Theme: Deception

  • Why Are Women Often Portrayed As Symbol Of Evil Or Weakness?

    TRUTH IS VERY OFTEN OFFENSIVE. WHICH IS WHY WE MUST SEARCH FOR IT – BECAUSE WE HIDE IT. BUT HERE IS THE ANSWER.

    1. Women (females) evolved gossip, rallying, shaming, trading of care-taking, sex and affection, as a means of manipulation (power), by which to gain control over (much) more powerful males.
    2. Women (females) are not loyal to the tribe (males), as they could be easily stolen by one group or another, and have to survive within that group. Female choice arose late (after pairing-off). For much of our evolutionary history, women were property. To no small degree, our domestication of animals by taking over their dominance hierarchy and controlling their reproduction, followed the domestication of women by the same means. (If that isn’t upsetting to your high mindedness little will be.)
    3. Women can (and often did, and still do) bear one man’s offspring at the cost of another man, thereby depriving him of the ability to trade his productivity for sex, affection, care-taking, and offspring. As many as one third of children ‘appear’ to have been the product of ‘sleeping around’. Our understanding of this number will improve over time. Around 70% of women reproduced in history, but only about 30% of men. Our understanding of this number will improve over time. However, men (out of evolutionary necessity) will demonstrate violence over women first and foremost above all other factors. (yes really). The vast majority of male impulsive violence is somehow connected to females. So female ‘wandering’ is the most dangerous to the tribe of any activity including theft and murder.
    4. Women evolved a very short term set of impulses (low risk tolerance) in order to limit their own cellular damage, and to protect the fragility of children that take so many years to mature into self-sufficiency. Women possess less ‘agency’ because of it. Despite our status as super-predators, or apex predators, Humans are frail and especially frail until maturity. Ergo, women ‘feel’ impulsively and cannot suppress their impulses as easily as men can. Nor are social structures to contain women’s impulses as severe as those of males. The reason being that an impulsive woman can be ignored or beaten,while an impulsive male can be sent off to fight or hunt, but may become too dangerous in the tribe or polity.
    5. So, because of high impulsivity, short term bias, the ability to sway men with sex, affection, care-taking, and the ability to sway men with gossip, rallying, and shaming, women were (and still are, to be honest) considered to be ‘troublemakers’.
    6. We tend to think of taming violence among men as the chief achievement of civlization, but that is not what the evidence tells us. It was equally the use of property and marriage to tame women’s gossip, reproduction, and impulsivity that built civilization. Even today, the root cause of central political conflicts is whether (a) women have a ‘right’ to bear children that they cannot create a family or career to support without forcing others to pay for their ‘freedom’, because the only remaining problem facing mankind at present is population. all problems today are reducible to population problems. (b) whether we advance universalism and dysgenia (the female and underclass reproductive strategy), or particularism and eugenia (the male and upper class reproductive strategy).
    7. Western women have always been ‘freer’ that other women, and we are not exactly sure why. It appears that whites are less clannish (at least circumpolar whites, if not anatolian/iranian). Whites have less testosterone than all but east asians. There is some evidence that white female traits were especially desirable and spread quickly through selection and were integrated through selection into white males. There is some evidence that the scarcity of people in the northern climes, the value of ‘others’ in northern climes for survival; the ‘homogeneity’ of the three or four major waves of europeans plus the limited clannishness simply created a less hostile environment for mate selection. (This is the current hypothesis). It will take another generation of work on genetics before we know the answer for certain. But needless to say, whites (at least northerners) are less ‘clannish’ than all other races and sub-races. Conversely, africans, desert, and steppe peoples appear more clannish and more aggressive than far east and far west peoples. This appears to be due to little more than the scale of the underclasses in warm climates. Without selection pressures the median behavior evolves into a general rule.
    8. So history is hard on women because women in fact are (a) physically weaker, (b) emotionally more impulsive and possessed of less agency (weaker), (c) the cause of hidden constant conflict, if not constrained, (d) un-loyal to the tribe.
    9. Education and participation in the work force has done quite a bit to solve women’s impulsivity but women have, since the introduction of socialism, and the feminist movement as a proxy replacement for socialism, worked consistently to vote (a) to destroy the requirement to form a family (corporation for the production of children), prior to bearing offspring, (b) impoverishing men and causing vast increases in suicide through no fault divorce, alimony, and child support, and heavy increases in taxes that consume 100% of the revenues produced by the addition of women to the work force. (c) harm to the ‘tribe’ by making possible the immigration policies since the 1960’s that achieved through underclass immigration what could not be achieved either through advocacy of socialism, or advocacy of feminism.
    10. The West survived the European civil war we call the World Wars. Yet the West will not likely survive the enfranchisement of women without equal investment in the constraint upon women’s behavior that was developed to constrain men’s behavior over the past 10,000 years.
    11. Pandora deserved her reputation. The question is. Men admit their history. Can women admit theirs? History, biology, and evolution are against it.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-women-often-portrayed-as-symbol-of-evil-or-weakness

