Topic: Freedom Of Association? - page 4. (Read 11878 times)

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

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.

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.

So asking for evidence of something is, in your world amazingly pedantic? (not even ordinarily pedantic).  That's hardly much of a formal requirement.

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.

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!'  

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...

Ok, then lets start from the beginning again.  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.

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.

...and still no evidence.  Funny that.

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

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?

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?

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'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.

...and that's the problem.  I mentioned that earlier.

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.

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.

So you're admitting to not following the conversation.  Ok!

Then you should be able to answer my earlier question about how we are counting laws.

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.

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.

That you have nothing?  Are you just setting yourself up to be zinged 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. 

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".

Sounds like you don't understand the term but since you won't define terms...

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.

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.

Not really, most of this talk is entirely focused on a couple of seemingly crappy arguments you made.

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


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.


Not interested in arguing again (and again).


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.
 

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.



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.


I'm not remotely worried. Pure rhetorical hyperbole.


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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.

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

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.

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?
 
Colour me confused.  So are you admitting you made a bad argument here?  You could have said that ages ago.

*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?

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

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".

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.

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?"

Argument from ignorance once again.

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.

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.

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.

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?
Ah! So your argument is essentially that there is no salient difference between lawmaking with regard to racism in 1847 and today then?

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. 

Beside the point.   In order for the road to operate it needs to be built.   In order for the road to be built it needs investors.  Investors will want to know at what point their money gets returned to them (or unless you are counting on a "equal and opposite" bigot) before the road begins construction.  Breaking these provokes a response from your investors - at least in the world around me - perhaps it's different in your area.  This can be anything from invoking penalty clauses to pulling out (due to your breach of contract). 

As the racist controls the circumstances for your profitability they can force your project to be unprofitable until it dies.  Thus no road to operate.  Not only that but this is an extreme example the racist can simply make life more expensive for the group he/she is oppressing.   You can always make that just under the price it takes for a road to be profitable for investors.

I have no idea what exactly you were talking about. You responded to my comment first if I recall, not the other way around. I've never read your laws. Every statement I wrote about what Law is, was as precise as it will ever get. I'd like to see you do better.


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.


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.


I figured you find something to annoy with. Let's see here. Your words didn't beat me up physically, so no. Does this help your fragile mind games about some off-handed rhetorical rant about a rant? Again, let it go. It's going nowhere.



Get over yourself, I'm sure you'll survive. Undeserved accusation? Boo hoo, cry me a river. On the other hand, lemme think about this one. Hmmm, what's the definition of deserved? Shall we try to mathematically, probablistically, or statistically derive this one? Or maybe we should talk to an ecclesiastical leader and get a poll going. Or if you're really bored, we can read all of human history and decipher through some filter equation so's we can see who wins the "most undeserved accused" award. <> Again, let it go. It's going nowhere.

Quote

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. And your right, they are all "apparent" contradictions (for you). 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. I'm not going to argue about an argument any more than I'm going to define a definition. It's called circular. You'll end up going nowhere.

Quote

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. 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.

Quote

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.

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).

The equation of isolation with oppression is a bogus argument, akin to equating bullets with words. It is one I entirely reject.

Yes, being a racist in your own endeavors is an evil. But it is an evil of a qualitatively different sort than shooting people or stealing from them.

If there is going to be freedom, people will have to accept that other people may do things we really don't like. And we cannot respond with force.

So long as you use the word "oppressed" to include both using force to restrain people and refusing to do business with them because you don't like them, your arguments aren't going to make any sense.

Since that's exactly what happened, I'm not sure why you think it's unlikely.

Yes, it is. However, at least they won't be able to use force to segregate those who don't wish to be segregated. So we're a bit better off if force is off the table.

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. That's just a fact. The best we can do is set up a system that encourages people to value freedom and makes it as hard as possible to use force for applications other than legitimate defense.

Nothing. Nothing stops the competing road from only operating when the first one is being a dick about who can drive on it, either.

However your assertion was that it was solely due to the restriction that demand was created.  So there was no market need for a new road.
What stops the racist from keeping their customers happy just until they bankrupt the project?