Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 04:15:25 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Freedom Of Association?  (Read 10620 times)
jgraham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


<Pretentious and poorly thought out latin phrase>


View Profile
July 25, 2011, 03:38:24 PM
 #161

For example oppression is defined as the unjust use of power.  If the wealthy landowner is unjust in segregating his community then how is he not also oppressing people?  Is it okay to force him to stop?  If it isn't then how are people not reasonable in responding violently?
He is metaphorically oppressing people, but he is not actually oppressing people. A refusal to interact with someone is not oppressing them. I don't oppress McDonald's if I choose to eat at Burger King, even if my reasons are bizarre or irrational (that Hamburgler always seemed creepy to me).
If you're saying that having a restriction that everyone in my lands has to use washrooms segregated by ethnicity, live in specific areas of my lands by ethnicity, people who are of a specific ethnicity aren't allowed to leave (I can own the roads and presumably other transport remember!) and people of particular ethnicities are only allowed specific jobs with lower salaries (which I can control through contracts with people who build on my land) - isn't real oppression.  Then I think you're making a distinction without a difference.

Quote
The equation of isolation with oppression is a bogus argument, akin to equating bullets with words. It is one I entirely reject.
But not so long ago you seemed to say that segregation was unjust?   I'm still stuck on how this is not an unjust use of power?   The only reason that is consistent with your wording is that you are just making a trivial exception to the term.   Why not just throw that away and say that - in your world - Some things that are generally accepted as oppressive acts are okay?
Quote
Quote
Quote
If the majority of people want to be bigots, then we definitely don't want force available, because they'll use force to do things like segregate society and oppress minorities.
You mean if 60% of your country believes that washrooms should be ethnically segregated.   Then laws can and will be passed to demand it?   That seems unlikely.
Since that's exactly what happened, I'm not sure why you think it's unlikely.
Ah! So your argument is essentially that there is no salient difference between lawmaking with regard to racism in 1847 and today then?

Quote
But in practice, if 60% of the people (or 60% of the wealth, or 60% of the power, or whatever) is willing to use force to compel segregation, no system will be able to avoid segregation.
I'm not sure where your "practice" is taking place here but where I live anyway having the majority of the wealth does not give me the freedom to do what I like.   You are regulated as to what you can use your money to do, buy, etc...

Personally, I've always found Hamburgler preferable to "Big Mac" the nearly powerless symbol of law enforcement.  Cheesy

I'm rather good with Linux.  If you're having problems with your mining rig I'll help you out remotely for 0.05.  You can also propose a flat-rate for some particular task.  PM me for details.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480824925
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480824925

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480824925
Reply with quote  #2

1480824925
Report to moderator
1480824925
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480824925

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480824925
Reply with quote  #2

1480824925
Report to moderator
1480824925
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480824925

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480824925
Reply with quote  #2

1480824925
Report to moderator
jgraham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


<Pretentious and poorly thought out latin phrase>


View Profile
July 25, 2011, 04:29:31 PM
 #162

Every statement I wrote about what Law is, was as precise as it will ever get.
So despite there being a bunch of commentary in that thread on your laws.   No explication is necessary?

Quote from: FredericBastiat

I'd like to see you do better.
Is that an implied argument from ignorance? (ie. if one can not do better than either no better can be done or it's somehow wrong to criticize?) Not to mention that I've already made the argument that law is likely necessarily complex.   I doubt if I have much reason to embark on creating a different legal system.

Quote from: FredericBastiat
Quote from: magicalme
Also I'd appreciate a response to the bulk of this discussion which has been about your particular justification for your ideas as to what makes an optimal legal system. NOT primarily what your alleged optimal system consists of.   In that vein, any chance you can tell me what this has to do with your argument concerning your ideas concerning "number of laws" or your definition of "loophole" or "law".  After all I've been consistent in responding to your questions.
I wasn't describing a legal system, I was creating definitions that anybody could utilize in whatever legal "system" they were willing to concoct. I'm personally not interested in responding to the # of loophole response or definition thereof. It will likely go nowhere. Let it go. If you can't get the gist of it, does that mean your going to "go off the deep end" and start hurting people? If not, then I'm sure we have a pretty good understanding.
Wait. What?  Ok let's walk through this.  I don't feel any urge to hurt anyone so that means any impression of have of your rationale for a "simple" system is what you meant?  So currently I think your rationale is poorly thought out and ill-defined to the point of being useless.  Ergo that's what you meant?

Yes, I see that you console yourself with the idea that my consideration that your argument is bad is the result of some deliberate position on my part.   Have you considered that your belief that your argument is correct is the direct result of spending too much time talking with people who are unwilling or unable to criticize it properly?
 
