Please post all off-topic comments for the week in this thread. They will not be posted in the main articles.
I’m so excited. This Friday is Friday the 13th!
Open thread week ending July 14, 2018
10 Tuesday Jul 2018
Posted in Uncategorized
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Pumpkin Person
%d
https://www.jpost.com/International/Putin-Jews-might-have-been-behind-US-election-interference-544708
This is brilliant. One of my favourite lines in political history.
Maybe they’re not even Russians,” said Putin. “Maybe they’re Ukrainians, Tatars, Jews, just with Russian citizenship, even that needs to be checked.”
Hahahaha. Yes, Tatars are a real threat in america.
http://www.newsweek.com/putin-jews-minorities-interfered-election-lawmakers-russians-extradited-841325
Excellent response from our ‘western’ leaders to these evil allegations.
So this is heritable. But the organ in the skull is not heritable.
Thattttttthhhhhhhhhhhhhhh maaaaatttttttthhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh seeeeeeeeennnnnnthhhhhhhhhhhhhh
[redacted by pp, July 11, 2018]
I mean, all my mental health problems come from my mothers genes. Those are to do with the brain. Why not cognition?
a woman taking steroids is ‘heritable?’
jesus phil is dumb.
Psychology doesn’t reduce to physical structure so genes can’t explain psychological differences.
Keep this one Pumpkin.
“Psychology doesn’t reduce to physical structure so genes can’t explain psychological differences.”
You do realize Property dualism(including AM and most branching theories) is concerned of semantic reducibility, not physical reducibilility correct? It’s specifically in relation to the quantifiable nature of psychology, certain terms Psychologists use and even some neural networks by neuroscientists do not reduce to any physical structure. That’s expected because it’s a new science, but Property Dualists like Markus Gabriel would disagree, they contend that it’s practically impossible to commensurate rationality/normativity. They would not disagree with the fact that your consciousness is a formation of physical mechanisms.
Speaking of Markus Gabriel, I’m assuming you’ve seen his lecture on “neurofetishism”? He’s a horrible speaker, like you, but he seems intelligent. I saw it on the reddit feed, so I figured it was a good idea to see if I was simply missing something from the arguments you’ve been producing. I was disappointed, it was simply the same thing that you’ve spamming all over the blog. So I guess you really are just a terrible reader, but i digress, All forms of property dualism are essentially god of the gaps, irreducible complexity and special pleading type arguments. They are not falsifiable and therefore uninteresting to me from an objective standpoint. What is interesting is your claim that Property dualism=Non-inheritance of rationality.
Evolution has no intention. Evolution is essentially a culling process of unadaptable populations and individuals. Evolution is impossible without an environment. Genes propagate an organisms phenotype, which they use to adapt, and this interaction is carried out either through Trans-generational or intra-generational mechanisms. These mechanisms consist of gene expression(inter-generational) and epigenetics/genetic inheritance(Trans-generational). Large social groups is an adaptation to reproduce and survive, at the same time this adaptation is a new environment in itself(niche construction). The environment sets a standard for organisms which guide how they evolve, just like social norms set a standard for organisms to rationalize in, which is how they learn. As repeated before, genes organize neuronal activity, and humans have evolved particular physical features to communicate through language. Language is a reflection of the normative rules in it’s corresponding culture, different languages have different effects on the brain and these effects also shape the genome through the mechanisms defined above. The placebo effect is another example. Ultimately my point is simply this: If The mind is irreducible with out the cultural norms to explain it, then so is the evolution, because it functions on the same principle. They are 1:1 analogous. So by extension, if you think you can extrapolate non inheritance or evolution of psychological traits from irreducibility, you must therefore reject inheritance of all biological traits, which we already know how ridiculous that contention is. So then you’re left with Intelligent design…You could possibly argue that evolution is intentional through a sort of self actualizing universe, akin to Pantheism, but then you’d e agreeing with Pumpkin that evolution is progressive. This is why multiple commenters claimed your Ideology is similar to Creationism. Do you not see the glaring issues?
https://www.nature.com/articles/npp201081
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573548/
https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010945214001543
https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/1.4933848
1. The argument about “desires” takes care of it. Consciousness is irreducible too. Arguments about the irreducibility of mental states to physical states show that psychology does not reduce to physical structure, therefore (1) genes cannot cause mental traits/psychological states and (2) mental traits/psychological states cannot be genetically transmitted.
2. Gabriel isn’t a dualist; he’s an ontological pluralist. You can refute the arguments in the other comment thread, along with the other 6, that show that psychophysical reducitionism is false.
3. I don’t really disagree; mostly disagree with “Genes propagate an organisms phenotype” (what do you mean by “propagate”? Can you reword that?); “genes organize neuronal activity” (“organize”?); “if you think you can extrapolate non inheritance or evolution of psychological traits from irreducibility, you must therefore reject inheritance of all biological traits” (If the biological traits are physical, I don’t have to; genes can’t explain differences in mental abilities because there are no psychophysical laws, psychophysical reductionism is false); “your Ideology” (my “ideology”? what may that be?).
sometimes i think melo might not be peepee.
Property dualism describes a category of positions in the philosophy of mind which hold that, although the world is composed of just one kind of substance—the physical kind—there exist two distinct kinds of properties: physical properties and mental properties.
