Theme: Science

Non argument, contrary to the evidence, but then technically speaking I’m a logician and a scientist, and I only study philosophers to discover what went wrong. 😉

No I”m constructing from first principles ( science ) and you’re justifying. Just how it is. Otherwise oyu would address the central argument if oyu understood it and could. Since others do and have, then the evidence is that’s it’s not only possible but almost impossible to refute given so many have tried.

Now I’ve respected your apparent honesty despite that this subject matter is far beyond your knowledge and experience or you would ahve demonstrated any related knowledge whatsoever.

I’m sure you intend to be a good person and I doubt that you’d be other than a good person in real life. But this is clearly above your pay grade or you’d have demonstrated otherwise by now.

Here is a closing thought:

“Using False Promise, Baiting Into Hazard, Advocated by Pilpul, Defended by Critique, Escaping Liability and Warranty, by Pretense of Plausible Deniability, Despite Deliberate Avoidance of Due Diligence, And Deliberate Evasion of Warranty, Deliberate Escape From Liability, Given the Asymmetry of Knowledge, the Presence of Malincentives by both Agent(s) and Victim(s) – And Pursued for the Purpose of Attention, Reward (profit), Influence(power), Undermining (Power), of the Trust and Cooperation, of a Population in Normal Distribution, Thereby Generating accelerating Cycles of Internal Conflict, Generating Demand for Authority to Control by the Hazard Maker.”

Examine the most common occupations among your relatives and ask how many of them are symmetric in responsibility liability and accountability for testfiability, reciprocity, sovereignty, that don’t violate the above criteria. Versus how many of them are dependent on verbal negotiation of benefiting from even non performing propositions. How many are productive, reciprocal, and don’t impose costs on the commons that produced truth before face and our unique high trust society.

No I”m constructing from first principles ( science ) and you’re justifying. Just how it is. Otherwise oyu would address the central argument if oyu understood it and could. Since others do and have, then the evidence is that’s it’s not only possible but almost impossible to refute given so many have tried.

Now I’ve respected your apparent honesty despite that this subject matter is far beyond your knowledge and experience or you would ahve demonstrated any related knowledge whatsoever.

I’m sure you intend to be a good person and I doubt that you’d be other than a good person in real life. But this is clearly above your pay grade or you’d have demonstrated otherwise by now.

Here is a closing thought:

“Using False Promise, Baiting Into Hazard, Advocated by Pilpul, Defended by Critique, Escaping Liability and Warranty, by Pretense of Plausible Deniability, Despite Deliberate Avoidance of Due Diligence, And Deliberate Evasion of Warranty, Deliberate Escape From Liability, Given the Asymmetry of Knowledge, the Presence of Malincentives by both Agent(s) and Victim(s) – And Pursued for the Purpose of Attention, Reward (profit), Influence(power), Undermining (Power), of the Trust and Cooperation, of a Population in Normal Distribution, Thereby Generating accelerating Cycles of Internal Conflict, Generating Demand for Authority to Control by the Hazard Maker.”

Examine the most common occupations among your relatives and ask how many of them are symmetric in responsibility liability and accountability for testfiability, reciprocity, sovereignty, that don’t violate the above criteria. Versus how many of them are dependent on verbal negotiation of benefiting from even non performing propositions. How many are productive, reciprocal, and don’t impose costs on the commons that produced truth before face and our unique high trust society.

Reply addressees: @AmKsheOref @Hamishtadel1 @Vessel_of_Glass