—-“Complexity is often employed to deceive, obfuscate, and evade the simplest of truths. The proper function of complexity is in the increased precision of truth telling, rather than the enhancement of lying.”—-Alex Houchens
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-19 11:24:00 UTC
TRUMP WON THE POPULAR VOTE, JUST NOT THE CALIFORNIA POPULAR VOTE.
—“Clinton’s 2.3-million-popular-vote plurality over Trump depends on the votes in a single state: California. Clinton has more than a 4-million-vote plurality over Trump there. In the other 49 states plus the District of Columbia, Trump actually has a 1.7-million-popular-vote plurality over Clinton.”— James E. Campbell
IN OTHER WORDS, THE ELECTORAL VOTE SYSTEM DID ITS JOB OF PREVENTING ONE RADICAL STATE FROM OPPRESSING THE REST.
James E. Campbell is a UB Distinguished Professor of Political Science at the University at Buffalo, SUNY, and is the author of “Polarized: Making Sense of a Divided America”.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-hillary-clinton-supporters-need-to-quit-whining-about-the-electoral-college-2016-11-30
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-19 11:13:00 UTC
—“Property norms are about superior claims. The current condition of the “unused” land is subsidized at gun point by victims of tax theft. Those victims therefore have the best objective link to its use. An open border policy is therefore the forceful redistribution of resources from those with superior property claims to those with inferior property claims.”—Jared Howe
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-19 10:11:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-18 22:22:00 UTC
1) if we CAN fully expand a sentence, before we test it for internal consistency, and we do not do so, then why? In other words, what is the informational content between an unexpanded sentence, and an expanded sentence? And why would we fail to expand a sentence that can be expanded?
What is the difference between the order of terms in mathematics, the order of terms in set statements, and the order of terms in operational language, and the order of terms in fully expanded natural language, and the order of terms in colloquial natural language?
So if we start with a statement in colloquial language then fully expand it in natural language, then fully expand it in operational language, then it is almost impossible to construct the vast majority of sophomoric pseudo-philosophical questions.
2) The necessity of the prohibition on the verb to-be, (another category of expansion) evolved to prevent stating authoritatively that which is merely subjective opinion. But in addition, it also prevents conflating intention, experience, interpretations, and actions. Of which we can only test actions.
3) Promissory expansion of statements (sentences) evolved to prevent forms of suggestion and conflation. (Instead of Strawson’s light version of performative truth, use promissory – strict -construction that precedes each statement ” I promise that….”
4) In the sequence:
1 – identity (categorically consistent)
2 – logical (internally consistent)
3 – empirical (externally consistent)
4 – operational (existentially consistent)
5 – moral (reciprocally consistent)
6 – fully accounted (scope consistent)
7 – limits and parsimony (limit consistent);
each dimension of which increases the informational content we are testing …. we have the choice of choosing to increase the dimensions that we test, using the methodology capable of testing that dimension, or limiting ourselves to the current dimension’s means of testing.
Now, when we increase the dimensions, we gain new knowledge which we can then use to recursively test each prior dimension by its method.
So why would one choose to test a question by internal consistency rather than external correspondence followed by another test of internal consistency?
5) When testing for internal consistency, we eventually run into the problem of completeness. And while we can construct relatively complete statements axiomatically we cannot do so theoretically (against reality) because of causal density, except in the special cases (reductio).
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-18 21:24:00 UTC
Humans are very simple creatures. The mind operates by very predictable means, by very clear incentives. It’s the layer cake of justificatinos, excuses,lies we tell ourselves and each other that make it possible.
We need to achieve a certain state. We attempt to achieve that state by the means available to us, and the techniques available to us.
Why? Because most of us are uncompetitive, average, nothings, or worse, and we need a means of feeling like we’re winning or succeeding that is a game rather than a problem. Everyone tries to invent a signal-game of some sort because so little of what we do is meaningful to anyone other than ourselves.
This used to be obtained through spiritualism of one form or another. But with the fall of religion we see secular people searching for all sorts of excuses to achieve the same ends by other means.
It’s ok. It’s like breathing. We gotta do it. – Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-18 21:20:00 UTC
—“I love the sweet taste of liberal tears”— (friend)
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-18 09:07:00 UTC
—“I must say I’m falling in love with ‘moral license to unleash retribution’. You break the consuetudines et usus pact and I get have my fun with you.”—Josh Jeppson
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-18 08:59:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a photo.
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-17 21:00:00 UTC
Ok. So in the next couple of months I have enough work to do, for thee people. No idea how I am going to get it all done….
Source date (UTC): 2016-12-17 19:59:00 UTC