“physical substance” doesn’t mean anything in the above context. anglo-american “philosophers” are so utterly fucking retarded. berkeley’s arguments have never been refuted, because they can’t be.
esse est percipi.
chomsky agrees with me. fichte said that all philosophers are idealists, and those who claim to be philosophers and aren’t idealists are just dogmatists.
Guys don’t debate Race Realist. This guy’s main genius is sidetracking arguments into Neverland, and Totally Missing the Point.
“guys don’t debate RaceRealist. Just stay in your H Bee Dee bubble and read JayMan and Hbdchick.”
Mugabe
“sometimes i think melo might not be peepee.”
At least you’re sometimes an intelligent person.
““physical substance” doesn’t mean anything in the above context.”
Indeed, “property dualism” isn’t even a dualist perspective. In fact, Anamolous monism is a far more accurate term, despite the latter being characterized under the former.
RR,
““guys don’t debate RaceRealist. Just stay in your H Bee Dee bubble and read JayMan and Hbdchick.””
Gman supposedly understands my point, and my positions are far less orthodox than HBDchick or JayMan. He was simply telling it how it is. It doesn’t matter if you’re arguing with, you consistently fail to understand any of the counter-objections brought up.
1. You’ve missed the point entirely. Evolution is an emergent property from the environment and the organism. Language(consciousness) is an emergent property from the culture and the organism. A culture is just another environment that language is an adaptation to, culture and language are adaptations to living in social groups. Because Culture and language are an adaptation to an environment, they follow natural selection and can be inherited. Normative values of a culture and a language are distributed in averages just like physical values. If this system is in fact holistic, an organism can never be separated from an environment. Subsequently, it is evident that there must be a mechanism that allows intraand trans-generational inheritance between environment(including culture) and genetics. Because of this interaction, Information from genetics can give insight about the environment, you could say that environment is inherited too. On the most basic level intentions are just reasons, as are predispositions and environment. Does a baby not cry when it’s hungry? Isn’t that a reason? At the end of the day an Intention is just an instinct with a few extra internally communicated steps. Placebo effect and language changes a person’s brain chemistry which alters the epigenetic tags and other forms of gene expression that produce different predispositions that propagate more intentions Ultimately predispositions and Intentions are just causal inputs factor to an emergent property: Consciousness.
Another implication is that evolution is normative especially because we cannot dispense with anthropomorphic language when describing it. Hence, why Property dualism is just creationism, and your ideology of non-inheritance is a product of your own ignorance on the distinction between substance and property dualism. Remember when i told you Biology was a soft science? Its holism is why.
2. Hahahaha, he’s also a speculative realist. it doesn’t change the fact that he is propagating Property Dualism. The above paragraphs address all of the arguments because they attack Property Dualism as a whole.
3. I don’t think you actually understand the point enough to know whether you disagree.
I’m simply saying Genes are what produces an organisms phenotype. This is a fact, I never said environment isn’t involved in this process, and I’m not saying that a Dna Sequence has to change for this propagation to include the genome. Epigenetics is what’s responsible for the individual differences in behavior from genotypically identical cells. That is what I mean by Genes organize a cells activity.
Psycho-physical laws only refers to nomological ones. Because Culture and language are emergent, their causality is conditional not absolute. But this is also true for thermodynamics which is the basis of all life. Either way, all Davidson was saying is the it’s holistic therefore, it’s incommensurate(I disagree with this) but it’s counter to your extrapolations, because it literally has nothing to do with substance dualism. When you state “If the biological traits are physical, I don’t have to;” Then it implies you believe that P=/=M which is the contradicts AM and PD. Ultimately it just makes your argument weaker.
1. ‘Cultural evolution’ is different from evolution by natural selection. “you could say that environment is inherited too” Shocking. “Ultimately predispositions and Intentions are just causal inputs factor to an emergent property: Consciousness.” They’re distinct. 1. Cognition is intentional; 2. behavior is dispositional; C. cognition cannot explain behavior. “If this system is in fact holistic, an organism can never be separated from an environment.” You say this, yet you think heritability estimates are useful. Choose one: heritability estimates are useful (you can separate genes from environment) or heritability estimates are not useful (it’s not possible for heritability estimates to be useful because it’s not possible to untangle ‘genes’ from ‘environment’.
2. No they don’t address any argument, and remember there are still more and you can’t “blanket statement” them.
3. “I’m simply saying Genes are what produces an organisms phenotype.” How sophomoric. There’s more to cellular organization than the ‘genes organizing’ cellular activity. Look at DNA like the cell’s organ.
“When you state “If the biological traits are physical, I don’t have to;” Then it implies you believe that P=/=M”
Anomalous monism is false because it entails epiphenomenalism. That doesn’t mean, however, that Davidson’s arguments against the existence of psychophysical and psychological laws aren’t sound. It is inconsistent with the normativity of the mental.
Here’s an interesting paper “Cognitive psychology does not reduce to neuroscience.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215990627_Cognitive_psychology_does_not_reduce_to_neuroscience
Psychology is not reducible to biology; being against reductionism doesn’t make one a ‘Creatonist’.
However, such reductive physicalism is not at all well supported by contemporary science. Most types of entities and relations that feature in interesting scientific generalizations in special sciences do not decompose into types and relations featuring in generalizations of fundamental physics. All that the state of current science justifies in this philosophical neighbourhood is the weaker principle that physics provides constraints on other sciences.
https://sci-hub.tw/10.2307/4489100
‘‘return to reductionism would be disastrous for the cognitive and behavioral sciences, requiring the dismantling of most existing achievements and placing intolerable restrictions on further work’’
Click to access RSBBS.pdf
Is reductive physicalism true? Is physicalism true? Is materialism true?