Quote from: FredericBastiat
Quote from: logicalme
How about, instead you just be honest about it?  i.e. " 'Mental crime' wasn't what I meant" or "My loophole/number of laws argument doesn't really hold water".   I mean who cares?  I would guess that wouldn't affect your position anyway.   Why keep a bad argument around?
Exactly who cares. I'm sure you got it. Again this is sounding like a debate about a debate about a debate, not an obvious clarification about a clarification about a clarification (don't even go there). You're the one keeping the bad argument around it seems. Again, let it go. It's going nowhere.
Colour me confused.  So are you admitting you made a bad argument here?  You could have said that ages ago.

Quote from: FredericBastiat
Does this help your fragile mind games about some off-handed rhetorical rant about a rant?
*sigh* Look it's simple.  Your argument was bad. The number of laws/loopholes:

i) Is not defined well enough to be useful
ii) In the various definitions posited by you it is incorrect.

I wonder if your argument would be so "off-handed" if someone hadn't called you on it?

Quote from: plantiveme
Quote from: FredericBastiat
""I don't find pedantry fun in the least.""
I've already argued that that is an undeserved accusation.  Please back up your claim or stop accusing.
Get over yourself, I'm sure you'll survive.
...a false accusation.  Sure.  However it doesn't speak much for your intellectual integrity.

Quote from: FredericBastiat
Quote from: memememe
I can't deliberately misconstrue if I don't know what you're saying.  You made statements with apparent contradictions.  It's up to you, not me to clear those up.
You seem clueless and informed at the same time. The sardonic irony in here is thick.
I understand a few things.  However I don't necessarily understand your argument - unless of course it's simply wrong.  By giving you the opportunity to redefine your terms I'm being considerably more polite than say...to pick a zealot at random...say bitcoin2cash.  His response to your approach is something like "you got nothing".

Quote from: FredericBastiat
I don't have to do anything for you at all. Either you get it or you don't, I'm not your wet nurse.
Thanks Atlas.  How about another topic?  Do you find it interesting how the same "you get it or you don't" rationale works equally well when arguing both correct and incorrect things?
"You either get that aliens are going to destroy the world in 2012 or you don't!"  The mild implication that there's something wrong with "not getting it" is great manipulation too.

Quote from: FredericBastiat
I'm not going to argue about an argument any more than I'm going to define a definition. It's called circular.
Depends on what you mean.  A circular argument or definition is one in which it depends on the term itself for definition.  i.e. Whales are whales.  Other than dealing with religious people I rarely find myself in a place where someone has to make a circular definition so early on.  Why not just say: "Hey I simply assert this for no good reason?"

Quote from: FredericBastiat
Quote from: mememomebananaramabobefififofe
Please cite a specific example of what you are talking about here.  From here it appears that your loose usage of language is the problem.   It makes your ideas appear as not being thought through.  You also seem to be saying that it's my responsibility to make your arguments make sense.  Why is that exactly?  I thought all I owed you was inaction?
Not interested in making more examples than I've already compiled. I've thought them thru just fine (let's see you do better). I invite you to sit down and write a set of laws. We'll compare notes.
Argument from ignorance once again.

Quote from: FredericBastiat
Notwithstanding, it seems that if I did, you'd nit pick thru every word I wrote with the intent of finding contradictions that don't exist. I never implied you'd be responsible for my words or make my arguments make sense. You're assuming, I thought you didn't do that.
Well, you do keep implying that it's my fault that your words don't make sense.   Isn't "You get it or you don't" is a implicit argument that I have to make sense of your words and that you are not responsible for making sense of them to others.

Quote from: FredericBastiat
Quote from: estuteme
No jumping necessary.  You have just made a change of subject fallacy.  Instead of giving an argument as to why "laws" need to be simple you are now just assuming it.  This is what logicians call "begging the question".

Read the "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" by Ludvig Wittgenstein. I imagine you two would get along just dandy. Go begging.

I'd love to spend some time reading Wittgenstein but apparently I get distracted by sophomoric argumentation easily.  Considering what Wittgenstein was attempting to do for language what Bertrand Russel was attempting to do for math (and was subsequently foiled by Godel).  I think it's a great use of your time.

I'm rather good with Linux.  If you're having problems with your mining rig I'll help you out remotely for 0.05.  You can also propose a flat-rate for some particular task.  PM me for details.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 26, 2011, 04:59:10 PM
 #163

Quote from: jgraham
So despite there being a bunch of commentary in that thread on your laws.   No explication is necessary?

Unless I can write in another language you could actually understand, then yes.

Quote from: jgraham
Is that an implied argument from ignorance? (ie. if one can not do better than either no better can be done or it's somehow wrong to criticize?) Not to mention that I've already made the argument that law is likely necessarily complex. I doubt if I have much reason to embark on creating a different legal system.

It was an invitation to tango. Wanna dance, or not? If you have no reason to embark on a constructive legal system, why is it you're willing to argue about it so much? If you've got something to offer, then offer. I know of a lot of people who like to argue, but do nothing in the way of suggesting improvements.

Quote from: jgraham
Wait. What?  Ok let's walk through this.  I don't feel any urge to hurt anyone so that means any impression of have of your rationale for a "simple" system is what you meant?  So currently I think your rationale is poorly thought out and ill-defined to the point of being useless.  Ergo that's what you meant?