  • Why Are Women Often Portrayed As Symbol Of Evil Or Weakness?

    TRUTH IS VERY OFTEN OFFENSIVE. WHICH IS WHY WE MUST SEARCH FOR IT – BECAUSE WE HIDE IT. BUT HERE IS THE ANSWER.

    1. Women (females) evolved gossip, rallying, shaming, trading of care-taking, sex and affection, as a means of manipulation (power), by which to gain control over (much) more powerful males.
    2. Women (females) are not loyal to the tribe (males), as they could be easily stolen by one group or another, and have to survive within that group. Female choice arose late (after pairing-off). For much of our evolutionary history, women were property. To no small degree, our domestication of animals by taking over their dominance hierarchy and controlling their reproduction, followed the domestication of women by the same means. (If that isn’t upsetting to your high mindedness little will be.)
    3. Women can (and often did, and still do) bear one man’s offspring at the cost of another man, thereby depriving him of the ability to trade his productivity for sex, affection, care-taking, and offspring. As many as one third of children ‘appear’ to have been the product of ‘sleeping around’. Our understanding of this number will improve over time. Around 70% of women reproduced in history, but only about 30% of men. Our understanding of this number will improve over time. However, men (out of evolutionary necessity) will demonstrate violence over women first and foremost above all other factors. (yes really). The vast majority of male impulsive violence is somehow connected to females. So female ‘wandering’ is the most dangerous to the tribe of any activity including theft and murder.
    4. Women evolved a very short term set of impulses (low risk tolerance) in order to limit their own cellular damage, and to protect the fragility of children that take so many years to mature into self-sufficiency. Women possess less ‘agency’ because of it. Despite our status as super-predators, or apex predators, Humans are frail and especially frail until maturity. Ergo, women ‘feel’ impulsively and cannot suppress their impulses as easily as men can. Nor are social structures to contain women’s impulses as severe as those of males. The reason being that an impulsive woman can be ignored or beaten,while an impulsive male can be sent off to fight or hunt, but may become too dangerous in the tribe or polity.
    5. So, because of high impulsivity, short term bias, the ability to sway men with sex, affection, care-taking, and the ability to sway men with gossip, rallying, and shaming, women were (and still are, to be honest) considered to be ‘troublemakers’.
    6. We tend to think of taming violence among men as the chief achievement of civlization, but that is not what the evidence tells us. It was equally the use of property and marriage to tame women’s gossip, reproduction, and impulsivity that built civilization. Even today, the root cause of central political conflicts is whether (a) women have a ‘right’ to bear children that they cannot create a family or career to support without forcing others to pay for their ‘freedom’, because the only remaining problem facing mankind at present is population. all problems today are reducible to population problems. (b) whether we advance universalism and dysgenia (the female and underclass reproductive strategy), or particularism and eugenia (the male and upper class reproductive strategy).
    7. Western women have always been ‘freer’ that other women, and we are not exactly sure why. It appears that whites are less clannish (at least circumpolar whites, if not anatolian/iranian). Whites have less testosterone than all but east asians. There is some evidence that white female traits were especially desirable and spread quickly through selection and were integrated through selection into white males. There is some evidence that the scarcity of people in the northern climes, the value of ‘others’ in northern climes for survival; the ‘homogeneity’ of the three or four major waves of europeans plus the limited clannishness simply created a less hostile environment for mate selection. (This is the current hypothesis). It will take another generation of work on genetics before we know the answer for certain. But needless to say, whites (at least northerners) are less ‘clannish’ than all other races and sub-races. Conversely, africans, desert, and steppe peoples appear more clannish and more aggressive than far east and far west peoples. This appears to be due to little more than the scale of the underclasses in warm climates. Without selection pressures the median behavior evolves into a general rule.
    8. So history is hard on women because women in fact are (a) physically weaker, (b) emotionally more impulsive and possessed of less agency (weaker), (c) the cause of hidden constant conflict, if not constrained, (d) un-loyal to the tribe.
    9. Education and participation in the work force has done quite a bit to solve women’s impulsivity but women have, since the introduction of socialism, and the feminist movement as a proxy replacement for socialism, worked consistently to vote (a) to destroy the requirement to form a family (corporation for the production of children), prior to bearing offspring, (b) impoverishing men and causing vast increases in suicide through no fault divorce, alimony, and child support, and heavy increases in taxes that consume 100% of the revenues produced by the addition of women to the work force. (c) harm to the ‘tribe’ by making possible the immigration policies since the 1960’s that achieved through underclass immigration what could not be achieved either through advocacy of socialism, or advocacy of feminism.
    10. The West survived the European civil war we call the World Wars. Yet the West will not likely survive the enfranchisement of women without equal investment in the constraint upon women’s behavior that was developed to constrain men’s behavior over the past 10,000 years.
    11. Pandora deserved her reputation. The question is. Men admit their history. Can women admit theirs? History, biology, and evolution are against it.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-women-often-portrayed-as-symbol-of-evil-or-weakness

