—“Law that is operationally constructed would end the “spirit/letter” distinction as it eliminates any room for discretion. It would by design be immune to pilpul, leaving no opportunity for rent seeking”—Justin Allred
Source: Original Site Post
-
Operationally Constructed Law Ends Pilpul and Talmudism
—“Law that is operationally constructed would end the “spirit/letter” distinction as it eliminates any room for discretion. It would by design be immune to pilpul, leaving no opportunity for rent seeking”—Justin Allred
-
No, Right Political Correctness Does Not Exist.
Right political correctness? That’s typical deceit by Pilpul. Left political correctness (postmodern shaming) relies on falsehoods to mask unpleasant truths. Conservative shaming relies on truths to prevent involuntary transfers. Conservative morality suppresses imposition of costs (meritocracy), left pretense of morality attempts to justify involuntary transfer (theft). What could be obtained by trade (usually conformity for subsidy) is sought at a discount by shaming. In other words, it’s using Pilpul to cast the equivalency of shaming as an equivalence of actions – and that’s dishonest (actually, fraudulent). Conservative reciprocity versus classical liberal equality of opportunity, vs leftist equality of outcome, versus radical leftist harm to truth, duty, reciprocity, and markets as a means of rebellion against low social, sexual, economic, and political market value. It’s just class warfare between middle class (desirable) and underclass (undesirable) genes, with the left playing top and bottom expanding low trust against the high trust but shrinking middle.
-
No, Right Political Correctness Does Not Exist.
Right political correctness? That’s typical deceit by Pilpul. Left political correctness (postmodern shaming) relies on falsehoods to mask unpleasant truths. Conservative shaming relies on truths to prevent involuntary transfers. Conservative morality suppresses imposition of costs (meritocracy), left pretense of morality attempts to justify involuntary transfer (theft). What could be obtained by trade (usually conformity for subsidy) is sought at a discount by shaming. In other words, it’s using Pilpul to cast the equivalency of shaming as an equivalence of actions – and that’s dishonest (actually, fraudulent). Conservative reciprocity versus classical liberal equality of opportunity, vs leftist equality of outcome, versus radical leftist harm to truth, duty, reciprocity, and markets as a means of rebellion against low social, sexual, economic, and political market value. It’s just class warfare between middle class (desirable) and underclass (undesirable) genes, with the left playing top and bottom expanding low trust against the high trust but shrinking middle.
-
Talmudism: Pilpul (Sophism) In Law
by Steven Jackson Talmudism is a method of exploiting the human error in the letter of the law to escape the spirit of the law. As law is a part of culture, within a homogeneous society peers can be relied upon to judge each other with regards to social norms. Hence the success of the Anglo jury of peers system. Laws do not need to be codified under such a system as the jury judges how reasonable the plaintiff’s actions were by comparing them to what their own would be given the circumstances. Talmudism is the codification of law and a strict adherence to exactly how it is written or how the bureaucracy is performed. This allows individuals to escape justice through loopholes and human error. This codification is only necessary when society is composed of various cultures. Within cultures there are different classes. So maybe underclass is the wrong and outgroup is the right word. Talmudism begins when several cultures interact in a single society and laws have to be codified to accommodate cultural differences. The abuse of the codification arises when pilpul is used to argue the letter of the law against the spirit of the law to escape justice. Law does not lead to talmudism, disregard for the host culture does
-
Talmudism: Pilpul (Sophism) In Law
by Steven Jackson Talmudism is a method of exploiting the human error in the letter of the law to escape the spirit of the law. As law is a part of culture, within a homogeneous society peers can be relied upon to judge each other with regards to social norms. Hence the success of the Anglo jury of peers system. Laws do not need to be codified under such a system as the jury judges how reasonable the plaintiff’s actions were by comparing them to what their own would be given the circumstances. Talmudism is the codification of law and a strict adherence to exactly how it is written or how the bureaucracy is performed. This allows individuals to escape justice through loopholes and human error. This codification is only necessary when society is composed of various cultures. Within cultures there are different classes. So maybe underclass is the wrong and outgroup is the right word. Talmudism begins when several cultures interact in a single society and laws have to be codified to accommodate cultural differences. The abuse of the codification arises when pilpul is used to argue the letter of the law against the spirit of the law to escape justice. Law does not lead to talmudism, disregard for the host culture does
-
-“Q:How did the concept of race begin?”-