Not interested in arguing again (and again).

Quote from: jgraham
Yes, I see that you console yourself with the idea that my consideration that your argument is bad is the result of some deliberate position on my part.   Have you considered that your belief that your argument is correct is the direct result of spending too much time talking with people who are unwilling or unable to criticize it properly?

I accept criticism fine and I need no consolation. I feel great, thanks. You are being deliberately pedantic. I do believe my positions and hypotheses are sound. It appears you think you know how to criticize properly, as if there was such a thing. Highly questionable. I could find plenty of your arguments to have baseless theories, but I'm not interested in pointing them out.
 
Quote from: jgraham
Colour me confused.  So are you admitting you made a bad argument here?  You could have said that ages ago.

Yes you are confused. So we do agree on some things. I'm not admitting to bad aguments, unless they were referring to arguing over your arguements. Sorry you're a little slow.


Quote from: jgraham
*sigh* Look it's simple.  Your argument was bad. The number of laws/loopholes:

i) Is not defined well enough to be useful
ii) In the various definitions posited by you it is incorrect.

I wonder if your argument would be so "off-handed" if someone hadn't called you on it?

Not true, no and no. Calling anything out, doesn't make you or anybody else right (or wrong). You assume a lot. One exception: unless you're THE Supreme being. Anything else, I'll take with a very big grain of salt. I like how you used the word simple as if it were any less or more simple than what I said. Back at ya! Nice try.

Quote from: jgraham
...a false accusation.  Sure.  However it doesn't speak much for your intellectual integrity.

I'm not remotely worried. Pure rhetorical hyperbole.

Quote from: jgraham
I understand a few things.  However I don't necessarily understand your argument - unless of course it's simply wrong.  By giving you the opportunity to redefine your terms I'm being considerably more polite than say...to pick a zealot at random...say bitcoin2cash.  His response to your approach is something like "you got nothing".

And yet they're not too far from the truth... speaking of your intellectual integrity. You have little to offer other than argument it seems.

Quote from: jgraham
Thanks Atlas.  How about another topic?  Do you find it interesting how the same "you get it or you don't" rationale works equally well when arguing both correct and incorrect things?
"You either get that aliens are going to destroy the world in 2012 or you don't!"  The mild implication that there's something wrong with "not getting it" is great manipulation too.

Yes how about that other topic (other than garrulous argumentation)? I don't recall talking about any aliens. Who's the manipulator now?

Quote from: jgraham
Depends on what you mean.  A circular argument or definition is one in which it depends on the term itself for definition.  i.e. Whales are whales.  Other than dealing with religious people I rarely find myself in a place where someone has to make a circular definition so early on.  Why not just say: "Hey I simply assert this for no good reason?"

Simply can't help yourself can you? My assertions are solid. Your arguments are for naught. They in no way undercut the concepts and premises I bring to the table.

Quote from: jgraham
Not interested in making more examples than I've already compiled. I've thought them thru just fine (let's see you do better). I invite you to sit down and write a set of laws. We'll compare notes.
Argument from ignorance once again.

Aww... Don't wanna play? You're ignorantly arguing for argument sake.

Quote from: jgraham
Well, you do keep implying that it's my fault that your words don't make sense.   Isn't "You get it or you don't" is a implicit argument that I have to make sense of your words and that you are not responsible for making sense of them to others.

Nope, not implying that my words don't make sense (they do). To be crystal clear, you have a language problem. You pretend to not get it and feign just enough ignorance so you can argue. Is that clear enough for you? What part of the word responsible don't you get? Get a dictionary. I daresay, you could never be a very good anthropologist, private investigator, or anything that doesn't lay down, to perfection, exactly what everybody means. This doesn't in any way imply I'm speaking in riddles or suggesting you solve a "mystery novel". Apparently, this is overly taxing your mental capacity. Take a class on praxeology. I pity you.

Quote from: jgraham
I'd love to spend some time reading Wittgenstein but apparently I get distracted by sophomoric argumentation easily.  Considering what Wittgenstein was attempting to do for language what Bertrand Russel was attempting to do for math (and was subsequently foiled by Godel).  I think it's a great use of your time.

Yes, you do get distracted by argumentation; yours to be exact. You're making sophomoric assumptions about arguments over assumptions. At least Wittgenstein had something to offer.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
jgraham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


<Pretentious and poorly thought out latin phrase>


View Profile
July 26, 2011, 06:30:54 PM
 #164

Quote from: jgraham
So despite there being a bunch of commentary in that thread on your laws.   No explication is necessary?
Unless I can write in another language you could actually understand, then yes.
So no definitions, distinctions of any kind, of any terms used by you are necessary to make your laws generally understandable to people who speak English?