  • IS THE UTILITY OF TRUTHFULNESS WORTH THE COST? I was too optimistic. Enthralled

    IS THE UTILITY OF TRUTHFULNESS WORTH THE COST?

    I was too optimistic. Enthralled by my discovery. Desperate to provide my people with a language of self defense.

    People had used the supernatural frame for more than 1500 years, and the supernormal frame before that. Look at what it took to overthrow the church’s lies. It took the restoration of commercial civilization, so that we could sufficiently practice law that once again our contractualism dominated the thought of the classes that possessed any semblance of literacy and agency; and then it took the restoration of greek knowledge, the restoration of greek heroic literature, the restoration of mathematics, and its use on the heavens (scale) to falsify supernaturalism, and a tidal wave of discoveries from descartes’ rediscovery that the universe was open to our comprehension via instruments both physical and logical through darwin, watson, and crick.

    And there are still those who deny Darwin, advance or follow conspiracy theory, informational pseudoscience, social pseudoscience, physical pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, supernaturalism, and the (nihilistic) occult and (optimistic) new age. And our academy, our public intellectuals, and our politicians are as guilty of pseudo-everything as the most vociferous proletarian adamant about the virtues of communism.

    People can’t imagine a world where people speak truthfully because that is the norm, and the grammar of truthful speech is the norm, any more than they could imagine a world free of supernaturalism, any more than they could imagine a world free of shamanism. But we converted from a world of supernaturalism to a world of reason. Even if we were subsequently converted to pseudoscience.

    We still make use of supernatural context, ratio-moral contexts, pseudoscientific contexts, and rarely, scientific contexts.

    It’s not that a people need to be particularly intelligent in order to prosper, to defeat the dark forces of time, ignorance, and scarcity, and to transform the earth if not the universe into an eden. It’s that the formal, informal, informational, and normative institutions that supply the majority of *calculative* power (positive knowledge and negative reduction of ignorance) through the presence of *context*, and the removal of those who cannot use and therefore competitively survive (calculate) under that context that is the problem.

    Truth is disruptive. Because lies create opportunities for discounts and rents. And man excels and identifying and exploiting opportunities for rents.

    So, is it possible to require truthful speech via formal institutional means and from that requirement evolve contexts both informal, informational, and normative?

    Of course it is. It may not seem so to those who don’t practice the discipline every day but it’s rather obvious to me and those others that do use it. I mean, just as we improve tools to improve precision, and improve logical tools (math, programming, simulations, general theories and laws) we improve various institutional and normative contexts – admittedly at a long lag, and sometimes generations. (Meanwhile others improve upon statements of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit which we must also defeat).

    Is it desirable, preferable, utilitarian to demand truth?