1. The 3rd time he has completely missed the point. Cultural evolution and natural selection are exactly the same thing. Words are not objective with the concepts they represent and as I outlined in the prior paragraphs, both terms are defined exactly the same way, they are both emergent processes from an environment and the corresponding organism. Your response: “Shocking” is completely unwarranted and it’s confusing because that is the premise of one of the arguments and not the conclusion.
Cognition is not solely intentional. Answer the question, how can you intend if you cannot perceive? Since cognition requires both perception(dispositional) and intention, it is in fact both. Further, it’s necessary to correct your misconception on what intentions are. Causation is not solely intentional, in fact predispositions are definitively causal.
It’s important for me to point out to the audience the severe ignorance you’ve shown on this topic and the ridiculous strawman you fabricate to promulgate this ignorance:
First and foremost, Heritability does not attempt to separate Environment or genetics, it measures variance, because it is impossible to create a causal analysis or more accurately it is redundant to do so. Secondly, GXE and G+E are meaningless as symbolic representations for gene and environment interactions. All Evolution is additive, just some equations are more complex and conditional then others.
2. They address all arguments. Learn to read. I’m not handwaving anything, You just don’t understand the criticism.
3. Actually being vague is the opposite of sophomoric. All of these ideas you’re parroting are not new. That’s why everyone finds you pretentious. When someone says Gene x causes behavior A, you come rushing in and strawman them by assuming that their statements are absolute ones. You end up just making yourself look stupid, to the point people don’t bother wasting their time on you because it’s obvious how full of yourself that you are.You’re very immature and intellectually insecure.
Anomalous monism does not entail epiphenominalism. P=M therefore, M can effect P because ultimately it’s just another physical interaction. That’s beside the point though, because all property dualism bases itself on P=M, that’s what makes it Property Dualism and not Substance Dualism.
Regarding the rest of your nonsense, I’m not propagating psychology, don’t take my criticisms as me holding the antithesis to your claims. Holism does not mean incommensurate. That’s what you’re not understanding. What do you consider Physical? Because Phsyicalism is not the same as scientific realism of Physics.
1. Nah, they’re not “exactly the same thing”. Trying reading Gould 1996. How can cognition be both dispositional and intentional if it can only be one?
Dispositions indicate a type of property, state or condition. Intentional states are mental states directed—or are about—things. Actions are distinguished from behavior since actions are intentional; behavior is non-cognitive because it is non-normative.
Re: heritability: right, it attempts to separate gene/environmental variance; but the two are intertwined so therefore “separating” the two for ANOVA doesn’t make any sense; heritability estimates assume that G and E are independent of each other.
2. The “paragraphs” (at least you didn’t say “arguments”) do not address the arguments.
3. The Causal Exclusion Argument from Kim shows that, on a token-identity theory, the mental is epiphenomenal. So the CEA takes the best physicalist theory (AM) and shows that it entails epiphenomenalism.
1. They’re completely the same. Gould 96 has no relevance to my argument and if anything, it further buttresses it.
Cognition does not have to be only one, that’s a false dilemma and is a logical fallacy. That’s your own retarded assumption you decided to run with, and has no basis in reality.
Furthermore, equalizing an environment between two individual genotypes is not the same as “separating” it from an organism’s genome. That’s specifically why it measures variance and does not attempt any kind of causal analysis.
2. My paragraphs are also arguments. I guarantee you any Philosopher would recognize that me “just typing words” is indeed an acceptable form of an argument, as long as they have inference rules and contain premises with at least one conclusion, which all of my arguments adhere to. You’re not fooling anyone, you need to address my refutations now, otherwise you’re not worth the time.
3. All property dualism is a physicalist and naturalist theory, including markus gabriel and Kim’s version.
1. Have you read Gould 1996? It’s not a false dilemma; it’s either dispositional or intentional.
2. Your paragraphs aren’t “arguments.” I guess I’m not worth your time then, kid. Go find someone on “your level” then if I’m so dumb,
3. See previous (3)
1, Yes I have. It is a false dillemma, you haven’t actually gave any justification as to why it is an either/or phenomena. You’ve simply created the fallacy of mutual exclusivity. Why wont you answer the question? How can you intend if you do not perceive? How can cognition be solely intentional if it requires predispositional attributes to propagate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition#Mutual_exclusivity
2. Another note for the audience: RR has more or less refused to address my arguments at this point and has subsequently decided that engaging in denialism is the best methodology to wish away reality. I hope this “debate” has fully encapsulated his intellectual dishonesty, and further encourages other users to continue ignoring him.
3. Ad nauseam. My reply directly corrects your amateur misconception.
1. The dichotomy is justified since intentional states are normative and the normative is irreducible to the dispositional.
2. Keep making an assertion that you make ‘arguments’. Why don’t you ignore me? Why don’t you stop “playing with your food” and finally kill it?
3. You’re wrong. the CEA shows that AM entails epiphenomenalism.
And what does Gould 1996 say?
1. We’re talking about consciousness as a whole. “intentional states” are barely the half of it. Dispositional attributes like perception also make up another part of Conscious activity. Disposition’s and intentions are only irreducible to each other in the sense that they are holistic, This means that they can still interact which is of course what Holism entails in the first place, otherwise consciousness could not be a an emergent property. This is also irrelevant to whether they may reduce to each other physically, especially considering that it is the only possible way the two can interact. Obviously the term “irreducible” in this context is specifically a semantic one, not physical.
