I’ve been going to bed early and sleeping late for almost four weeks now and its just beginning to make a difference. Burnout sucks. And I keep doing it. Doesn’t ambition come with a regulator? I don’t seem to be able to find mine.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-17 13:53:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-17 13:44:00 UTC
I know hollywood and the fashion media were trying to ‘internationalize’ beauty a bit, and are now they’re trying ‘odd’ looks in order to further downmarket to the emerging prole market. Marketing chases those spending on signals and the prole market is now the big source of cheap volume signal revenue.
But I mean once you’ve seen Anita Ekberg, Grace Kelly, Ann Margaret, Brooke Shields, Charlize Theron, and for good measure, Monica Bellucci, and realize it’s all the math of genetic symmetry, being raised well, and the brains to use what god gave you.
Now, personally, I go for the more diminutive jaw lines: Hepburn, Sophie Marceau, Megan Fox kinda thing. But I know that’s preference not fact.
Beauty is a science.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-17 13:34:00 UTC
—“Bad individuals attract each other to form Bad groups; then comes Bad communities and Bad nations.”—Kari Bannerman
Pretty much yep. But I tend to think of it this way: people group by reproductive, productive, political, and signal strategies.
***And it is irrational to suggest that they do otherwise***
Why? Because why should a human tolerate an undesirable condition of there are rational means of changing it that lack negative consequences for him?
If one does not produce negative consequences for bads, then one will find them.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-17 09:59:00 UTC
COMPUTABILITY VS CALCULABILITY VS PROBABILITY VS IMAGINABILITY
Computability, calculability and probability and imaginability are four different things.
Equations are calculable by human beings.
Equations may or may not be computable by machines.
Calculations may include deduction, and humans can perform them.
Computations do not involve deduction, and machines can perform them.
Probability does not involve deduction but induction (guessing).
Imagination does not involve deduction or induction (guessing), but free association.
Computable > Calculable > Probable > Imaginable > Unimaginable.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-17 09:50:00 UTC
COMPARE TESTIMONIALISM WITH TOULMIN
Testimonialism proves explanatory power across every domain.
Toulmin -vs- Testimonialism
“Claim,” : Hypothesis (guess)
“Data,” : External Correspondence
“Warrant”: Existential Possibility (operational)
“Backing”: Internal Consistency
“Rebuttal” : Limits
“Qualifier” : Warranty (confidence)
TOULMIN:
In The Uses of Argument (1958), Toulmin proposed a layout containing six interrelated components for analyzing arguments:
Claim: Conclusions whose merit must be established. For example, if a person tries to convince a listener that he is a British citizen, the claim would be “I am a British citizen.” (1)
Data: The facts we appeal to as a foundation for the claim. For example, the person introduced in 1 can support his claim with the supporting data “I was born in Bermuda.” (2)
Warrant: The statement authorizing our movement from the data to the claim. In order to move from the data established in 2, “I was born in Bermuda,” to the claim in 1, “I am a British citizen,” the person must supply a warrant to bridge the gap between 1 & 2 with the statement “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen.”
Backing: Credentials designed to certify the statement expressed in the warrant; backing must be introduced when the warrant itself is not convincing enough to the readers or the listeners. For example, if the listener does not deem the warrant in 3 as credible, the speaker will supply the legal provisions as backing statement to show that it is true that “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British Citizen.”
Rebuttal: Statements recognizing the restrictions to which the claim may legitimately be applied. The rebuttal is exemplified as follows, “A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British citizen, unless he has betrayed Britain and has become a spy of another country.”
Qualifier: Words or phrases expressing the speaker’s degree of force or certainty concerning the claim. Such words or phrases include “possible,” “probably,” “impossible,” “certainly,” “presumably,” “as far as the evidence goes,” or “necessarily.” The claim “I am definitely a British citizen” has a greater degree of force than the claim “I am a British citizen, presumably.”
