Re: Latest News

From: Mark Fergerson (nunya_at_biz.ness)
Date: 11/26/04 

Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:07:13 -0700

R. Steve Walz wrote:

<brevity snips here and there>

> Mark Fergerson wrote:
>
>>R. Steve Walz wrote:
>>
>><snip Steve's incomprehension of his doublespeak infatuation
>>with renaming dogma as "Truth">

> That's not a reasoned logical response, that's just cowardly
> vacuous name-calling.

   I don't see how any kind of "reasoned logical response"
is possible with someone who casually redefines "truth" and
"lie" for their convenience. It makes it very difficult to
map your statements to reality.

>> >>> Nothing I say needs any proof at all, it's all
>>structural argument
>> >>> that is based only on the common human experience.

>> >> Yet another unsubstantiable claim.
>>
>> > It needs no "substantiation", it is simply what I said I
>>always
>> > intend to do. It is statement of my own principles.
>>
>> "Principles". IOW asumptions not relatable to objective
>>reality. You will not define "common human experience"
>>because there is no such thing.

> Of course there is, or else wecouldn't even be talking like this.

   No, that's a result of cognitive mapping in what appears
to be common. Actually, we have no conception of what's
going on in each other's mind, which should have been
obvious from our first converstaion some years ago.

   You claim there's a body of "common human experience" on
which you base the structure of your principles, yet you
will not explicate that alleged body.

> YOU just don't LIKE me arguing from WHAT WE BOTH KNOW because
> it doesn't help YOU lie!

   You still have not specified any alleged experiences we
have in common.

>> >> Your experience is not
>> >> mine, and vice versa. Be extremely careful trying to refute
>> >> that statement; you'll be reduced to using "spurious
>>factoids".
>>
>> > I need no such thing.
>>
>> Then attempt to do so without them. Explicate precisely
>>what your and my experiences have in common.

> Quit deleting what I said and then it will appear precisely in your
> posts where you keep asking for it and make you look stupid.

   I am uninterested in appearing smart or stupid. I'm
trying to get you to say what you claimed you could. What
I've deleted did not contain any such thing.

>> >>> In fact I personally refuse to believe or even hold
>>anything to be
>> >>> important that cannot be argued solely from structure
>>without any
>> >>> assertion of spurious factoids.

>> Your assumptions are fantasies not based on reality.

> A solitary statement that I'm wrong does not constitute any actual
> argument, nor even a convertsation, let alone a debate!

   Then demonstrate exactly where your assumptions rest on
_objective_ (i. e. not subject to interpretation) reality
instead of simply asserting your beliefs to be true.

>> >> Since you accept no evidence at all contradictory to your
>> >> position, I must assume that since there is also none valid
>> >> to support your position, that it is exactly equal to any
>> >> other such position; namely, it's an "opinion".
>>
>> > Opinion is what you have. Certainty is what I have.
>>
>> "Certainty" based on fantasy. You have nothing else to
>>base it on.

> But you offer no actual argument to that effect, you seem not to
> grasp that any syllogism needs assertions prior to any predicate.

   Assertions are fine for a non-science like mathematics,
but anything intended to have real-world utility must
eventually be shown to correlate with isolatable
observables. Even mathematicians admit that their putput
must be tested against reality. Where are your correlations?

>> > It's like knowing how to count and do the arithmetic. You
>>won't learn, and so you speak in inequalities
>> > and haven't the vaguest idea why those are unacceptable.
>>
>> I refuse to "learn" to lie and call it truth.

> Nobody is asking you to learn lies, because once you learn them
> they aren't lies!

   Saying frinst that Rather is right for perpetuating
falsehoods in a "good cause" is still accepting lies as truth.

>> > I simply say that it is futile to argue with an
>>oppressor, since he isn't really listening.
>>
>> You most certainly are not.

> I just did.

   No, you filter everything through your preconceptions.
You insist on mishearing what I say because you've assumed
that I'm Evil personified simply because I dare point out
flaws in your reaoning, some of them very basic.

   Then you assume that I do so because I hate you or some
such foolishness because I use words that so easily push
your buttons. I don't know you well enough _to_ hate you. I
do know enough about the brutal, inhuman kind of Socialism
you propose to hate it, though.