So no, your dichotomy is not justified, and I am still waiting for you to answer the question.
2. Ha, it is a true assertion. I already did kill it, what we’re doing right now is just indigestion.
3. If you don’t recall I’ve already cited a paper which refutes that very contention:
https://sci-hub.tw/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11098-005-1439-x
Even then P=M ensures that AM does not collapse into epiphenominalism.
In regards to Gould and correct me if I’m mistaken but, isn’t that his criticism of “progressive evolution”? How does that relate to the components of consciousness?
If you don’t think IQ is genetic, then you can’t explain why ashkenazi jews are much smarter than sephardi jews or indeed any other race. How else can you explain it? Culture?! Hahaha.
For most of modern history up until the 1960s, jews in most of the world were much poorer than average whites and still became math professors, philosophers and scientists. Its definitely genetic. This is the same for jews born either side of the Iron Curtain or indeed fresh off the boat in america.
[redacted by pp, July 11, 2018]
Phill being INTJ they are more likely to be into conspiracies.
That is why RR is most likely ISTJ _ he is more data focused.
These personality types are most likely genetic same as IQ.
Animekitty (IQ 118 type INFP)
christianity and islam were heavily derived from judaism. Almost all western and islamic names are derived from jewish names as far as i know.
There were a lot of jewish scientists in the middle ages too. All time great mathematician and physicist were jewish. And many more whom i may not be aware of.
Jews excel in sports too. Roger federer, michael schumacher, don bradman, most of the top global chessplayers.
Also,
REALLY PRACTICAL INVENTIONS: Jeans, Lipstick, the Ballpoint Pen, Contraceptives, Instant Coffee, Television Remote Control, Traffic Lights, Scotchguard, the Flexistraw.
REALLY BIG INVENTIONS: The Atomic Bomb, the Thermonuclear Bomb, God, Genetic Engineering, the Nuclear Chain Reactor, Virtual Reality.
CULTURAL CONTRIBUTIONS: Hollywood, the Sit-Com, the Long Playing Record, Woodstock, Sound Movies, Videotape, Color Television, Instant Photography, Holography
GAME CHANGERS: Monotheism, Psychoanalysis, the Theory of Relativity, the Weekend (Shabbat)
NEVER BUY RETAIL: Discount Stores, Pawn Shops, the Shopping Cart and the Ready-to-Wear Clothing Industry
I FEEL BETTER ALREADY: Prozac, Valium, The Polio Vaccine, Radiation, Chemotherapy, the Artificial Kidney Dialysis machine, the Defibrillator, the Cardiac Pacemaker, Vaccination against the deadly “Hepatitis B” virus, the Vaccinating Needle, Laser Technology
CHAI TECH: Google, the Wire Transmission Facsimilie (FAX) , the Microphone, the Gramophone, the Microprocessing Chip, Optical Fiber Cable, Laser, Cellular Technology, the Videotape Recorder
HOW DID WE LIVE WITHOUT THESE?: Drip Irrigation, Scale Model Electric Trains, the Pager, the Walkie-talkie, Refrigerated Railroad Car, High-vacuum Electron Tubes, the Incandescent Lamp, Kodachrome Film, the Blimp, the Adding Machine, Stainless Steel, Tapered Roller Bearings.
A NOBLE PEOPLE: At least 178 Jews have been awarded the Nobel Prize, accounting for 23% of all individual recipients worldwide between 1901 and 2008, and constituting 37% of all US recipients during the same period. In the scientific research fields of Chemistry, Economics, Medicine and Physics, the corresponding world and US percentages are 27% and 40%, respectively. (Jews currently make up approximately 0.25% of the world’s population and 2% of the US population).
And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_inventions_and_discoveries#Theoretical_computer_science
jews accomplished nothing intellectually or commercially to speak of until 1900. there were a handful of exceptions between 1800 and 1900 like ricardo and the rothschilds.
sephardic and mizrahic etc jews are just as accomplished given their much smaller numbers in the west, just not as accomplished in israel.
if you knew anything about judaism and jews you would know that if any culture could make people smart (verbally) it would be theirs. jews putatively genetically higher IQ is only higher in the verbal factor.
but you can’t grok that P != G + E.
go back to 1700. jews were not reckoned to be especially clever by anyone.
B. Spinoza, I here was read among European philosophers.
This Pinker interview is a must watch . He answers to so many HBD criticism while being very moderate :
First two minutes: Darwin did not believe emotions were internal states (behaviorism bullshit)
Behaviorism is refuted by the Kripke-Wittgenstein rule-following argument.
Behaviorism is refuted by the (((Kripke-Wittgenstein))) rule-following argument.
i demand to know where rr is getting all this shit.
“Kripke-Wittgenstein rule-following argument.”
Oh boy.
If you let your iPhone fall in your toilet, then then environnement has an influence on your phone design. And if you throw a baby whale on volcano lava, it won’t learn how to swim. Seems that most environmentalism gets to that line …
A trait has to be either designed, selected, randomly produced or being a by product. So environmentalists should come to the scientific table and explain why a cow born in a stable is not a horse.
Selectionist hypotheses are just-so stories if they cannot be independently verified (all EP hypotheses are just-so stories).
