’t a good thing. The difference is that I would write a constitution of natural law so that it could not be abused. In fact, in most of my work I advocate what I call market fascism for the simple reason that I do not think opposition to rule of law and nationalism should be tolerated. If the courts exist then that is sufficient means of protection of the individual. The court of public opinion, as the 20th century has demonstrated, consists almost entirely of gossip, pseudoscience, and lies. -
LOOK. I WON’T GET ON THE ANTI-ANYONE BANDWAGON. I PROSECUTE IDEAS, ARGUMENTS, FA
LOOK. I WON’T GET ON THE ANTI-ANYONE BANDWAGON. I PROSECUTE IDEAS, ARGUMENTS, FALSEHOODS, AND LIES.
We must all advocate for our kin first. Yes. But small-state nationalism is the answer.
—“…if you’re not racist…”– A ‘friend’
Racial Realism is very different from racism (criticism of others). Other races or tribes, or cults, or parties are only a problem if YOU LET THEM BE.
The primary difference between the races appears to be degree of neotonic evolution, and the degree of suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses.
The higher the distribution (suppression of the underclass) and the higher the neoteny (slowing of maturity) the greater the trust, the higher the velocity, the greater the production of knowledge and wealth.
As far as I know, that’s the science.
My opinion remains: if you’re bitching about others you’re just like some woman gossiping because she doesn’t like her position in the status hierarchy.
If you say act to alter that condition for the preservation of your kin, and your status, due to the competitive advantage of your elites, by changing yourself, your government, to preserve that advantage from competitors, then that’s just boring ordinary scientific rationality.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-30 12:59:00 UTC
-
Look. I Won’t Get On The Anti-Anyone Bandwagon. I Prosecute Ideas, Arguments, Falsehoods, And Lies.
We must all advocate for our kin first. Yes. But small-state nationalism is the answer. —“…if you’re not racist…”– A ‘friend’ Racial Realism is very different from racism (criticism of others). Other races or tribes, or cults, or parties are only a problem if YOU LET THEM BE. The primary difference between the races appears to be degree of neotonic evolution, and the degree of suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses. The higher the distribution (suppression of the underclass) and the higher the neoteny (slowing of maturity) the greater the trust, the higher the velocity, the greater the production of knowledge and wealth. As far as I know, that’s the science. My opinion remains: if you’re bitching about others you’re just like some woman gossiping because she doesn’t like her position in the status hierarchy. If you say act to alter that condition for the preservation of your kin, and your status, due to the competitive advantage of your elites, by changing yourself, your government, to preserve that advantage from competitors, then that’s just boring ordinary scientific rationality. -
Look. I Won’t Get On The Anti-Anyone Bandwagon. I Prosecute Ideas, Arguments, Falsehoods, And Lies.
We must all advocate for our kin first. Yes. But small-state nationalism is the answer. —“…if you’re not racist…”– A ‘friend’ Racial Realism is very different from racism (criticism of others). Other races or tribes, or cults, or parties are only a problem if YOU LET THEM BE. The primary difference between the races appears to be degree of neotonic evolution, and the degree of suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses. The higher the distribution (suppression of the underclass) and the higher the neoteny (slowing of maturity) the greater the trust, the higher the velocity, the greater the production of knowledge and wealth. As far as I know, that’s the science. My opinion remains: if you’re bitching about others you’re just like some woman gossiping because she doesn’t like her position in the status hierarchy. If you say act to alter that condition for the preservation of your kin, and your status, due to the competitive advantage of your elites, by changing yourself, your government, to preserve that advantage from competitors, then that’s just boring ordinary scientific rationality.