Quote from: jgraham
Is that an implied argument from ignorance? (ie. if one can not do better than either no better can be done or it's somehow wrong to criticize?) Not to mention that I've already made the argument that law is likely necessarily complex. I doubt if I have much reason to embark on creating a different legal system.
If you have no reason to embark on a constructive legal system, why is it you're willing to argue about it so much?
I'll assume for the moment you mean "embark on constructing a legal system" (As I don't know how to "embark on a system").  So, in your world the only person who can offer a counter-argument on a subject is someone who is willing to construct said thing from scratch? Huh.  Go figure.  So for background where I live, someone can say "Hey, that paragraph in this document is redundant" without being expect to re-write the whole thing or "You should have used tail-recursion" without having to rewrite the whole program.  I could go on.  Who knew places like yours existed?

Quote
If you've got something to offer, then offer. I know of a lot of people who like to argue, but do nothing in the way of suggesting improvements.
Depends on how you look at it.  From here all I've been doing is suggesting improvements.  You provided a weak argument for preferring a particular characteristic of a legal system.   I improved it...by showing you that it should be thrown away.

Quote from: jgraham
Yes, I see that you console yourself with the idea that my consideration that your argument is bad is the result of some deliberate position on my part.   Have you considered that your belief that your argument is correct is the direct result of spending too much time talking with people who are unwilling or unable to criticize it properly?
I accept criticism fine and I need no consolation. I feel great, thanks.
And interestingly enough...not what was said.  I didn't say that you have a problem accepting criticism but that you think your ideas a sound because you have problems finding enough of it and in high-enough quality (other than me - which you are now engaged in some game of "avoid making a point")

You are being deliberately pedantic.
You're not in any position to know that I'm being deliberate and you've not brought any evidence to the table that I'm being pedantic.

I do believe my positions and hypotheses are sound.
...and that's the problem.  I mentioned that earlier.

It appears you think you know how to criticize properly, as if there was such a thing.
More like I think I know something about it.  For example I think first you need to establish definitions so that people involved are working from a common understanding of your terms.   You seemingly have little need for that.  So it at least seems like that's at least one thing I have up on whatever feedback you are getting.

Highly questionable. I could find plenty of your arguments to have baseless theories, but I'm not interested in pointing them out.
Sorry for interjecting but is English not your primary language or something?  I assume you mean you think my arguments are baseless or illogical.  Well, feel free to demonstrate your point.  I'd love to hear that.

Quote from: jgraham
Colour me confused.  So are you admitting you made a bad argument here?  You could have said that ages ago.
Yes you are confused. So we do agree on some things. I'm not admitting to bad aguments
So you're admitting to not following the conversation.  Ok!

Quote from: jgraham
*sigh* Look it's simple.  Your argument was bad. The number of laws/loopholes:

i) Is not defined well enough to be useful
ii) In the various definitions posited by you it is incorrect.

I wonder if your argument would be so "off-handed" if someone hadn't called you on it?
Not true, no and no. Calling anything out, doesn't make you or anybody else right (or wrong).
Then you should be able to answer my earlier question about how we are counting laws.

You assume a lot.
Only what you've given me to assume.  I've provided a few provisional definitions which I've given you plenty of opportunity to correct or extend.

Quote
I like how you used the word simple as if it were any less or more simple than what I said. Back at ya! Nice try.
Hmmm...you are sure working hard to find something to whine about.   I doubt I was making a reference like that.  If you think something I said is not easy than please point out the specific thing.   I've certainly done that with you.

Quote from: jgraham
...a false accusation.  Sure.  However it doesn't speak much for your intellectual integrity.
I'm not remotely worried. Pure rhetorical hyperbole.
Well either I am pedantic - in which case you should offer some argument to that effect or I'm not.  In which case you will not be capable of arguing that (successfully).
There's nothing hyperbolic here.

Quote from: jgraham
I understand a few things.  However I don't necessarily understand your argument - unless of course it's simply wrong.  By giving you the opportunity to redefine your terms I'm being considerably more polite than say...to pick a zealot at random...say bitcoin2cash.  His response to your approach is something like "you got nothing".
And yet they're not too far from the truth...
That you have nothing?  Are you just setting yourself up to be zinged now?

Quote from: jgraham
Thanks Atlas.  How about another topic?  Do you find it interesting how the same "you get it or you don't" rationale works equally well when arguing both correct and incorrect things?
"You either get that aliens are going to destroy the world in 2012 or you don't!"  The mild implication that there's something wrong with "not getting it" is great manipulation too.
Yes how about that other topic (other than garrulous argumentation)? I don't recall talking about any aliens. Who's the manipulator now?
You of course.  I'm using the statement about aliens as an example of the kind of argument that can be put forth using the same technique you used.  You implied (and in a few cases stated) that there is something wrong with me if I don't understand your argument. 

Quote from: jgraham
Depends on what you mean.  A circular argument or definition is one in which it depends on the term itself for definition.  i.e. Whales are whales.  Other than dealing with religious people I rarely find myself in a place where someone has to make a circular definition so early on.  Why not just say: "Hey I simply assert this for no good reason?"
Simply can't help yourself can you? My assertions are solid. Your arguments are for naught. They in no way undercut the concepts and premises I bring to the table.
Perhaps I need to be more figurative? I think the point I'm making here is that your table is currently empty.  Feel free to "bring something to it".

