—“There is no point in arguing with someone with a closed mind”— Anon The problem is knowing when you are asking for an open mind : meaning “time to consider the argument”, and asking someone to agree, believe, or express faith in that which is not an argument but a fraud. The only non-fraudulent version of that statement is: –“there is no point in arguing with someone who is intellectually dishonest”– Appeals for an ‘open mind’ are always frauds. ALWAYS. Either you have an argument or you don’t. Either the you AND the other person(s) are intellectually honest or you are not.
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Fraud of “an Open Mind”
—“There is no point in arguing with someone with a closed mind”— Anon The problem is knowing when you are asking for an open mind : meaning “time to consider the argument”, and asking someone to agree, believe, or express faith in that which is not an argument but a fraud. The only non-fraudulent version of that statement is: –“there is no point in arguing with someone who is intellectually dishonest”– Appeals for an ‘open mind’ are always frauds. ALWAYS. Either you have an argument or you don’t. Either the you AND the other person(s) are intellectually honest or you are not.
-
Gods? Guilty as Charged
(edited for clarity) In the matter of gods we have only the testimony of men, and the means, motive, and opportunity to lie in their testimony. Given means motive and opportunity to lie, and no evidence of all that they speak the truth, then all gods are merely fictional characters. Those characters serve as anthropomorphic analogies. Those analogies serve as to provide decidability when we have no other means of deciding. It is not that gods – like all units of measurement – are not useful. They are. Particularly for the intergenerational transfer of such units of measurement. But there is no difference between Gandalf and Jehova and Allah other than that we make no false testimony to the existence of Gandalf, and we give false testimony to the existence of Jehova and Allah. We must give false testimony because we cannot give testimony of any other kind. It is not possible. None of us have observed the existence of any god that cannot be explained by more simple means. We can however, give thanks to our ancestors. That is because we have ancestors worthy of our thanks. The reason for the fabrication of Jehova and Allah is that the people who invented those fictional characters had no ancestors worthy of their thanks. Means, Motive, and Opportunity. Guilty as Charged.
-
Gods? Guilty as Charged
(edited for clarity) In the matter of gods we have only the testimony of men, and the means, motive, and opportunity to lie in their testimony. Given means motive and opportunity to lie, and no evidence of all that they speak the truth, then all gods are merely fictional characters. Those characters serve as anthropomorphic analogies. Those analogies serve as to provide decidability when we have no other means of deciding. It is not that gods – like all units of measurement – are not useful. They are. Particularly for the intergenerational transfer of such units of measurement. But there is no difference between Gandalf and Jehova and Allah other than that we make no false testimony to the existence of Gandalf, and we give false testimony to the existence of Jehova and Allah. We must give false testimony because we cannot give testimony of any other kind. It is not possible. None of us have observed the existence of any god that cannot be explained by more simple means. We can however, give thanks to our ancestors. That is because we have ancestors worthy of our thanks. The reason for the fabrication of Jehova and Allah is that the people who invented those fictional characters had no ancestors worthy of their thanks. Means, Motive, and Opportunity. Guilty as Charged.
-
Is Mises’s Action Axiom Self Evident?
My answer to Is Mises’s action axiom self evident? https://t.co/X0C0GANSPg Is the statement an axiom? No. It’s a Law. The difference between an axiom and a law, is that an axiom is declared (created and therefore arbitrary), and a law is discovered (existential, and therefore unavoidable). Is the law self evident? Self evident means ‘obvious’. Yes, that man acts and must act, is obvious. What does the law that man must act tell us? Absolutely nothing. It is meaningless. To react we must only biologically respond. To act we must decide. To decide we must reason. Like all Libertarian Tropes (nonsense-arguments) both “Man Acts” and “Non Aggression” are incomplete statements. Abrahamic sophisms (Pilpul and Critique) rely heavily upon suggestion. Suggestion refers to providing only partial information, such that the individual consciously or unconsciously provides the rest of the information – but provides his judgement or value of it. As such, when we make moral suggestions (half truths), we force the recipient to substitute his value judgements in order to complete the sentence (transaction for, or contract for, meaning). This is why non-aggression is nonsense and libertarianism is a dead end: because everyone intuits his moral standard of property. Thus agreeing with NAP yet in truth, agreeing only with himself. So we have millions of idiots running around claiming NAP is a standard of something other than one’s reflection. (Quite stupid really.) The complete sentences are (a) man acts to acquire all that is necessary for survival, discounts on acquisitions, and opportunities for reproduction. And (b) reciprocity requires non imposition upon (aggression against) the demonstrated investments of others regardless of whether they are physical, kinship, interpersonal, organizational, the commons, institutional, or informational. In other words, anything people have born any cost to obtain an interest, and which they demonstrate defense of.
