"You've got two, he's got none, give him one!" - Redistribution of Health

[myrkul]

I only said non-trivial metrics...and you're not exactly answering my question.

You cannot show me that any method that involves coercion is better than any method that does not.

[1714796355]

1714796355

[1714796355]

1714796355

[NghtRppr]

Yes, only when you define "quantity" to mean only "cardinal value".

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cardinal_number

Noun

cardinal number (plural cardinal numbers)

    A number used to denote quantity; a counting number.

[jgraham]

I only said non-trivial metrics...and you're not exactly answering my question.

You cannot show me that any method that involves coercion is better than any method that does not.

Again, neither what was said nor asked?  Why all the dancing about the issue?

[jgraham]

Yes, only when you define "quantity" to mean only "cardinal value".

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cardinal_number

Noun

cardinal number (plural cardinal numbers)

    A number used to denote quantity; a counting number.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

[myrkul]

I only said non-trivial metrics...and you're not exactly answering my question.

You cannot show me that any method that involves coercion is better than any method that does not.

Again, neither what was said nor asked?  Why all the dancing about the issue?

Yes, you did:

Wouldn't pain and suffering be non-trivial metrics?

[jgraham]

I only said non-trivial metrics...and you're not exactly answering my question.

You cannot show me that any method that involves coercion is better than any method that does not.

Again, neither what was said nor asked?  Why all the dancing about the issue?

Yes, you did:

Wouldn't pain and suffering be non-trivial metrics?

No, check your premises.

[NghtRppr]

Yes, only when you define "quantity" to mean only "cardinal value".

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cardinal_number

Noun

cardinal number (plural cardinal numbers)

    A number used to denote quantity; a counting number.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

You're wrong. Deal with it.

[myrkul]

No, check your premises.

Coercion = Pain and suffering.

Disprove it.

[jgraham]

Yes, only when you define "quantity" to mean only "cardinal value".

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cardinal_number

Noun

cardinal number (plural cardinal numbers)

    A number used to denote quantity; a counting number.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

You're wrong. Deal with it.

I stated "quantity" !-> "cardinal number".  You provided a definition of "cardinal number" -> "quantity".  Then you said I was wrong.

Easy to show:

Let P be the term "quantity" and Q be the term "cardinal number".

I stated:

P !->Q

You stated:

Q -> P
Q, Therefore P.

I have reduced your argument to the definition of a formal fallacy.

[NghtRppr]

Ahh, so you think that while cardinal numbers quantify things it could be the case ordinal numbers could quantify things too. Well, then I take back my claim that it was a non sequitur. It's just wrong instead. Also, you clearly don't understand the difference between cardinal and ordinal.

Quantification

    While Cardinal numbers are used to quantify things, such as to describe "how many" there are of something, ordinal numbers do not quantify anything.

http://www.ehow.com/info_8525963_differences-cardinal-numbers-ordinal-numbers.html

[jgraham]

No, check your premises.

Coercion = Pain and suffering.

Disprove it.

Why do you think that's relevant to what I've asked?

[myrkul]

No, check your premises.

Coercion = Pain and suffering.

Disprove it.

Why do you think that's relevant to what I've asked?

Out of curiosity.  If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative.   Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?

Wouldn't pain and suffering be non-trivial metrics?

You asked, I answered.

[jgraham]

Ahh, so you think that while cardinal numbers quantify things it could be the case ordinal numbers could quantify things too. Well, then I take back my claim that it was a non sequitur. It's just wrong instead.

No, more like the term "quantification" and (perhaps to a lesser extent) "quantity" can refer to ordinals or processes involving ordinals.  Even when doing say an analysis that involves ordinals people do refer to the process as "quantification".  It's not very formal I agree (although it's funny you're taking math advice from a BFA) but that's just the way language works.

Also, you clearly don't understand the difference between cardinal and ordinal.

Ever since your "If you insult me I'm warning you I'll knowingly make bad assumptions about you" I find this part of your personality adorable.  I don't really know what to compare it to but it's like you try to exact some completely valueless cost from people for some kind of infraction.  

By the by.  I assume you've discovered your prior pronoun problem?

[jgraham]

No, check your premises.