    If it will defeat Semiticism (judaism, islam)

    If it will save your civilization?

    if it will save mankind?

    I think so.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-24 08:41:00 UTC

  • Moral means not stealing indirectly through asymmetric information. Ethical mean

    Moral means not stealing indirectly through asymmetric information.

    Ethical means not stealing directly through asymmetric information,

    theft means stealing physically by asymmetric information,

    robbery means stealing physically,

    … then we get to bodily harm…

    Moral (social-indirect informational ),

    Ethical (interpersonal-direct Informational),

    property indirect,

    property direct,

    bodily indirect,

    bodily direct.

    TABLE:

    ………………………..Direct <—–>Proxy<——> Indirect

    bodily

    property

    cooperative

    Social cooperative


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-22 12:23:00 UTC

  • 4) So I cannot ascertain truth/lie, moral/immoral or strategy from it. (as I can

    4) So I cannot ascertain truth/lie, moral/immoral or strategy from it. (as I can with every other people’s literature)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-20 14:07:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/855060245504294914

    Reply addressees: @whereforefriend

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/855032809697800192


    IN REPLY TO:

    @whereforefriend

    @curtdoolittle You discuss modes in which ethnic groups have operated. Russians thru literature. et cetera. Would the Celtic mode be bardic?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/855032809697800192

  • Another Useful Idiot – Rothbardian Flavor

    ANOTHER USEFUL ROTHBARDIAN IDIOT —“> asserts that there can never be a social order based on private property norms > engages in argumentation, thereby demonstrating a preference for and participation in a libertarian social order based on private property norms You wrote 10 paragraphs of performative contradiction, but at least you felt cool doing it.”—-Jared Howe Interesting how you’d even imagine that such a statement wasn’t anything but profoundly stupid. (Not sure I can provide a complete analysis of the fraud of marxist argumentation ethics without writing a whole book but lets at least lay down the outline and show how ridiculous you are – and how useful, educated but unintelligent, idiots are in the cause against possible liberty: Aristocratic Sovereignty) 1) All humans argue (produce a series of statements for the purpose of persuasion: changing state of another’s behavior.) They argue with ignorance, error, bias, and deciet. They argue with contradictions. They argue with fallacies. They outright lie. 2) No humans exist in a rothbardian political, social, familial, and personal order wherein the definition and scope of property is limited to physical, intersubjectively verifiable property. 3) An insignificant portion of populations STATES a preference for a rothbardian order. NO portion of ANY polity DEMONSTRATES a preference for a rothbardian order. Why? It is impossible to praxeologically (operationally) argue for the rational construction of a rothbardian order. It does not appear to be able to praxeologically (operationally) argue for the migration of such an order. It appears only possible that a tribal and migratory polity parasitically living off the territorial defenses and juridciald efenses of some other order, might employ this strategy as an ethical basis. Or for separate states to rely upon this form of non-normative, separatist ethics. And, this is what we find. That Rothbardianism is rhetorically similar to international law limited by violence, rather than national law, limited by cooperation. Ergo: 3) engaging in argumentation (Rationalism) cannot demonstrate a preference for, or possibility of, a rothbardian (purely private property) social order. In fact, argumentation then demonstrates a preference for non-rothbardian social orders. In fact, as I argue, rationalism was invented as an extension of pilpul > theological interpretation > legal interpretation, specifically as a method of avoiding empirical evidence – ie: for lying. (ie: Kant/Marx/Rothbart/hoppe). Argumentation ethics then, by extension of this method, and refusal to use the operational and empeirical methods, demonstrates how easy it is to use rationalism to lie. 4) The reason being that people engage in ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propagandism, and deceit – and they must, because argumentation is itself a process of trades consisting of names (categories), properties, relations, values: a negotiation on meaning, and value. Argument, unlike mathematics, does not consists of axioms, but of theories, and hypotheses. 5) In fact, by the addition of full accounting, and productivity, warranty, and operational definitions to argument (categorical consistency, internal consistency, external consistency and reciprocity: voluntary exchange) we can dramatically improve the truth content of negotiations, producing something much closer to a discourse using laws (not axioms), even if it increases the cost of negotiating, heavily, such that truthful negotiation (argument) is closer to “possible”. You see, people do not engage in axiomatic argument, (truth) they engage in hypothetical negotiation (persuasion). Because the rarely if ever possess the information, intellectual agency, and rhetorical technology (or time for that matter) to engage in anything else. Argumentation is evidentially self-refuting, if we ourselves argue that argument consists of axiomatic and truthful propositions, rather than a negotiation on meaning and value. The means by which we force negotiations (ignorance, error bias and deceit) into something close to argumentation, is by the organized application of violence to demand truthful negotiations and attempt to improve argument from fraud into truth telling; and by doing so create a high trust, and therefore competitively profitable polity (market). The means by which we force negotiations (trades) closer to argument (truths), is through the organized threat of and application of violence prior to the negotiation (denial of violence, theft, and falsehood), during the negotiation (demand for truthfulness), and after the negotiation (violence by dispute resolution). People engage in ignorance, error, bias and lie. If it isn’t clear, I”m not negotiating, I’m threatening violence so that non-parasitic negotiation with long term returns can be brought into existence, by denying you the opportunity for parasitism that you seek. Otherwise I prefer violence, theft, or fraud, to parasitically exploit you. Because it is only under full reciprocity that you are worth not preying upon.