   Stop allowing your buttons to be pushed, stop trying to
push mine (calling me idiot, stupid, Evil, etc), and we
might actually get somewhere. One of the first buttons
you'll have to superglue is the one that makes you think
you're Right. You don't know it all any more than anyone
else does, and absolutism will get you nowhere.

<re: torturing "criminals" to death>

>> You've already said you prefer to watch it on TV rather
>>than dirty your own precious hands. How typically elitist.

> No, just lazy and unwilling to be repetitious.

   Oh, you've already tortured a Capitalist to death?

<snip>

>> Your criteria have no weight other than what you give
>>them; since you've provided no objective basis for
>>determining their valiidity, why should anyone bother to
>>take you seriously?

> There is no "objective" basis for anything that is transferable
> to an idiot like you. Truth is non-transferable, this is the
> reason for killing people.

   Odd, you seem to think that repetition of your premises
will result in others taking them as true.

<snip>

>> Your words have only the meaning you assign to them.
>>Hence you see them as unassailable. The rest of us take the
>>trouble to agree on what "true" and "false" mean first.

> If the only meaning my words have were what I assigned, you
> wouldn't even have grasped that I spoke, and you would not
> have responded.

   No, the problem is that many of your "meanings" and mine
are not the same. The reason I respond is to try to get our
mutual mappings to conform to something objectively verifiable.

>> You are so very pompously full of ***. You completely
>>fail to see your substitution of rational discussion with
>>the assumption of evil on everyone's part but yours.

> Everyone? You're lying to assert that.

   Overemphasizing perhaps. What "non evildoer" percentage
of the total population do you perceive out there?

   To tak an extremely limited sample, how many
like-thinkers do you count in the sci. newsgroups hierarchy?

>> >> Yet your preferred "intentionally creative
>> >> mischaracterizations" such as Rather's,
>>
>> > He didn't use any such thing. Liar.
>>
>> He most certainly did, specifically when he characterized
>>his sources as "unimpeachable".

> He thought so at the time, so he wasn't lying. Lying is telling
> somethingyou KNOW to be untrue.

   No. He presented his source as unimpeachable with full
foreknowledge of that source's prejudices, which
conveniently matched his (and yours). Otherwise he'd have
hedged his ass off, if he'd presented anything at all. But
that would require him to attempt to be objective.

   Having a prejudice about something is _not_ the same as
"knowing" it, unless you use "know" to mean "accept without
evidence".

>> >> and your insistence
>> >> that anyone not agreeing with you is evil, are OK. Right. So
>> >> much for Science and Truth under your watch.
>>
>> > You who wish to twist perspective and deceive will
>>receive the Truth,
>> > and you will NOT like it!
>>
>> Yet more baseless threats.

> Nonsense. Prediction.

   Still sounds exactly like a tent preacher.

>> >>> Rather told the Truth. He simply didn't yet have the
>>evidence.
>>
>> >> He lied. There is ample evidence of it, and exactly none
>> >> to support the contents of the faked documents he presented.
>>
>> > What he said was True, he simply didn't have evidence of
>>it yet.
>> > He didn't know that at the time.
>>
>> To repeat, when he most certainly knew the documents were
>>fakes because it had been independently proved so, he did
>>not say so.

> He DID!

   No, he did not. He and his supporters within the network
strung it out much longer than was necessary to establish
the counterevidence's credibility, at the end claiming it
wasn't credible by dismissing its sources as "disgruntled
employee's rumblings", "Bu*** propaganda", and "internet
rumors".

   How long did he take to even mention that counterevidence
had been found? He waited until it was no longer deniable,
instead of reporting on it.

   How long did he take before he admitted that evidence's
credibility? He still hasn't.

> How long do you think program material for anything is in the pipes?

   Not too long for critical updates and corrections to be
aired immediately. You're flailing to find excuses for a
medium that prides itself on being more up-to-the-minute
than newspapers because you refuse to admit its liberal bias.