Quote from: jgraham
Not interested in making more examples than I've already compiled. I've thought them thru just fine (let's see you do better). I invite you to sit down and write a set of laws. We'll compare notes.
Argument from ignorance once again.
Aww... Don't wanna play? You're ignorantly arguing for argument sake.
Sounds like you don't understand the term but since you won't define terms...

Quote from: jgraham
Well, you do keep implying that it's my fault that your words don't make sense.   Isn't "You get it or you don't" is a implicit argument that I have to make sense of your words and that you are not responsible for making sense of them to others.
Nope, not implying that my words don't make sense (they do). To be crystal clear, you have a language problem. You pretend to not get it and feign just enough ignorance so you can argue. Is that clear enough for you? What part of the word responsible don't you get?
More like I simply do not pretend to know what you are thinking and I consider that language to be far more complex than what exists in my head.  Pretty much everything else is logic.  You've already demonstrated pretty clearly that you are using some non-standard definitions of terms pretty central to the discussion (e.g. law) and you've already made some arguments by special definition.  It sure seems reasonable to assume that we need to define things a bit better.

I daresay, you could never be a very good anthropologist, private investigator, or anything that doesn't lay down, to perfection, exactly what everybody means. This doesn't in any way imply I'm speaking in riddles or suggesting you solve a "mystery novel". Apparently, this is overly taxing your mental capacity. Take a class on praxeology. I pity you.
You'll have to explain what you mean by perfection.  Not only have I, in this discussion demonstrated an understanding of the term colloqually but I've also demonstrated that it's not necessarily for everything.  My example about law was about approximating functions.  Perhaps you just don't have the background in math but approximating functions aren't perfect.  They're approximations....and of course since you're already eliminated yourself from the potential causes for these problems...I guess you're just left reaching.

Quote from: jgraham
I'd love to spend some time reading Wittgenstein but apparently I get distracted by sophomoric argumentation easily.  Considering what Wittgenstein was attempting to do for language what Bertrand Russel was attempting to do for math (and was subsequently foiled by Godel).  I think it's a great use of your time.
Yes, you do get distracted by argumentation; yours to be exact. You're making sophomoric assumptions about arguments over assumptions. At least Wittgenstein had something to offer.
Not really, most of this talk is entirely focused on a couple of seemingly crappy arguments you made.

I'm rather good with Linux.  If you're having problems with your mining rig I'll help you out remotely for 0.05.  You can also propose a flat-rate for some particular task.  PM me for details.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 26, 2011, 07:15:08 PM
 #165

You are being deliberately pedantic.
You're not in any position to know that I'm being deliberate and you've not brought any evidence to the table that I'm being pedantic.

 Cheesy Sorry... just couldn't get past this spot, I was laughing too hard.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
jgraham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


<Pretentious and poorly thought out latin phrase>


View Profile
July 26, 2011, 08:06:49 PM
 #166

You are being deliberately pedantic.
You're not in any position to know that I'm being deliberate and you've not brought any evidence to the table that I'm being pedantic.

 Cheesy Sorry... just couldn't get past this spot, I was laughing too hard.
...and still no evidence.  Funny that.

I'm rather good with Linux.  If you're having problems with your mining rig I'll help you out remotely for 0.05.  You can also propose a flat-rate for some particular task.  PM me for details.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 26, 2011, 08:14:07 PM
 #167

jgraham,

I believe throwing away any, or all of your purported axioms, assertions, theories, definitions and contrivances or assumptions about the aforementioned, would most likely be an improvement. Why don't we leave it that way? I prefer a lot less pollution. Enough said (or not said, apparently). As some would say, "less is more".

Most improved indeed.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
jgraham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


<Pretentious and poorly thought out latin phrase>


View Profile
July 26, 2011, 08:20:45 PM
 #168

I believe throwing away any, or all of your purported axioms, assertions, theories, definitions and contrivances or assumptions about the aforementioned, would most likely be an improvement.

Ok, then lets start from the beginning again.  Grin You claimed something about fewer laws/loopholes being something vaguely positive or desirable in...something
(Hopefully not being too restrictive here.)

Now either you hold to that assertion or you do not.   If you do not, well then we're done here.

If you do, then please define what is desirable (in a non-trivial way) and how laws/loopholes are counted.

I'm rather good with Linux.  If you're having problems with your mining rig I'll help you out remotely for 0.05.  You can also propose a flat-rate for some particular task.  PM me for details.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 26, 2011, 08:32:35 PM
 #169

It would seem there are some of us in here (to remain unnamed) that demand that the rest of us be wordsmiths.

So just to be cheeky, why don't we all start reading the English dictionary (we'll start there and work our way back etymologically to Latin or Greek) and then after we're done doing that, we then define all of the possible ways we can combine those words to mean different things other than their original meanings.