Coercion = Pain and suffering.

Disprove it.

Why do you think that's relevant to what I've asked?

Out of curiosity.  If I could demonstrate to you that in any and all circumstances that the outcomes of strictly adhering to this principle would be, by every non-trivial metric lesser than at least one alternative.   Would you decide that this principle isn't worth following?

Wouldn't pain and suffering be non-trivial metrics?

You asked, I answered.

Yawn.  Closer to the same sense that "blue" is the answer to "What's two plus two?" but you did respond.
Ok, yes I get the whole coercion (and I assume here you mean.  In any and all forms) results in pain and suffering.
Edit: Actually scratch that...first can you confirm that by "coercion" you are referring exclusively to those things described in NAP

[myrkul]

Yes, Coercion is using violence or the threat of violence to get your ends.

"Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property.

Thus, any system which uses violence or the threat threat of violence to meet its ends is inherently worse than any system that does not, on the pain and suffering metric, at minimum.

[NghtRppr]

No, more like the term "quantification" and (perhaps to a lesser extent) "quantity" can refer to ordinals or processes involving ordinals.  Even when doing say an analysis that involves ordinals people do refer to the process as "quantification".  It's not very formal I agree (although it's funny you're taking math advice from a BFA) but that's just the way language works.

I've got a minor in mathematics. I'm not taking math advice from anyone. I'm just trying to educate you. Since you're going to reject anything that doesn't say it in black and white that's the best I could find. If you really believe that ordinal numbers quantify then please go ask a math professor. You don't even have to admit you're wrong. Just don't go through your life believing something that's factually incorrect. I'm done arguing about this.

[jgraham]

Yes, Coercion is using violence or the threat of violence to get your ends.

"Aggression" is defined as the "initiation" of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property.

Thus, any system which uses the violence or the threat threat of violence to meet its ends is inherently worse than any system that does not, on the pain and suffering metric, at minimum.

So you assert that no matter how little someone perceives the immediacy of the threat that they are still experiencing pain and suffering?  For example I know that there will be interest, fines and possible court cases and potentially even imprisonment if I fail to completely pay my income tax.  So there is a threat of violence over me however I have yet to identify any pain and suffering as a result of this threat.

[myrkul]

 So there is a threat of violence over me however I have yet to identify any pain and suffering as a result of this threat.

So, you have Stockholm Syndrome.

[jgraham]

No, more like the term "quantification" and (perhaps to a lesser extent) "quantity" can refer to ordinals or processes involving ordinals.  Even when doing say an analysis that involves ordinals people do refer to the process as "quantification".  It's not very formal I agree (although it's funny you're taking math advice from a BFA) but that's just the way language works.

I've got a minor in mathematics. I'm not taking math advice from anyone. I'm just trying to educate you. Since you're going to reject anything that doesn't say it in black and white that's the best I could find.  If you really believe that ordinal numbers quantify

Yawn.  From like the first response I've made it clear that I understand cardinality.  I even understand how you are using the term "quantify" (and it's various inflections).   The only thing that seems to burn your balls is that before you formalized your definition I could see the term has having more than one sense - mine being an informal sense at that.  I find your response pattern kind of interesting.   Each time I demonstrated your criticism as incorrect - that either magically drops off the thread or in one case you tried to make it look like the problem was with me.  In the end the only one you don't want to let go of is the definition of the term.  Perhaps this is like your warnings about the work 'jerky' that in real life you would go on this way.  However I really can't imagine what that would be like.  Amongst adults anyway I have yet to experience someone who wouldn't say: "Oh, I get what you're saying" and leave it at that - in fact you can see from the thread I did exactly that.

You don't even have to admit you're wrong

Yeah, cause I'm the one with that problem here.

[jgraham]

So there is a threat of violence over me however I have yet to identify any pain and suffering as a result of this threat.

So, you have Stockholm Syndrome.

Double yawn.  If a captor slaps a hostage.   All Stockholm Syndrome implies is that they might defend or claim to understand the captors actions.   That's not the same as saying "It didn't hurt".   Likewise I'm saying that despite the threat of violence I am not in pain (apparently anyway).

So the question still stands.