The first three elements “claim,” “data,” and “warrant” are considered as the essential components of practical arguments, while the second triad “qualifier,” “backing,” and “rebuttal” may not be needed in some arguments.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-17 06:52:00 UTC
NEW CATEGORIES OF ARGUMENT
Excerpt from “Mastery > Debate > Types of Discourse”
(…)
7) NEW: CRITIQUE: A type of deceitful argument that uses heaping of undue praise, selective information, asymmetric information, loading, framing, overloading, suggestion, deceit, lying and fraud, by heaping of undue praise, criticizing a competing position, rather than demonstrating that one’s own proposition survives scrutiny. Practice proposes a poorly articulated ideal by heaping undue praise upon it, then constructing a straw man of the opposition argument, and constructing a detailed criticism of it. The purpose of this technique is not to advance the stated solution that the audience does not understand, or is not familiar with, but to undermine the audience’s confidence in the opposing argument that the audience does understand, or is familiar with. In other words: polluting the commons with disinformation.
8) NEW: CRITICISM : A type of scientific argument spoken or written, that uses ratio-scientific arguments to attempt to falsify a proposition in order to determine whether it can survive scrutiny. A criticism is used to test propositions in the physical sciences.
9) NEW: *PROSECUTION* : A type of scientific argument, spoken or written, that seeks determine if a proposition is false, biased, wishful, suggestive, deceptive, our outright fraudulent, in order to obtain a discount, rent, or theft. A Prosecution is used to test propositions in the cooperative sciences.
(…)
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-17 06:37:00 UTC
EUGENICS: FAILURES CANNOT BE UNDONE
*Dollo’s law — “An organism is unable to return, even partially, to a previous stage already realized in the ranks of its ancestors.”
Simply put this law states that evolution is not reversible.
That is why you protect your own.
1 – Knowledge cannot be unknown.
2 – Actions cannot be undone.
3 – Genes cannot be restored.
4 – Time cannot be reversed.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-17 06:17:00 UTC
ELIMINATION OF ‘TAXES’.
As far as I know the only ‘fee’ that produces no malincentives is a universal sales tax (a fee) on all activity within the market. I would prefer (myself) that prices included this fee as a percentage, and that it was totally transparent to everyone. I have fought with the idea that this ‘fee’ is collected and redistributed as inflation of the money supply through direct redistribution (dilution) rather than through credit and interest. As long as the rate is relatively predictable then I don’t see the any informational reason why it wouldn’t work – or why we should pay interest to third parties who merely accumulate capital via this inflationary process.
The only reason we don’t do this is because we can’t trust the government to leave our fees constant, or to buy votes with the use of these fees. This is again a fixable problem if we use direct economic democracy for the provision of commons and do not make use of representatives. Moreover, we would have to participate as houses since at any given time a decreasing minority of the population is productive.
As for local improvements, I don’t see why we pool this money as taxes rather than apportion a debt and pay it off one way or the other – maintaining operational calculability, and eliminating political discretion. I assume most people would simply let the debt accumulate on their property and pay it when they transferred (sold) it. Again this is preventable.
Do we really need drivers license fees? Do we really need income taxes or income tax forms? Do we really need to conduct campaigns and decide on character, rather than to post ideas and decide upon which ones we want to pay for? No. No we don’t.
Voting for individuals is another error of aggregation. Just as Keynesian economics is an error of aggregation – an admission that we do not understand, and are ‘winging it’. They are excuses to make us think we have influence and decision rather than the truth that we are farmed like other domesticated animals.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-17 05:58:00 UTC
—In a general sense, a direct tax is one imposed upon an individual person (juristic or natural) or property (i.e. real and personal property, livestock, crops, wages, etc.) as distinct from a tax imposed upon a transaction. In this sense, indirect taxes such as a sales tax or a value added tax (VAT) are imposed only if and when a taxable transaction occurs. People have the freedom to engage in or refrain from such transactions; whereas a direct tax (in the general sense) is imposed upon a person, typically in an unconditional manner, such as a poll-tax or head-tax, which is imposed on the basis of the person’s very life or existence, or a property tax which is imposed upon the owner by virtue of ownership, rather than commercial use. Some commentators have argued that “a direct tax is one that cannot be shifted by the taxpayer to someone else, whereas an indirect tax can be. The unconditional, inexorable aspect of the direct tax was a paramount concern of people in the 18th century seeking to escape tyrannical forms of government and to safeguard individual liberty.—
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-17 04:49:00 UTC