^^ You sound deranged.
If I raised a penguin in a middle class jewish household according to RR, it should do a lot better than other penguins on IQ tests.
Of course you don’t believe that. Or do you?
Penguins don’t have minds.
RR: “Penguins don’t have minds.”
RR just admitted that IQ is mental.
IQ then is irreducible to the brain.
Non-human animals don’t perform actions; they don’t have intentional states, they behave. IQ test-taking is an action. Since animals can’t perform actions and IQ test-taking is an action, then they cannot take IQ tests.
If IQ is irreducible to the brain then it is irreducible to physical structure and thusly irreducible to genes therefore genes can’t cause IQ scores.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/190/197/
Hawaii v. Mankichi
In interpreting a statute, the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute.
translation: we will discard the written word of the lawmakers when we FEEL LIKE that would suck.
another extension of the same intension: we will discard IQ/SAT scores when the objective criteria OBVIOUSLY DON’T MATCH OUR OPINION of the candidate (for whatever reason).
man I’m a genius.
as long as judges are exercising political power rather than merely performing their duty they are NOT professionals and should be contemned.
their duty is to exercise political power. it’s a political branch you fucking idiot.
did you ever actually go to law school?
of course…a really good one too!
which is why I know that anyone who would call a branch of government non-political, is a moron.
to even say “this branch of government should NOT exercise political power and instead do what they’re supposed to do” is defcon 5 autism.
there is a misunderstanding of original intent that it means what specific, particular problems did the legislature seek to remedy.
original intent in the sense i use it means original intension. the original extension must be consistent with the original intension, but as times change new phenomena will not be in the set of original extension, but will be within the set of original intension. for example: “unreasonable search and seizure” includes listening to phone calls and collecting internet data, even though there were no telephones and there was no internet in 1787.
but lawyers are dumb so they can’t understand this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intension
everything you say about this = original meaning. as in, what the words meant applied to new circumstances, i.e. deciding whether the circumstances fall within the meaning….
no it doesn’t. you’re retarded if you really think that and aren’t just lying.
original meaning refers to the interpretation of the “average man” at the time of passage, not to the meaning of the legislators.
ARE YOU RETARDED OR ARE YOU LYING?
the original meaning OF THE LAWMAKERS…
FUCKTARD!
You’re retarded for taking that phrase the way you do….
…a hint: it’s consistent with everything you say.
what phrase? that’s what “original meaning” means when used by scalia, by holmes, by wikipedia, … that’s what THEY say it means.
stop LYING or stop being REATARDED or BOTH.
“original intent” = original meaning of the lawmakers.
“original meaning” = original meaning of some random dude at the time the law was passed (because all random dudes agree but all legislators who voted in favor disagree) or whatever the dictionary says…
if swank were a moral person he;d quit being a lawyer.
How do you denote an intension apart from later extensions….including later extensions that can’t be considered?
and nothing which was in the original extension can ever be within the original intension. gay marriage and the death penalty are not in the original intension of the 14th and 8th amendments respectively.
and nothing which was in the original extension can ever NOT be within the original intension.
the original intension and the original extension differ only in new phenomena, phenomena which didn’t exist in 1787 or whenever the law is passed.
gayness and the death penalty are NOT new phenomena.
indeed…
the original meaning is the sense in which the word was used before any new extensions associated with the word outside the court setting took place.
do catch up….
from wikipedia:
The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. This is currently a minority view among originalists.
The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. Most originalists, such as Scalia, are associated with this view.
maybe the definition there is from one of my edits, so it might not count.
some how all “reasonable persons” agree, but the people who actually made the law didn’t mean anything and disagreed with each other on everything.
it’s totally fucking obvious to anyone who isn’t autistic, retarded, or evil that all criticisms of original intent are absurd and that all other schools of interpretation are merely means whereby the legal profession arrogates power for itself.
all schools of “interpretation” are means for the legal profession to ‘arrogate’ legislative power.
you just believe — for pretty much no reason — that the appellation “legislative intent” means something other than “my personal opinion backed by argument.”
lol
‘it’s totally fucking obvious to anyone who isn’t autistic, retarded, or evil’
=
‘you see a reasonable person would think this to mean’
but muggy CANNOT see these things.
he just can’t.
the only clip i could find. bork vs retarded black lady.
she obviously never heard of extension and intension.
we wouldn’t…we wouldn’t…we wouldn’t…we wouldn’t…
I WOULD!
people like her love to tell me what i do think rather than what i should think.
Yes this woman is retarded. The debate isn’t about asking the founding fathers what colour shirt I should wear and how many candles should be on a birthday cake. If you are reasonably intelligent (and not intelligent in the jewish way I keep mentioning), you’ll easily see the intentions of the people that wrote these things. They wrote a lot of other things besides, including actual legislation, or sponsoring bills in congress.
So if you have all this, you can make decent sane judgements on what the founders would have thought about the NSA.
If you are a foreign elite kleptocrat that is a a billionaire private equity person, you probably want the NSA to monitor american gentiles or political opponents or whatever and DONT CARE what the constitution says.
The fact that some judges (not all) and the congress says the NSA is legal is a joke. Its obviously completely illegal. And the NSA people are even directed to lie to congresspeople about what they really do by the elites, so they don’t even know what theyre saying most of the time anyway.