  • Another Useful Idiot – Rothbardian Flavor

    ANOTHER USEFUL ROTHBARDIAN IDIOT —“> asserts that there can never be a social order based on private property norms > engages in argumentation, thereby demonstrating a preference for and participation in a libertarian social order based on private property norms You wrote 10 paragraphs of performative contradiction, but at least you felt cool doing it.”—-Jared Howe Interesting how you’d even imagine that such a statement wasn’t anything but profoundly stupid. (Not sure I can provide a complete analysis of the fraud of marxist argumentation ethics without writing a whole book but lets at least lay down the outline and show how ridiculous you are – and how useful, educated but unintelligent, idiots are in the cause against possible liberty: Aristocratic Sovereignty) 1) All humans argue (produce a series of statements for the purpose of persuasion: changing state of another’s behavior.) They argue with ignorance, error, bias, and deciet. They argue with contradictions. They argue with fallacies. They outright lie. 2) No humans exist in a rothbardian political, social, familial, and personal order wherein the definition and scope of property is limited to physical, intersubjectively verifiable property. 3) An insignificant portion of populations STATES a preference for a rothbardian order. NO portion of ANY polity DEMONSTRATES a preference for a rothbardian order. Why? It is impossible to praxeologically (operationally) argue for the rational construction of a rothbardian order. It does not appear to be able to praxeologically (operationally) argue for the migration of such an order. It appears only possible that a tribal and migratory polity parasitically living off the territorial defenses and juridciald efenses of some other order, might employ this strategy as an ethical basis. Or for separate states to rely upon this form of non-normative, separatist ethics. And, this is what we find. That Rothbardianism is rhetorically similar to international law limited by violence, rather than national law, limited by cooperation. Ergo: 3) engaging in argumentation (Rationalism) cannot demonstrate a preference for, or possibility of, a rothbardian (purely private property) social order. In fact, argumentation then demonstrates a preference for non-rothbardian social orders. In fact, as I argue, rationalism was invented as an extension of pilpul > theological interpretation > legal interpretation, specifically as a method of avoiding empirical evidence – ie: for lying. (ie: Kant/Marx/Rothbart/hoppe). Argumentation ethics then, by extension of this method, and refusal to use the operational and empeirical methods, demonstrates how easy it is to use rationalism to lie. 4) The reason being that people engage in ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propagandism, and deceit – and they must, because argumentation is itself a process of trades consisting of names (categories), properties, relations, values: a negotiation on meaning, and value. Argument, unlike mathematics, does not consists of axioms, but of theories, and hypotheses. 5) In fact, by the addition of full accounting, and productivity, warranty, and operational definitions to argument (categorical consistency, internal consistency, external consistency and reciprocity: voluntary exchange) we can dramatically improve the truth content of negotiations, producing something much closer to a discourse using laws (not axioms), even if it increases the cost of negotiating, heavily, such that truthful negotiation (argument) is closer to “possible”. You see, people do not engage in axiomatic argument, (truth) they engage in hypothetical negotiation (persuasion). Because the rarely if ever possess the information, intellectual agency, and rhetorical technology (or time for that matter) to engage in anything else. Argumentation is evidentially self-refuting, if we ourselves argue that argument consists of axiomatic and truthful propositions, rather than a negotiation on meaning and value. The means by which we force negotiations (ignorance, error bias and deceit) into something close to argumentation, is by the organized application of violence to demand truthful negotiations and attempt to improve argument from fraud into truth telling; and by doing so create a high trust, and therefore competitively profitable polity (market). The means by which we force negotiations (trades) closer to argument (truths), is through the organized threat of and application of violence prior to the negotiation (denial of violence, theft, and falsehood), during the negotiation (demand for truthfulness), and after the negotiation (violence by dispute resolution). People engage in ignorance, error, bias and lie. If it isn’t clear, I”m not negotiating, I’m threatening violence so that non-parasitic negotiation with long term returns can be brought into existence, by denying you the opportunity for parasitism that you seek. Otherwise I prefer violence, theft, or fraud, to parasitically exploit you. Because it is only under full reciprocity that you are worth not preying upon.

