No. A cause generally refers to a particular strategy. It may be charitable, political, social, inspirational, or aesthetic. Many charities have a cause, charity itself is an action, or category.
https://www.quora.com/Do-Americans-refer-to-a-charity-as-a-cause
So you mean, you don’t understand semantics, grammar, consistency, correspondence, coherence, parsimony and falsifiability?The only requirement for a libertarian identity is sovereignty, and therefore reciprocity, and therefore reciprocal insurance of sovereignty and reciprocity.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-17 15:37:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975033290183839744
Reply addressees: @JacobtCroft
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975027765014536197
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/975027765014536197
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR LIBERTARIAN IDENTITY
—“And you call yourself libertarian. Lol”—
So you mean, you don’t understand semantics, grammar, consistency, correspondence, coherence, parsimony and falsifiability?
The only requirement for a libertarian identity is sovereignty, and therefore reciprocity, and therefore reciprocal insurance of sovereignty and reciprocity.
Ergo, there is no condition under which untruthful speech does not violate reciprocity and therefore sovereignty, and therefore insurance of reciprocity and sovereignty.
Either you can warranty your words our you are externalizing costs of doing so onto others.
Truthful – meaning warrantied – speech doesn’t violate reciprocity. Un-warrantied speech does.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-17 11:40:00 UTC
But I have as soft spot for chomsky no matter how pathetic his personal opinions, simply because his work on using turing’s inventions in computer science to advance the study of grammar and language.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-17 01:07:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974814401625812992
Reply addressees: @wjfrisby
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974776990774579200
IN REPLY TO:
@wjfrisby
@curtdoolittle That description of Zizek could apply equally to Chomsky.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974776990774579200
#jordanbpeterson Peterson’s critics appear, almost universally, to fall into the demographic of those who learned speech tricks to justify intuitions, rather than practice any form of critical reasoning. https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/974734727168045063
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 19:52:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974735251355422721
—“PLEASE DEFINE DEFLATIONARY GRAMAR”—
(also: See the various categories of Truth (including deflationary).
Deflationary <-> Inflationary <-> Conflationary <-> Fictionalism
DEFLATIONARY: identity(constant relations), Mathematics(positional relations), Logics(sets of relations), Algorithms (States and Transformation of states), Procedures/Recpies(states, transformation of states, by operations), Contracts(exchanges), Survival (from competition)
INFLATIONARY: the descriptive narrative. the fiction.
CONFLATIONARY: addition of inconstant relations for purposes of association(transfer) or suggestion (deception)
FICTIONALISM: supernatural, ideal (especially platonism), pseudoscientific (especially marx, boaz, freud), pseudo-rational (Especially pretense of closure), pseudo historical (especially revisionist history whereupon present knowledge, luxury, and incentive, is attributed to past actors.)
GRAMMAR: Rules of continuous disambiguation.
SEMANTICS: sets of constant relations.
PARADIGM: Networks of sets of constant relations.
In other words we have developed deflationary, inflationary, conflationary, and fictionalist (fraudulent) grammars, wherein the possible operations(transformations, comparisons,) and therefore possible paradigms and semantics (constant relations) are increased or decreased in scope in order to test and falsify (deflate by disassociation) or communicate (inflate by association) or mislead (inflate, conflate, and fictionalise) for the purpose of self, and other, fraud, deception, pretense.
In other words, anything that is not false or immoral/unethical(involuntary transfer) is a truth candidate, a preference candidate, and a ‘good’ candidate.
This exercise is just codifying in scientific terms the 4000 year old empirical law of tort (reciprocity): do whatever you want but don’t display, speak, or perform a fraud no matter how you justify doing so.
Ergo, via positiva philosophy is limited to the selection of personal preferences and contactual goods, but otherwise, as far as I know, the subject of truth is complete and now science (as it probably always should and could have been had the Stoics not be suppressed by the eastern empire.)
The problem is, we have regulated action, we have regulated production (commerce and trade) we have regulated contract (Promise of performance) but we have not regulated speech, for the simple reason that it has been heretofore too difficult to limit speech to that which is warrantable.
Ergo, if it isn’t warrantable, we can’t tell it’s not false or unethical/immoral directly or by externality..
No man wants laws to bound his ambitions for self delusion as to his social, sexual, economic, political, and military market value. No murderer, theft, or fraud wants constraints on his parasitism and predation. Likewise no social climber, virtue-signaller, priest, public intellectual, wants limits on his speech which constrains his ability to defraud himself and others in pursuit of attention, status, and virtue signals that might increase his perceived social, sexual, economic, political, and military value to others.
But yet our uniquely aggressive rate of western evolution in all fields has been possible because of our incremental suppression of violence, theft, and fraud in concert with our rapid advancement in technology, economic, social, political, and military order.
Fraud is fraud no matter what excuse we make for it. And while it is one thing to imagine fraud, it is another to speak, advocate, and publish it.
😉
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 12:23:00 UTC