I think this is well understood so I don’t know why anyone would ask it. However: HERE IS THE CORRECT ANSWER The categorization of people into groups of ethnicities is as old as the written record. People are referred to by the color of their skin and the egyptians who were an advanced people for many centuries were diligent in their depiction of the races. Greeks and romans categorized groups of people by region and skin tone and temperament. And the romans identified that personality traits were driven by geography and climate. 16th century, the ‘shrinking of the world’ due to the Age of Sail led to civilizational and ethnic categorizations. By the mid 19th century (1800’s) with the advent of Darwin’s research in particular, people both recognized that most ethnic groups could be categorized by regions of the world. The study of evolution made it rather obvious that we developed regional characteristics just as did all other animals. The success of the early eugenics movement, but the retaliation against the nazi use of eugenics led to postwar suppression of research, and pseudoscientific denialism of racial differences. The development of genetic studies has led to the restoration of research and the data is updated monthly with new findings. The most recent work with the most accessible data came out this year (2018) although I don’t think is available in paperback form yet. (“Who we are and how we got here” by David Reich). He tries to soft pedal against the race deniers, but the data is pretty solid now. The race-deniers have produced popular pseudoscience and been proven false. Those include Stephen j Gould (The Mismeasure of Man), and Richard Lewontin (“racial groups are more different internally than externally”) which is also false – and hard to believe anyone would even say such a thing. It’s so false that the profession has a name for it: “Lewontin’s Fallacy”. However it is better to take away that each group produced excellences given their geography, climate, regional competitors, and degree of development. And that the primary difference between the races that causes conflict (proximity creates hostility) is the vast difference in the size of the lower classes. IQ is the most accurate measure in psychology but when we average IQ we are really saying who has the smallest underclass and the bigger upper class? That’s what IQ by Race, Subrace, and Tribe means. So it is not so much that conflict is just racial, it’s that because the sizes of white, japanese, korean, and han underclasses are fairly small as a percentage of the population (and european jews have almost eliminated theirs), while the rest of the world tends to have much larger underclasses (from less hostile climates and less forced organized individual farms). So the problem is that our cultures are incompatible because cultures fill the needs of the median of the distribution – they must. If the eugenicists were successful and we did not have such a population explosion of the lower classes, then within a century the differences between the races would be merely trivial. But the fact that they are substantial because of the differences in the sizes of the underclasses and the political needs of those underclasses, the world remains a racially conflicted place. The east asians and indians are the most racist so far, with whites the least – which is just the opposite of what you’d think. Progressive Race, Inequality, and IQ Deniers vs Conservative Global Warming Deniers. Both deniers are trying to satisfy political ends. Truth is painful. Cheers
-
-“Q:How did the concept of race begin?”-
I think this is well understood so I don’t know why anyone would ask it. However: HERE IS THE CORRECT ANSWER The categorization of people into groups of ethnicities is as old as the written record. People are referred to by the color of their skin and the egyptians who were an advanced people for many centuries were diligent in their depiction of the races. Greeks and romans categorized groups of people by region and skin tone and temperament. And the romans identified that personality traits were driven by geography and climate. 16th century, the ‘shrinking of the world’ due to the Age of Sail led to civilizational and ethnic categorizations. By the mid 19th century (1800’s) with the advent of Darwin’s research in particular, people both recognized that most ethnic groups could be categorized by regions of the world. The study of evolution made it rather obvious that we developed regional characteristics just as did all other animals. The success of the early eugenics movement, but the retaliation against the nazi use of eugenics led to postwar suppression of research, and pseudoscientific denialism of racial differences. The development of genetic studies has led to the restoration of research and the data is updated monthly with new findings. The most recent work with the most accessible data came out this year (2018) although I don’t think is available in paperback form yet. (“Who we are and how we got here” by David Reich). He tries to soft pedal against the race deniers, but the data is pretty solid now. The race-deniers have produced popular pseudoscience and been proven false. Those include Stephen j Gould (The Mismeasure of Man), and Richard Lewontin (“racial groups are more different internally than externally”) which is also false – and hard to believe anyone would even say such a thing. It’s so false that the profession has a name for it: “Lewontin’s Fallacy”. However it is better to take away that each group produced excellences given their geography, climate, regional competitors, and degree of development. And that the primary difference between the races that causes conflict (proximity creates hostility) is the vast difference in the size of the lower classes. IQ is the most accurate measure in psychology but when we average IQ we are really saying who has the smallest underclass and the bigger upper class? That’s what IQ by Race, Subrace, and Tribe means. So it is not so much that conflict is just racial, it’s that because the sizes of white, japanese, korean, and han underclasses are fairly small as a percentage of the population (and european jews have almost eliminated theirs), while the rest of the world tends to have much larger underclasses (from less hostile climates and less forced organized individual farms). So the problem is that our cultures are incompatible because cultures fill the needs of the median of the distribution – they must. If the eugenicists were successful and we did not have such a population explosion of the lower classes, then within a century the differences between the races would be merely trivial. But the fact that they are substantial because of the differences in the sizes of the underclasses and the political needs of those underclasses, the world remains a racially conflicted place. The east asians and indians are the most racist so far, with whites the least – which is just the opposite of what you’d think. Progressive Race, Inequality, and IQ Deniers vs Conservative Global Warming Deniers. Both deniers are trying to satisfy political ends. Truth is painful. Cheers