Once we've got all the combinations down, then we can have a conversation. Or better yet, why don't we just speak binary. Kinda hard to confuse 1 and 0 I would think. Although combinations of 1's and 0's could mean anything you want... Darnit!

Which brings up an interesting possibility, if we were to write in a programming language (preferably assembly), then there would be less to "debug" in our conversations.

Interesting thought...

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 26, 2011, 08:34:49 PM
 #170

You are being deliberately pedantic.
You're not in any position to know that I'm being deliberate and you've not brought any evidence to the table that I'm being pedantic.

 Cheesy Sorry... just couldn't get past this spot, I was laughing too hard.
...and still no evidence.  Funny that.

Well, except your own amazingly pedantic response to his accusation that you're being pedantic.

Like responding to 'You're being argumentative.' with 'AM NOT!'  Cheesy

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
jgraham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


<Pretentious and poorly thought out latin phrase>


View Profile
July 26, 2011, 08:41:31 PM
 #171

It would seem there are some of us in here (to remain unnamed) that demand that the rest of us be wordsmiths.

If "avoiding the question" isn't an art form then you're well on your way to making it one.

In fact, what I've said has nothing to do with being all that good at language. My 4yr old understands logical axioms well enough to be able to make a reasonable syllogism.   Heck nobody says you have to get it right on the first try.  I think I've been pretty patient with you and your shenanigans (accusations, name-calling and dodging the question).  You want to redefine your terms?  Or even your whole argument.  Go ahead.

However if you want to whine and gainsay or whatever you're doing...hey be my guest.  It tends to look bad on you IMHO.

I'm rather good with Linux.  If you're having problems with your mining rig I'll help you out remotely for 0.05.  You can also propose a flat-rate for some particular task.  PM me for details.
jgraham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


<Pretentious and poorly thought out latin phrase>


View Profile
July 26, 2011, 08:44:25 PM
 #172

You are being deliberately pedantic.
You're not in any position to know that I'm being deliberate and you've not brought any evidence to the table that I'm being pedantic.

 Cheesy Sorry... just couldn't get past this spot, I was laughing too hard.
...and still no evidence.  Funny that.

Well, except your own amazingly pedantic response to his accusation that you're being pedantic.
So asking for evidence of something is, in your world amazingly pedantic? (not even ordinarily pedantic).  That's hardly much of a formal requirement.

I'm rather good with Linux.  If you're having problems with your mining rig I'll help you out remotely for 0.05.  You can also propose a flat-rate for some particular task.  PM me for details.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 26, 2011, 08:47:31 PM
 #173

You are being deliberately pedantic.
You're not in any position to know that I'm being deliberate and you've not brought any evidence to the table that I'm being pedantic.

 Cheesy Sorry... just couldn't get past this spot, I was laughing too hard.
...and still no evidence.  Funny that.

Well, except your own amazingly pedantic response to his accusation that you're being pedantic.
So asking for evidence of something is, in your world amazingly pedantic? (not even ordinarily pedantic).  That's hardly much of a formal requirement.
It's not what you said, but how you say it. You consistently come across as being even more pedantic than I am, and brother, that's saying something.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 26, 2011, 08:55:23 PM
 #174

If "avoiding the question" isn't an art form then you're well on your way to making it one.

In fact, what I've said has nothing to do with being all that good at language. My 4yr old understands logical axioms well enough to be able to make a reasonable syllogism.   Heck nobody says you have to get it right on the first try.  I think I've been pretty patient with you and your shenanigans (accusations, name-calling and dodging the question).  You want to redefine your terms?  Or even your whole argument.  Go ahead.

However if you want to whine and gainsay or whatever you're doing...hey be my guest.  It tends to look bad on you IMHO.

The question isn't worthy of any different answer than the one already given. That being, fewer laws, and thereby less confusion, and thus less loopholes, which take advantage of said laws, is preferable. There is no axiom or assumption to start with that could prove that beyond a scintilla of doubt. Nothing is that way, because you have to start somewhere (the axiom). So what? Would it help to say it seems like common sense, and leave it at that, or must we delve into thousands of set-logic constructs to proof everything we say? If so, I value my time differently than you do.

Pardon the shenanigans, but our conversation was going nowhere, and explaining it along the direction it was taking would have still gone nowhere.

By the way, the implied 4yr old comparison - not bad, kinda figured. Reminiscient of the shenanigans you referred to. I guess it takes one to know one. Oops, better be careful; I think I stopped caring, about 10 posts ago.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
jgraham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


<Pretentious and poorly thought out latin phrase>


View Profile
July 26, 2011, 09:01:04 PM
 #175

You are being deliberately pedantic.
You're not in any position to know that I'm being deliberate and you've not brought any evidence to the table that I'm being pedantic.

 Cheesy Sorry... just couldn't get past this spot, I was laughing too hard.
...and still no evidence.  Funny that.