For example, if Thomas Jefferson sponsored an anti-sodomy law as Governor of Virgina, what is the chance, he would have endorsed gay marriage?
you aren’t saying anything new by using ‘intension’ and ‘extension.’ you just don’t seem to see the equivalence between ‘original meaning’ and what you’re calling it.
The fact that some judges (not all) and the congress says the NSA is legal is a joke. Its obviously completely illegal.
not based on “original intent” (as in literal, not rhetorical flourish) of the 4th amendment and how that intersects with foreign policy concerns.
it’s just based on MODERN MYTH + MODERN JURISPRUDENCE, i.e. judicial activism that you feel so strongly.
watch phil rely on the same heuristics that muggy decries:
‘If you are reasonably intelligent’
oh…like a reasonable person?
‘you’ll easily see the intentions’
indeed, when you invoke ‘reasonable x’ it suddenly becomes easy to see what those reasonable x or y’s intentions were…based on what? why, nothing but rhetoric of course!
‘They wrote a lot of other things besides, including actual legislation, or sponsoring bills in congress.
So if you have all this, you can make decent sane judgements on what the founders would have thought about the NSA.’
yes — they would have NOT GIVEN A SHIT.
The reason Nietzsche is bullshit is that he says all Christian Virtues derive from resentment. He does not say that this is isolated to the individual but even people that follow Jesus with because of gratitude. Nietzsche says it is still resentment and in no way can a Christian be genuinely selflessness like Jesus was.
This is the poison of Nietzsche that The Philosopher is infected with believing.
Yet Nietzsche admired Jews. His sister twisted his works into Nazi propaganda.
“His sister twisted his works into Nazi propaganda.”
This is a lie.
People say Ezra Pound or TS Eliot or Borges weren’t actually fascist sympathisers too based on the current notion of what is ‘moral’ or to be more succinct socially desirable in the present day.
Next people will say Darwin really thought race was a social construction.
A lot of the CIAs activities are illegal. Thats why it happens on black sites or Guatanamo or whatever.
The CIA was created by Harry Truman, who later regretted creating a secret police for the oligarchs and said it publicly. Google it.
Kennedy tried to neuter it and Dulles ‘stopped’ him.
There is zero doubt in my mind the founding fathers would not have endorsed the idea of a secret police assasinating the elected president just because he thought having a secret police was abrogation of power from him. Otherwise they would have explicitly created something like the CIA, and said ‘the president always has to listen to the CIA’ before doing anything.
Only people brainwashed by the elites, ‘see’ that the CIA is not doing illegal things.
do you think the cold war was staged?
Whats your opinion of the Berlin wall in 1989?
I know what Swanky is trying to say. He is basically being a bit snide and saying, you can’t be autistic and exactly follow the constitution or you’ll get nothing done. This is the ‘you can still be a good christian as long as you confess and go to church theory’.
It kind of makes sense in that the actual religious ‘law’ is about repentance and seeking forgiveness. You can use a similar roundabout argument about certain things maybe.
So he brings up free speech as his example of how we wouldn’t have it, if we were super autistic.
This opens the idea to the general discussion about whether the founders or the writers of the laws are actually just plain wrong about certain things, and its better to live and let live. Lots of catholics use contraception etc. etc.
I think this is where the analogy ends with religious canon I suppose. Because its easier for me to see how you can still be a good christian and use contraception or even not go to church (or even not be baptised actually) then it is for me to think you can call yourself a judge and say the NSA is a good idea. Theres a much bigger contradiction.
It would be much more like saying, I believe in being a serial killer and calling yourself a christian. Maybe not that bad.
What the danes always fucking do to the dums dums is ask the person who says its a ‘much bigger contradiction’ to actually quantify it and throw up their hands and say “well since you cant quantify it, you are totally subjective”.
Typical danish trickery.
Spying technology became super advanced.
The government will use it anyway so why does it matter what organization is in charge? What would be better than the NSA regarding any spy technology today?
If they have it they’ll use it.
phil continues to slowly, slowly, slowly understand swank from weeks ago…
HOWEVER
the analogy to religious canon doesn’t end there.
if one can utilize a consistent jurisprudence to arrive at a palatable result that the justice deems “equitable,” then that result is to be preferred.
and once again, the Founders would have had no problems with the NSA.
The reason why you even believe that they would have had problems is not based in historical FACT but in historically constructed MYTHs.
one must first have (1) consistent jurisprudence and (2) a well-accepted view of history on which to apply that jurisprudence.
whether you or muggy ‘get it’ doesn’t matter.
this is why social change will change the constitution despite anyone’s best efforts — because history itself changes and the way we view things changes.
resistance is futile.
see, to which seems better, but i imagined the historical narrative as big black-and-white mural and jurisprudence as fill-in color placed on top of it.
Heres something that will blow your mind animekitty. Google Gandhis views on blacks.
I knew that 15 months ago from black pigeon speaks channel
This stuff about law and regulation and following it makes me think about why some kids in school naturally don’t follow rules and are more sexually desirable and why some kids who always follow rules do not get many chances to reproduce.
It makes me think its some sort of failsafe to make sure the best genes aren’t matched with the dullest minds.
I mean 50 years ago in some Western countries, following rules meant explicitly following religious rules like in the Mid East now.
And you know, it does give rise to the idea of rule making as a purely ‘realist’ phenomenon. i.e. whoever is making the rules is usually a pretty, ah Machiavellian type. The US constitution is not North Korea, but the rules clearly were bent when it came to native americans or women or so on.