-
Origins of The “Infantile Generation”
As far as I know: 1) The last generation educated under pre-postmodern teachers and professors has been exiting participation (people are now in fifties to sixties or later). The generation of postmodern teachers and professors have taught this generation, at the same time parents have over protected, and immigrant labor has eliminated demand for youth labor. And has communicated with smart phones rather than learned to drive, earn money, and integrate and cooperate with people holding different (more mature) views. This generation was not raised to be independent functioning adults, but pets, just as (beginning in the 1970s) relationships were not economic but ‘friendships’ which led to the higher divorce rates and the nearly ubiquitous ‘starter marriages’ that compensate (expensively) for failures to prepare children for adulthood. 2) The (“pet generation”, Millennials, “I-Generation”) began entering the consumer customer base, entering the academic customer base, social media customer base, and graduating into the young-underpaid-wanna-be-journalist base, each market appealed to these new consumers. 3) The same access that gives the alt-right influence on the internet gives the politically correct access on the internet. So the pet generation and the responsible remaining generations (the pet generation ends at 95 according to Haidt). 4) The social media platforms and web news and entertainment sites are primarily populated by these people young (pet generation) individuals and they are creating demand in every market including the political market. 5) The victim narrative plays well for first and second generation immigrants from underclasses, who have no chance of rotation out of the primarily genetic middle classes as did previous generations, because the post war economic advantage of labor has been neutralized by the universal adoption of literacy, education, consumer capitalism financed by fiat money and state credit capacity, and vast populations now competing with american labor. 6) These factors are all coinciding with the one-to-one replacement of whites with hispanics, and the recognition by the white working classes that without elites they will be left behind to suffer equality with the new underclasses. Hence the increasing identification of race and party. I dunno. This is all pretty well studied material. The problem is – it’s contrary to both new-left and old right narratives. The republicans assumed as good fools of the enlightenment that the top and bottom would move toward the middle. It would have happened but immigration has masked the various immigrant state economies, with those lacking immigrant cities collapsing under the weight of New Deal and Great Society (Soviet style) relocation programs. Even those immigrant cities would collapse if not for debt capacity. Why this is difficult to understand is always beyond me.
-
Origins of The “Infantile Generation”
As far as I know: 1) The last generation educated under pre-postmodern teachers and professors has been exiting participation (people are now in fifties to sixties or later). The generation of postmodern teachers and professors have taught this generation, at the same time parents have over protected, and immigrant labor has eliminated demand for youth labor. And has communicated with smart phones rather than learned to drive, earn money, and integrate and cooperate with people holding different (more mature) views. This generation was not raised to be independent functioning adults, but pets, just as (beginning in the 1970s) relationships were not economic but ‘friendships’ which led to the higher divorce rates and the nearly ubiquitous ‘starter marriages’ that compensate (expensively) for failures to prepare children for adulthood. 2) The (“pet generation”, Millennials, “I-Generation”) began entering the consumer customer base, entering the academic customer base, social media customer base, and graduating into the young-underpaid-wanna-be-journalist base, each market appealed to these new consumers. 3) The same access that gives the alt-right influence on the internet gives the politically correct access on the internet. So the pet generation and the responsible remaining generations (the pet generation ends at 95 according to Haidt). 4) The social media platforms and web news and entertainment sites are primarily populated by these people young (pet generation) individuals and they are creating demand in every market including the political market. 5) The victim narrative plays well for first and second generation immigrants from underclasses, who have no chance of rotation out of the primarily genetic middle classes as did previous generations, because the post war economic advantage of labor has been neutralized by the universal adoption of literacy, education, consumer capitalism financed by fiat money and state credit capacity, and vast populations now competing with american labor. 6) These factors are all coinciding with the one-to-one replacement of whites with hispanics, and the recognition by the white working classes that without elites they will be left behind to suffer equality with the new underclasses. Hence the increasing identification of race and party. I dunno. This is all pretty well studied material. The problem is – it’s contrary to both new-left and old right narratives. The republicans assumed as good fools of the enlightenment that the top and bottom would move toward the middle. It would have happened but immigration has masked the various immigrant state economies, with those lacking immigrant cities collapsing under the weight of New Deal and Great Society (Soviet style) relocation programs. Even those immigrant cities would collapse if not for debt capacity. Why this is difficult to understand is always beyond me.