Well, except your own amazingly pedantic response to his accusation that you're being pedantic.
So asking for evidence of something is, in your world amazingly pedantic? (not even ordinarily pedantic).  That's hardly much of a formal requirement.
It's not what you said, but how you say it. You consistently come across as being even more pedantic than I am, and brother, that's saying something.
Sorry, did we start dating at some point?  For future reference unless we're sleeping together you don't get to say that.

Not much to really say to this, there is no intent or desire on my part to make more of a detail than is necessary.  Mostly though the things I'm interested in are relatively small pieces of text e.g. arguments about "law counting".   Probably because I think they are just concrete enough to be tackled to some useful end.  Much of what you folk talk about is so poorly defined that - just based on the English I've personally encountered - it could mean such a wide variety of things that engaging is well beyond my patience.  So unlike Freddie accuses this isn't me projecting every definition and sense onto some word this is my personal store of English usage I've actually experienced in conversation (often on the selfsame topics).  Perhaps broadened slightly by the other languages I read and write too.   IMHO the more you experience of language the more you get used to seeing the multiplicity of meaning.  The more you realize the need for more precise definitions.   Especially if it's going to be the basis of some larger argument.

So not to put too fine a point on it. To me you and a number of others here just have no idea how to reason a point.   These are like conversations I had in elementary school

I'm rather good with Linux.  If you're having problems with your mining rig I'll help you out remotely for 0.05.  You can also propose a flat-rate for some particular task.  PM me for details.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 26, 2011, 09:12:45 PM
 #176

You are being deliberately pedantic.
You're not in any position to know that I'm being deliberate and you've not brought any evidence to the table that I'm being pedantic.

 Cheesy Sorry... just couldn't get past this spot, I was laughing too hard.
...and still no evidence.  Funny that.

Well, except your own amazingly pedantic response to his accusation that you're being pedantic.
So asking for evidence of something is, in your world amazingly pedantic? (not even ordinarily pedantic).  That's hardly much of a formal requirement.
It's not what you said, but how you say it. You consistently come across as being even more pedantic than I am, and brother, that's saying something.
Sorry, did we start dating at some point?  For future reference unless we're sleeping together you don't get to say that.

Dating or not... You're just too damn funny for words. Keep it up, I'm entertained.  Kiss

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
jgraham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


<Pretentious and poorly thought out latin phrase>


View Profile
July 26, 2011, 09:19:58 PM
 #177

If "avoiding the question" isn't an art form then you're well on your way to making it one.

In fact, what I've said has nothing to do with being all that good at language. My 4yr old understands logical axioms well enough to be able to make a reasonable syllogism.   Heck nobody says you have to get it right on the first try.  I think I've been pretty patient with you and your shenanigans (accusations, name-calling and dodging the question).  You want to redefine your terms?  Or even your whole argument.  Go ahead.

However if you want to whine and gainsay or whatever you're doing...hey be my guest.  It tends to look bad on you IMHO.

The question isn't worthy of any different answer than the one already given. That being, fewer laws, and thereby less confusion, and thus less loopholes, which take advantage of said laws, is preferable. There is no axiom or assumption to start with that could prove that beyond a scintilla of doubt. Nothing is that way, because you have to start somewhere (the axiom).
Sure every argument starts somewhere. However there's nothing stopping the argument from starting from a set of common and agreed upon premises.  Even when two people love each other very much....sorry wrong speech....sorry when two people have agreed upon premises (including what you're calling 'axioms') it's entirely common to require some definitions.

Here, for example it's unclear how I determine if one set of laws is "fewer" than another.   Clearly this is important, if it can be established that there is no useful way to count laws then the premise while assumed to be true - is useless (except perhaps as a rhetoric device).  So we throw it away.  From there it's also important to understand what is "preferable" here.   Do you only mean it in the trivial sense (i.e. preferable to you) or is there some more general sense you are appealing to.   Again if it's just preferable to you and you are appealing to no other value system.   Then again the axiom - even if assumed true - is useless (same caveat).  Once we have those two things, it's worth determining if the statement is falsifiable.   Just because you assume something to be true or believe that it can not be proven correct - it may still be falsified.    

or must we delve into thousands of set-logic constructs to proof everything we say? If so, I value my time differently than you do.

No offense but you're not up to that even if you were willing.
This is another example of your shenanigans.   It's technically a false dichotomy.  You do it a fair bit, you make a "Do we have to do A or B" argument.  When clearly those aren't the only choices.  To wit, it's likely that your argument can be evaluated in more ways than either simply being assumed true or making a tedious proof.

Pardon the shenanigans, but our conversation was going nowhere, and explaining it along the direction it was taking would have still gone nowhere.
Not necessarily true.  I'm pretty sure I could get you to a point where either I can destroy the utility of the statement or demonstrate it false outright.  Even if I can't that's still somewhere.

By the way, the implied 4yr old comparison - not bad, kinda figured. Reminiscient of the shenanigans you referred to. I guess it takes one to know one. Oops, better be careful; I think I stopped caring, about 10 posts ago.
Actually that was just a counter-example to the "worthsmith" nonsense.  The idea being that a four year old is probably not a wordsmith.  You do seem to project something strange onto my words.