And so the ‘realist’ version of rule following is ‘whatever you can get away with’.
And so, this is why I think about what morality really is, if it is ‘objective’ at all as rules and laws, no matter how well intentioned will be bent eventually by machiavellian types to mean open borders and hugging blacks anyway or some other servile nonsense that Master wants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory
The five foundations
Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm
Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating
Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal
Authority or respect: submitting to tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion
Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation
Eventually the danes will go for the killshot.
“Since the founders were racist, their ideas shouldn’t concern us. They are null and void. Rabbi Steven Wise is the new moral authority. Bow to his judgements”.
This is what all this is leading to.
If you think you can slip a little on the 14th to mean AA and black oscars, the logical conclusion to this ‘legal theory’ is the above in my opinion. Or it will be pushed intellectually into this conclusion one way or another.
When scans of conservative and liberal brains were taken two areas stood out. For conservatives, the insula stood out responsible for disgust sensitivity and body awareness. For liberals, the anterior cingulate cortex stood out responsible for task switching. Conservatives are singular focused, straightforward, get to the point. Liberals are multitaskers because of task switching. Conservative focus on a single thing. Santo said conservatives are efficient. Someone mentioned that elite liberal misinterpret trumps directness. They read into it bad things he did not say. Because they can cut segments and give many interpretations (task switching) of bad things. Comedians as quick on their feet. Conservatives being single focused come to conclusions sometimes where they analyzed the data wrong because they cannot handle a situation where the data can be seen from many viewpoints. The insula would be the reason conservatives feel disgust at gay marriage and abortion.
having said that, there are many reasons to prefer ‘original intent’ as a jurisprudence related to its utility in promoting the appearance of equity/fairness. but that’s just a debate about which model provides the better illusion.
just more (((lies)))…swank thinks if he repeats a lie frequently enough it becomes true. just like douche-owitz.
another picture of swank:
i didn’t know i was your future bride.
more importantly…
…yes, that is how it works.
for whatever reason, muggy believes a society controlled by ideology somehow can escape it within the confines of the judiciary, even though muggy agrees with the fact that ideology can’t be overcome….
…
the function of the law is to provide the appearance of fairness.
whichever ‘jurisprudence’ does that is the best jurisprudence.
case dismissed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_intent
i predict swank will ask her fellow jews to edit the article to their liking or will edit it herself because holocaust.
LOL, years ago a wiki article on cradle civilizations was mysteriously edited to Swank’s liking within days of Swank critiquing it here. Swank denied doing it, claiming his arguments were so powerful it may have inspired some random reader to edit it.
I remember that. Wasn’t the larger discussion about r/K “selection” theory?
I still deny doing it.
my arguments are powerful — they’ve inspired you, pumpkin, who WOULD NOT have given me credit if I hadn’t been Tom Petty about the matter.
pill continuously repeats what I’ve said without knowing it.
but sure, let’s yuk it up 🙂
Yes, you did inspire me and were given great credit for it as soon as you helped me realize it.
Some of your arguments have been very powerful but some of your arguments don’t make sense to me, like when you claimed almost nobody lies.
what “original intent” means again. maybe this time swank will read it.
The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it.
…so far as that can be determined. DUH!
but swank is such a jew he thinks that between a thing’s being completely known and nothing being known about a thing there is nothing.
nothing known ———- partially known ——– completely known.
original intent: all rulings must be consistent with what is known regarding the intent of the lawmakers. it’s a hierarchy.
original intent over-rules
original meaning over-rules
contemporary meaning of the text over-rules
living constitution, natural law, etc.
scalia gave zero evidence that the framers intended the 2d amendment to protect the right to self-defense (accept against the government), because there isn’t any. therefore his opinion is over-ruled by original intent…there is copious evidence that the 2d amendment was intended to 1. eliminate the need for a standing army in peace time 2. neutralize the threat of a standing army being used in the service of tyranny.
these intents seem ridiculous to most people today but having just fought an 8 year war for independence it was not ridiculous in 1787.
They don’t seem ridiculous to anyone. They all have long histories going by other names in England.
1. eliminate the need for a standing army in peace time 2. neutralize the threat of a standing army being used in the service of tyranny.
and there is irrefutable evidence that any argument utilizing these facts to say that the presence or absence of a standing army has an effect on the meaning of the constitution CANNOT prevail under original intent because the original intent of the constitution itself was that it could not be altered by congressional action.
one way to utilize these facts is to argue that the militia consists of all able-bodied young men and that the best way to keep a “well-regulated militia” was to simply ensure that the citizenry were armed, as per AH in Federalist 29: “Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.”
Scalia’s way was fine as well.
one thing’s for sure — YOUR way is inconsistent with original intent.
the best way to keep a “well-regulated militia” was to simply ensure that the citizenry were armed
as i’ve ALREADY said in my “opinion” in heller.
there’s plenty of “evidence” for plenty of positions beyond the statutory text….the word “consistent” admits multiple interpretations so long as they are backed by “reason,” and how compelling a “reasonable” argument is depends mostly on current cultural understanding of history, which means…..
…..whatever I THINK THE BEST RESULT IS THAT I CAN GET AWAY WITH.
maybe muggy will read it this time and truly come to know how it is.
for whatever reason, muggy fails to realize that “consistent” = HOLISTIC ADMISSIONS CRITERIA.
whatever is consistent with meritocracy, whatever is consistent with the best and brightest blah blah blah.
jew needa brain.
swank is a SLOW learner.