>> >>>> You are one of his faithful because you believe his lies,
>> >>>> and accept his excuses for lying.
>>
>> >>> I don't like him or the media at ALL, *I* think they're
>>WAY TOO
>> >>> RIGHTIST!!!
>>
>> >> Don't try to change the subject; we're talking about
>> >> Rather's lies.
>>
>> > He never lied. That you say he did is YOUR lie.
>>
>> Oh, right. Your definitions of "Truth" and "lie" again.

> Nope, dictionary.
> When you KNOW something isn't true, you're lying.

   That's my point. He knew while he said otherwise.

> Until you do, you're NOT LYING!

   Which he was.

>> >>>>>>> The way we are changed from external influences is
>>from within,
>>
>> >>>>>> You used to say that we cannot change our minds from
>> >>>>>> within at all. Lying again, or changed your mind?
>>
>> >>>>> We cannot, through ANY act of supposed "will",
>>change what we
>> >>>>> believe, not even the smallest thing. But other
>>things from within
>> >>>>> and from without will change us, even if against our
>>"will".
>>
>> >>>> This is either your opinion or a lie.
>>
>> >>> You do not specify the enumeration of our choices in
>>that regard.
>>
>> >> You already did.
>>
>> > You don't GET to.
>>
>> I see. I am not allowed to participate. I am merely to be
>>killed.

> No, you simply don't receive tacit appointment as arbitrator of truth.

   See, that's the thing; neither do you. That's why I keep
asking for objective evidence for your claims.

>> I see. You have no evidence.

> No one needs "evidence" for much of anything. Fully 99.9% of what
> people do and believe they do based on the structural argument
> in favor of it, not "evidence". History has been based on what
> people did because they liked the idea, not because it was "proved".

   So, you actually expect me to "like" your unsupported
claims whole-hog, and take your word for everything else?

   Not gonna happen. If you've been paying attention over
the years, you'd recognize that we have many points of
agreement and a very few bones over which to contend. You
keep redefining words to maintain your position while I keep
trying to get you to see what _I_ mean without having to
redefine anything.

> And whether some "evidence", which is falsified half the time, and
> mistaken most of the other half, is useful is a very spurious concept.

   Then present unfalsified, unmistakable evidence.

>> >>>>> Nonsense. You cannot lift yourself into the air, and
>>you cannot
>> >>>>> encompasse your own nature with your awareness. Any
>>believed
>> >>>>> control is easily proved to be illusory.
>>
>> >>>> Then kindly present a brief, concise proof.
>>
>> >>> Goedel's Theorem, look it up.
>>
>> >> I am aware of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, and it
>> >> simply does not apply to the real world as universally as
>> >> you'd like it to.
>>
>> > Nope, wrong. Take us through it, why don't you, and I'll
>>point out how!!
>>
>> You cited Godel; present your proof. I'll show you your
>>mistake(s).

> You questioned it, show us you're not blowing it out your ass.

   Quit dancing. You claimed Godel's Incompleteness Theorem
was applicable to the question of free will. Now you require
me to figure out what your proof might consist of, then
refute it. I'm not a mind-reader, nor will I do your work
for you. Present your proof if you have one. You sound so
confident that it's unassailable, it should roll easily off
your fingertips.

>> > Betcha won't, or that you'll try to gloss over it
>>disingenuously!
>>
>> Give it your best shot.

> As I said. You're blowing it out your ass.

   May I quote you?

   "That's not a reasoned logical response, that's just
cowardly vacuous name-calling."

   Stop waffling and present your proof.

>> > I wish Kerry HAD handlers, he needed some.
>>
>> The only time we likely heard from Kerry was his
>>concession speech; it was the sole self-consistent statement
>>he made during the entire election cycle. Oh, wait;
>>self-consistency has no place in your "Truth".

> Nonsense, Kerry has virtually nothing to do with me anyway,

   Except that you desperately wanted him to win. Why do you
defend him so vociferously? Why hitch your wagon to his star
if you thought no subsequent benefits to your agenda would
follow?

>> >> And where the hell do _you_ get off whining about
>> >> toss-off slurs, you Evil, posturing, deceitful,
>> >> disingenuous, lying, dogshitting, incapable of discernment,
>> >> nonsense-prating idiot?
>>
>> > I use them against Evil, you against Good and Truth.
>> > That's the ultimate difference!
>>
>> According to your own, unrelatable-to-reality definitions.

