[I] know that you want to feel emotionally vindicated, and that you want to vent your frustrations when conducting an argument, but the fact of the matter is Propertarianism and Testimonialism are constructed amorally (( amoral adjective “not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.” )) so that all moral propositions can be objectively described, and all moral questions are objectively decidable. Propertarianism(ethics) and Testimonialism (epistemology) let you construct and win arguments wherein the other party is using various means of deception in order to obscure their advocacy for thefts. So, assuming you’re right (and conservatives are usually right, even if argumentatively incompetent) then using Testimonialism and Propertarianism will allow you to win arguments. But unlike simple (cheap) quips, they are expensive arguments to construct and require that you have a bit of skill. And if that isn’t enough. Well. You don’t have reason to feel good, or to win. We leave that to the liars and theives.
Theme: Grammar
-
Sorry: Propertarianism is an Amoral and Objective Language – And That Can Be Emotionally Unsatisfying.
[I] know that you want to feel emotionally vindicated, and that you want to vent your frustrations when conducting an argument, but the fact of the matter is Propertarianism and Testimonialism are constructed amorally (( amoral adjective “not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.” )) so that all moral propositions can be objectively described, and all moral questions are objectively decidable. Propertarianism(ethics) and Testimonialism (epistemology) let you construct and win arguments wherein the other party is using various means of deception in order to obscure their advocacy for thefts. So, assuming you’re right (and conservatives are usually right, even if argumentatively incompetent) then using Testimonialism and Propertarianism will allow you to win arguments. But unlike simple (cheap) quips, they are expensive arguments to construct and require that you have a bit of skill. And if that isn’t enough. Well. You don’t have reason to feel good, or to win. We leave that to the liars and theives.
-
Writing: Use of Proper Case
[L]ook. If Popper can use Italics, then I can use Case. (Yet another thing Germans do right.). Proper casing of names of terms cues the reader. Using headlines, callouts, paragraph headlines and then bold on keywords has become common in print because it assists in helping the user scan the text, and to skip what he knows, and find what he doesn’t. The purpose of punctuation is to assist in reading aloud or in the equivalent inner voice. And good type handling is just good indexing. So if you still think in antique terms you are just stuck in an obsolete technology. Sorry. That’s how it is.
-
Writing: Use of Proper Case
[L]ook. If Popper can use Italics, then I can use Case. (Yet another thing Germans do right.). Proper casing of names of terms cues the reader. Using headlines, callouts, paragraph headlines and then bold on keywords has become common in print because it assists in helping the user scan the text, and to skip what he knows, and find what he doesn’t. The purpose of punctuation is to assist in reading aloud or in the equivalent inner voice. And good type handling is just good indexing. So if you still think in antique terms you are just stuck in an obsolete technology. Sorry. That’s how it is.
-
WRITING: CASE. Look. If Popper can use Italics, then I can use Case. (Yet anothe
WRITING: CASE.
Look. If Popper can use Italics, then I can use Case. (Yet another thing Germans do right.).
Proper casing of names of terms cues the reader.
Using headlines, callouts, paragraph headlines and then bold on keywords has become common in print because it assists in helping the user scan the text to skip what he knows and find what he doesn’t.
The purpose of punctuation is to assist in reading aloud or in the equivalent inner voice.
And good type handling is just good indexing.
So if you still think in antique terms you are just stuck in an obsolete technology.
Sorry. That’s how it is.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-28 08:07:00 UTC
-
WHAT I’M WORKING ON NOW: THE LANGUAGE OF CRITICISM While physicists have been us
WHAT I’M WORKING ON NOW: THE LANGUAGE OF CRITICISM
While physicists have been using the model of “information” for decades, and while Hayek gave us the same idea in economics and social science, the use of the ‘information’ model of thought has not permeated the social science, nor the psychology of decision making.
What I am trying to develop is the language and argument structure within Propertarianism and Testimonialism that tests whether sufficient information exists, or whether additional information is needed to provide decidability.
Why? Because the general trend in history is that people choose to believe something (act proactively) rather than they justify their beliefs in order to seize opportunity.
In other words, people follow incentives.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-28 04:43:00 UTC
-
THE DEFINITION OF “OFFENDED” —“Offended does not mean harmed, it means warned.
THE DEFINITION OF “OFFENDED”
—“Offended does not mean harmed, it means warned.”— Robyn Harte-Bunting
To offend is to warn. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 01:15:00 UTC
-
NUMBERS ARE NAMES OF ANALOGIES, NOT REFERENTS I can make up a name but it points
NUMBERS ARE NAMES OF ANALOGIES, NOT REFERENTS
I can make up a name but it points to nothing other than itself.
I can make names that correspond to counts of something or other.
(bait)
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-17 03:14:00 UTC
-
Definitions: Truth, Truthfulness, and Honesty
[D]EFINITIONS OF TRUTH.TAUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: That testimony you give when you promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity. ANALYTIC TRUTH: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth). IDEAL TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.) TRUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. HONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.Intuition: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).Preference (rational expression) : a justification of one’s biases (wants). Opinion: (justificationism) – a justified uncritical statement given the limits of one’s knowledge about external questions.Position: (criticism) – a theoretical statement that survives one’s available criticisms about external questions.Demonstrated Preference: – Evidence of intuition, preference, opinion, and position as demonstrated by your actions, independent of your statements.A Hierarchy of Truths:
- True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
- True enough for me to feel good about myself.
- True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.
- True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.
- True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
- True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.
- True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.
- Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.
TRUTH IS A WARRANTY OF DIFFERENT DEGREES.Source: (1) Curt Doolittle
-
Definitions: Truth, Truthfulness, and Honesty
[D]EFINITIONS OF TRUTH.TAUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: That testimony you give when you promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity. ANALYTIC TRUTH: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth). IDEAL TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.) TRUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. HONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony.Intuition: (sentimental expression) – an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).Preference (rational expression) : a justification of one’s biases (wants). Opinion: (justificationism) – a justified uncritical statement given the limits of one’s knowledge about external questions.Position: (criticism) – a theoretical statement that survives one’s available criticisms about external questions.Demonstrated Preference: – Evidence of intuition, preference, opinion, and position as demonstrated by your actions, independent of your statements.A Hierarchy of Truths:
- True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship
- True enough for me to feel good about myself.
- True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.
- True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.
- True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
- True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.
- True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.
- Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.
TRUTH IS A WARRANTY OF DIFFERENT DEGREES.Source: (1) Curt Doolittle