THAT I CAN GET AWAY WITH.
sociopath.
“consistent” = HOLISTIC ADMISSIONS CRITERIA.
the opposite.
plus swank is either mentally ill or a woman.
and by “if only…” i don’t mean “if all lawyers were smart people…” i mean “if a single lawyer was a smart person…”
it definitely is not the opposite. it’s a sliding scale of subjectivity. a holistic criterion like “leadership” has objective elements, too.
muggy either doesn’t get it or doesn’t get it.
but he agrees with me.
he just doesn’t know it yet.
we’re getting there.
however, muggy has admitted — AGAIN — that original intent is NOT the only jurisprudence. now he’s gotten to outlining a hierarchy.
VERY GOOD, grasshopper. you are learning.
and one could organize that hierarchy, if they wanted to…based on which provides the best illusion of fairness.
HOWEVER
original intent under your theory about ‘original intent of the lawmaker’ still falls under strict constructionism.
raw textualism = IQ test = most objective indication of legislature’s joint intent.
THEN original intent, then….
again everything swank says has nothing to do with anything.
however, muggy has admitted — AGAIN — that original intent is NOT the only jurisprudence.
your IQ is too low to respond to my comments. [redacted by pp, july 17, 2018]
is the text of the law the most objective indicator of the legislature’s intent or is it not, muggy?
Thoughts on these quotes?
With each year of education, IQ scores rise between 2.7 and 4.5 points (depending on the estimate), 22 and, when the onset of schooling is delayed, IQ scores drop by 5 points a year. 23 For students in school, IQ increases during the academic year and decreases during summer vacation. 24
[…]
Further evidence for the plasticity of IQ scores is easy to find. In Japan, there is an ethnic group called the Baraku, who are regarded as inferior and subjected to various forms of bigotry. 25 As with blacks and whites in America, the Baraku IQ average is about 15 points lower than the IQ for members of the privileged ethnic group. Strikingly, however, this difference disappears when Japanese people move to the United States. Baraku living in the United States may even perform slightly better than other Japanese immigrants. This suggests that the low score in Japan is a function of environment and that the discrepancy can be eliminated by moving to a culture where there is no special bigotry against the Baraku.
The plasticity of the black/white discrepancy has also been directly tested. 26 A group of researchers looked at a group of African American college students who had been admitted to universities through affirmative action programmes. At the time of admission, these students had, on average, IQ scores that were 15 points lower than white students. This gap was cut in half by the time the students graduated. The result is especially striking given that racial prejudice is widespread in higher education. The moral is that a college education can alter IQ and shrink significant differences between groups, even in the face of enduring biases. (Prinz, 2012: 71)
Sources: Book: https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Human-Nature-Culture-Experience/dp/0393347893
22: https://scholar.harvard.edu/cwinship/publications/does-staying-school-make-you-smarter
23: [I can’t find the reference, but here’s a follow-up paper from the same author, a quote: “In an earlier study, based on tests of the county black children directly after their four years school deprivation, Green and colleagues (1964) found the measure intelligence to be significantly depressed at all age levels. Children who had never attended school were the most seriously affected, with mean differences as great as 30 I.Q. points between the no education groups and partial education controls.” … “It would seem that the amount of pre-deprivation school experience may also have implications for post-deprivation measured intelligence and the responsiveness of this measured intelligence to retraining.” http://sci-hub.tw/10.2307/2294274
24: https://www.amazon.com/Summer-Learning-Effects-Schooling-Heyns/dp/0123465508
25: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-18581-007
26: http://sci-hub.tw/10.2307/40063265
So putin says the same thing I say, does that mean hes a conspiracy theorist?
this is why i say the one grand conspiracy theory which might be true is the one claimed by Anatoliy Golitsyn. it is hard to believe putin is not a Communist with a capital C.
I don’t know where Swank went to law school and who is professors were. But it sounds like he would have been better off going to a technical school and studying law there as at least it wouldn’t be complete nonsense.
law schools don’t prepare anyone to be lawyers. they’re just gate keepers firms outsource their hr to.
this is correct.
says the guy who constantly repeats what I’ve said much earlier after he’s had time to digest the information…
This is something Swanky would endorse.
5 mins on.
Macdonald talks about this questionnaire to diagnose facists the jews came up with in the 40s.
Its interesting because they should take the people that score high in F and then ask girls whether they are better looking than people that score low in it.
And if you believe aesthetics don’t lie as I do, then you will see the house views morality as not the same as Theodore Adorno.
But he already knew that. He was just fucking with us.
Maybe its that being good looking making makes it more rewarding to be obidient to trends. I tend to think girls dont care about personality too much outside of extreme mental illness.
Obeying authority is what master wants. Master selects fascists. See the Roman empire as an example. Very good looking men. (fascists)
This person is not a philosopher.
Its more apt to call him a linguist.
The quote is “politics is who gets what when.” Typically, when people refer to things that are political, they mean in relation to the State, so ‘who gets what and when backed by threat of violence,’ or ‘who gets what when…or else.’
If the institution is engaged in answering that question and its answer is backed by violence….it is political. It doesn’t matter what high-falutin’ words are used.
Does the judiciary decide who gets what when?
Yes.
The judiciary is political.
And necessarily so.
…
when you find yourself thinking otherwise….just know that whatever’s making you think that