  • Rothbardians Excel At Demonstrating The Evolution of Lying

    Apr 18, 2017 9:32am ROTHBARDIANS ARE EXCEPTIONAL AT DEMONSTRATING THE EVOLUTION OF LYING I love destroying Rothbardians. It’s…. it’s such a great way of showing the way that Pilpul > Scriptural Justification > Hermeneutics > Legal Rationalism > and Lying by Rationalism > Lying by Pseudoscience, has evolved from the origins of scriptural monotheism until today. Wisdom Literature > Scriptural (Authoritarian) LIterature > Pilpul > Hermeneutics > Legal Rationalism > Kantian Rationalism > Marxist Rationalism > Rothbardian Rationalism > Postmodern Pseudo-Rationalism > Postmodern Pseudoscience. THE EVOLUTION OF LYING

  • Rothbardians Excel At Demonstrating The Evolution of Lying

    Apr 18, 2017 9:32am ROTHBARDIANS ARE EXCEPTIONAL AT DEMONSTRATING THE EVOLUTION OF LYING I love destroying Rothbardians. It’s…. it’s such a great way of showing the way that Pilpul > Scriptural Justification > Hermeneutics > Legal Rationalism > and Lying by Rationalism > Lying by Pseudoscience, has evolved from the origins of scriptural monotheism until today. Wisdom Literature > Scriptural (Authoritarian) LIterature > Pilpul > Hermeneutics > Legal Rationalism > Kantian Rationalism > Marxist Rationalism > Rothbardian Rationalism > Postmodern Pseudo-Rationalism > Postmodern Pseudoscience. THE EVOLUTION OF LYING

  • The Origins of Ratio-Deceptionism – And the Roman Counter via Stoicism and Law

    THE ORIGINS OF RATIO-DECEPTIONISM – AND ROMAN COUNTER VIA LAW Both the Jews and the Greeks discovered Ratio-Deceptionism. The greeks were treated the same way we treat the Jews today (as skillful liars). But the Romans, from whom we inherit our laws, and our government, actively ridiculed the greeks, used them as we use jews today, and prohibited them from office, and instead adopted the stoicism and empirical law. The greeks proliferated ‘ways of thinking’ – advocating markets for preferences, the jews doubled-down on one way of thinking – advocating an authoritarian way of thinking. But the Romans, conquering both sets of ‘liars’ did the opposite: there exist ways of not-acting and ways of not-speaking, and ways of not-arguing, that you may not demonstrate – but you may think and choose otherwise however you please. It was their failure to crush religious lies that was their falling. In other words, roman social science, like the social science I advocate, was via negativa: law. Why? aristocracy vs peasantry. We have, with the scientific enlightenment, continued this tradition to the present – and in the current era, to our detriment. The technique is quite simple: Rationalism is easily used to deceive, so when the information is insufficient to decide by rational means, we must gain more information by the empirical (existential). if that information is insufficient to decide by empirical means, we must gain more information by the operational (causal). If that information is insufficient to decide by causal means, then we must gain more information by the full accounting of consequences. If we possess categorical, internal-rational, external empirical, causal operational, fully accounted consequence, then the only means of decidability is PREFERENCE (trade). Cheers