-
Is Mises’s Action Axiom Self Evident?
My answer to Is Mises’s action axiom self evident? https://t.co/X0C0GANSPg Is the statement an axiom? No. It’s a Law. The difference between an axiom and a law, is that an axiom is declared (created and therefore arbitrary), and a law is discovered (existential, and therefore unavoidable). Is the law self evident? Self evident means ‘obvious’. Yes, that man acts and must act, is obvious. What does the law that man must act tell us? Absolutely nothing. It is meaningless. To react we must only biologically respond. To act we must decide. To decide we must reason. Like all Libertarian Tropes (nonsense-arguments) both “Man Acts” and “Non Aggression” are incomplete statements. Abrahamic sophisms (Pilpul and Critique) rely heavily upon suggestion. Suggestion refers to providing only partial information, such that the individual consciously or unconsciously provides the rest of the information – but provides his judgement or value of it. As such, when we make moral suggestions (half truths), we force the recipient to substitute his value judgements in order to complete the sentence (transaction for, or contract for, meaning). This is why non-aggression is nonsense and libertarianism is a dead end: because everyone intuits his moral standard of property. Thus agreeing with NAP yet in truth, agreeing only with himself. So we have millions of idiots running around claiming NAP is a standard of something other than one’s reflection. (Quite stupid really.) The complete sentences are (a) man acts to acquire all that is necessary for survival, discounts on acquisitions, and opportunities for reproduction. And (b) reciprocity requires non imposition upon (aggression against) the demonstrated investments of others regardless of whether they are physical, kinship, interpersonal, organizational, the commons, institutional, or informational. In other words, anything people have born any cost to obtain an interest, and which they demonstrate defense of.
-
Religion and Education Are the Same Thing.
Let me help you. Religion and education are the same thing. I know. You wouldn’t think so. But that’s because you’re confusing cooperative technology (self and others) vs productive technology (things). Separation of church and state is logically impossible. It’s simply begging for a conflict of laws.
-
Religion and Education Are the Same Thing.
Let me help you. Religion and education are the same thing. I know. You wouldn’t think so. But that’s because you’re confusing cooperative technology (self and others) vs productive technology (things). Separation of church and state is logically impossible. It’s simply begging for a conflict of laws.
-
Christianity Is Not Incompatible with Natural Law
You know, by and large, christianity is not incompatible with natural law. The whole damned narrative is. But otherwise, the basic principle of direct demonstrated charity, exhaustion of opportunity for forgiveness, and reciprocity is fine. That said …. there is nothing in that list that wasn’t in our slavic, nordic, germanic, italic civilization before christianity. Ya see? BTW: where are our sacred groves of oak trees, our festivals of the seasons. And our worship of our ancestors? Well. They’re right were we left them.
-
Christianity Is Not Incompatible with Natural Law
You know, by and large, christianity is not incompatible with natural law. The whole damned narrative is. But otherwise, the basic principle of direct demonstrated charity, exhaustion of opportunity for forgiveness, and reciprocity is fine. That said …. there is nothing in that list that wasn’t in our slavic, nordic, germanic, italic civilization before christianity. Ya see? BTW: where are our sacred groves of oak trees, our festivals of the seasons. And our worship of our ancestors? Well. They’re right were we left them.