> According to principles easy to state.

   Except that you have to redefine truth, Truth, lying, and
Lying to do so.

> And you REALLY don't like how easy it is to do that!

   What I don't like is your self-dishonesty.

> That's why you've hung on this long with your disingenuous failure
> to actually address any issue.

   Yeah, yeah, like your desire to start a State based on
telling falsehoods for "good causes".

> The fact that American democracy is partially subverted has
> nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of it that is not.

   I see. Where on the literal Earth do you imagine
Democracy exists unfettered?

> The fact that American issues are misrepresented by
> Republicans has nothing to do with their actual Truth.

   How about the similar relationship for Democrat
misrepresentations? Please don't reflexively assert that
they have none; previously you stated unequivocally that:

> the two sides are NOT the same, one is quite a bit
> better (less Evil) than the other!

   If you'd simply acknowledge the inherent relativism in
this statement you wouldn't have to keep scrambling to
justify your apparent absolutism in so many other areas.
That'd allow you to admit that Rather is a blatant liar
despite his favorable (to you) political leanings, and that
Kerry is as dangerous as any other politician for reasons
specific to his and his handlers' own unpublicized agendas.

   Then you could see that lying, for whatever "good
reason", is the insidious rust in any political structure.

   Incorporating awareness of the plain dirty fact of human
frailty is not a bug of politicoeconomic systems, but a
feature _if_ it's done preventatively. Historically none has
even come close. Your intent to treat it with a sledgehammer
will not work any better than say the Inquisition did.

   I keep talking to you about these things not to raise
your hackles, but in hopes that you may actually do better
than what's gone before. But that can't happen until you
adopt a more realistic assessment of human nature and the
fallibility of your "heroes".

>> >>>> There's your problem, trying to apply calculus to
>> >>>> economics.
>>
>> >>> Actually econonists have been doing that since shortly
>>after Leibniz
>> >>> and Newton.
>>
>> >> Yup. And they're all wrong.
>>
>> > Rightists are.
>>
>> So are Leftists, for the same exact reasons.

> Leftists don't bother, they simply destroy what you fancy as
> "economics". You see, what you call "economics" is merely the
> machinations of organized crime to us, which should be rooted
> out like cancer. Any scientific approach to what we will replace
> it all with is so entirely different than your grasp of economics
> that it bears no appreciable resemblance. Gone is "investment",
> "interest", "principle", "speculation", etc.

   Your sweeping quantization of labor=value is equally
destructive in the long run.

>> > In the real world that will destroy yours.
>>
>> If, as you constantly indicate, you take no action to
>>realize it, it'll remain a fantasy. Which channel will you
>>watch your fantasy on?

> Whenever that is, no one can stop an idea whose time has come.
> One guy promoting it is irrelevant till the people want it, and
> then they'll hunt it up like discovering a rock star in Omaha!

   No. According to your own Newtonian metaphysics people
will want what they want when they want it, and nothing you
say will make the slightest whit of difference.

>> >>>> FTM, in your stated ideal economy, a made object's value
>> >>>> must decline over time.
>>
>> >>> Nope.
>>
>> >> You said exactly that. Want me to Google it up?
>>
>> > Whatever *I* said, YOU misinterpreted it.
>> > Typical.
>>
>> I see. No point in showing you your own words. What
>>will you do, claim I edited them?

> Now you're just lying and threatening to lie again.

   You could save a lot of face by simply admitting that
your views evolve over time as details crop up that need to
be worked out and integrated. Sometimes that means
readjusting things all the way down to the foundation. Get
over it already.

>> > Labor is equal, no matter the tools, and it must be paid
>>equally per hour. THAT is the moral right! WHAT and HOW MUCH
>>they produce
>> > is irrelevant, they worked the same hours!
>>
>> Speaking of Godel...
>>
>> Did you forget that we were talking about whether or not
>>your ideal economy was "finite"? We now have two sets of
>>otherwise identical objects, to be paid for in
>>hour-equivalents. Yet the "cost" of making them is different.

> Nope. Cost is labor, nothing else.
> Labor is the constant, the "speed of light" to economy.

   Here is a widget manufactured in factory "A", using a
specific technology that requires three man-hours to make
one widget.