I'm rather good with Linux.  If you're having problems with your mining rig I'll help you out remotely for 0.05.  You can also propose a flat-rate for some particular task.  PM me for details.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 26, 2011, 09:29:21 PM
 #178

Multiplicity of meaning is the problem with any "spoken" language. Mathematics resolves much of this of course, but I don't know of anybody who speaks mathematics or uses set theory on a regular basis in their everyday speech.

T'would be nice, but obviously just isn't the case. We all have to deal with drawing inferences from what is expressed either written, spoken, or gestured. Then we act. There aren't many people willing to play the role of logician. It takes way too much effort for the average person. It tends to take too much time. We assume things like words have specific meanings, and hope they don't deviate much from those. Not that it wouldn't help in some cases, but for the majority of conversation, most people seem to get the gist. That usually suffices.

It's when one expresses one way, and acts contrary to that expression (our interpretation thereof), is where we take issue. These are usually about broad topics involving a variety of scenarios. Notwithstanding, subsets of those conversations can be completely picked apart. I'd venture a guess that just about everybody could have every word, construction or combinations of words picked apart for any number of reasons. Why do that? Because you can?

What exactly does this accomplish? There are very few words in any dictionary that have "precise" definitions and meaning, as you say, unless you're reading something different than I am. And in context they can mean something entirely different. This doesn't even include things like satire, sarcasm or wittier elocution like paraprosdokians.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
jgraham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


<Pretentious and poorly thought out latin phrase>


View Profile
July 26, 2011, 09:53:43 PM
 #179

Multiplicity of meaning is the problem with any "spoken" language. Mathematics resolves much of this of course, but I don't know of anybody who speaks mathematics or uses set theory on a regular basis in their everyday speech.

Or any of the logical languages like loglan for that matter.

T'would be nice, but obviously just isn't the case. We all have to deal with drawing inferences from what is expressed either written, spoken, or gestured. Then we act. There aren't many people willing to play the role of logician. It takes way too much effort for the average person. It tends to take too much time. We assume things like words have specific meanings, and hope they don't deviate much from those. Not that it wouldn't help in some cases, but for the majority of conversation, most people seem to get the gist. That usually suffices.

Usually? You mean like when I talk about what we should eat for dinner? Sure but that doesn't make the argument that just assuming some informal meaning here is sufficient. I'd counter that in most cases where there is some value on the outcome people do a fair bit of back and forth to determine the precise meaning.

Good example, this morning one person in my employ and a manager were discussing moving an application over to a different platform.  I'm a PM/Architect so when I walked through the discussion I was consulted.  I asked three questions:  Is the cost of conversion high? Does the cost increase over time? and Are there any significant benefits?  Turns out the cost was high, the cost did not increase and there were significant benefits.  I suppose I could have taken everyone at their word.  However, I didn't I asked what the benefits were.   Turns out they had nothing to do with the application.   So the employee assumed I meant "benefit" in the very general context.   So I told them that we shouldn't migrate the application.   The conversation went to a few other things.   Just as the manager was leaving the employee said "So I'm going to test migration" and the manager said "yeah, go ahead".   I stopped them both and asked the manager "Do you mean that we should test on the platform we decided not to migrate to?" Turns out he was talking about some other aspect that we had discussed and simply assumed that the workers question was in reference to that.

Also not to put too fine a point on it but you are using terms in completely non-standard ways (i.e. Law) so that doesn't help things.

It's when one expresses one way, and acts contrary to that expression (our interpretation thereof), is where we take issue.
I'd say that in loose terms  Grin that's precisely what happened above.

I'd venture a guess that just about everybody could have every word, construction or combinations of words picked apart for any number of reasons. Why do that? Because you can?
However that's neither here nor there.  It's not what I did, nor what I advocate.
There are very few words in any dictionary that have "precise" definitions and meaning, as you say, unless you're reading something different than I am. And in context they can mean something entirely different.
I assert this is why the back and forth is important.

I'm rather good with Linux.  If you're having problems with your mining rig I'll help you out remotely for 0.05.  You can also propose a flat-rate for some particular task.  PM me for details.
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 26, 2011, 10:32:13 PM
 #180

Quote from: jgraham
Also not to put too fine a point on it but you are using terms in completely non-standard ways (i.e. Law) so that doesn't help things.

I'd be interested in your standard of Law. You've referred to it in the past. I'd like to see the dissertation. You say I've used 'Law' terms in non-standard ways. Or is it non-standard terms describing 'Law'? For you to know if I use non-standard terms, is to imply you know what the standard should be.  Whatever you say or you think I said, I don't care. I want to see yours.

Show your hand. If you don't, I'll personally consider you bluffing. At this point I could care less what I've said thus far. Ignore that. Produce, or forever hold your tongue. I'm tired of the masturbatory word play.

Throw down.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!