   There is an otherwise identical widget from factory "B"
which uses better technology allowing one to be made with
only two man-hours.

   How is each priced? They cannot be given the same price
arbitraily because somebody's getting screwed; either the
maker or the buyers.

   Here's a possible answer. You simply make sure that
markets are segregated so that the two products cannot be
bought at the same place, preventing "unfair competition".
That would be unwieldy because equalizing trade between the
two markets would be impossible and invite black
marketeering. Finding, processing, and "punishing" the
participants would be a waste of resources, thus this is not
to be preferred.

   Let me propose a better answer. Both are priced at the
higher wage-equivalent so that the excess for the "cheaper"
widget can go to upgrading factory "A". After both are
producing equally, the output of both can be priced at the
lower value.

   This is not profiteering, weaseling, or sidestepping
anything. It is taking reality into account by accepting
that it simply is not possible to quantize everything
immediately and permanently; some quantities will be in a
state of flux. Investment capital, no matter what name you
give it, must be raised somehow unless the State grants
itself unlimited credit (a very dangerous practice) and what
in the current economy might be called short-term
price-gouging is a viable solution that harms no-one.

>> > Wage *IS* labor-hours. That's NOT irrelevant.
>>
>> So is price, according to you. Yet you have an
>>irresolvable situation above.

> Liar. Price is cost is labor hours. Period.
> The only actual exchange between two humans that is possible is
> equal labor hours, hour for hour, all else is theft.

   I'm waiting to see if you had another solution in mind.

>> >>>>>>>> So, why do Dems lie?
>>
>> >>> Lies and Truth are NOT opposites. Most so-called
>>opposites are NOT,
>> >>> upon closer examination. When lies are told to oppose
>>the Truth,
>> >>> that is the only time they're Evil.
>>
>> >> Doublespeak bull***.
>>
>> > Nope, advanced Boolean algebra.
>>
>> Right. I lie, I'm Evil. You lie, you're not, _by your
>>definition_. Boole never said anything like that.

> What I said was advanced Boolean which says that something must
> exist BEFORE it has a value, ala Claude Shannon.

   We've finally gotten to valuation.

> What you mischaracterized was unrelated to anything.

   Except that you define Truth, lies, and Evil by your
preassumed values which won't hold still. If you ever get
around to re-examining them _objectively_ all those problems
will vanish.

>> > Equality cannot BE arrogance. When we are all equal we
>>can discuss
>> > your fantasy of our "arrogance" in wanting what is OURS!
>>
>> You now claim to know what I want. What arrogance.

> I make no claims other than obviousness. If the shoe fits...

   Obvious to you, through your preconceptive filters. You
have no idea who I am or what I do.

> If you are not egalitarian, then you're a criminal, there is nothing
> else you can be.

   If I ain't uncritically fur ye, I'm agin ye. Where else
have I heard that lately?

>> > The Majority Democracy decides, the committees work FOR them
>> > and do their bidding!
>>
>> Yeah, we've been over that, except you left out the bit
>>about local/whatever committees having to apply policy.

> Decided by the whole Majority.

   The decisions thus arrived at and acted on are made with
old data. How to cope with unforeseen changes? Inadequate
flexibility.

>> You still haven't adressd my basic question. Suppose you
>>want to live elsewhere, and the local/whatever committee
>>thinks you're too valuable to allow to leave. What happens?

> You have to train your replacement. People have to live.

   Suppose like most of us, you're better at doing your job
than teaching it? Are you billed for a professional
teacher's time to train your replacement?

>>Does your Ideal Sociialism allow for volunteerism, or does
>>it "volunteer" your services to The State for you?

> If you volunteer to study to be a doctor, or volunteer as an
> emergency worker, then you are subject to the State, without
> which that work for you could not exist and care of everyone
> could not be offered. The State sometimes has to draft people.

   Just like every other State. You'd better have a much
better system of aptitude testing than ever existed before
in place beforehand.

> If you work at a hospital to this day and a national, state,
> or local medical emergency is declared, I guarantee you will
> go to work and remain there or they will come and get you with
> police and give you the choice, work or jail. And it won't
> matter if you try to quit, what your family plans were, or
> whether it's your vacation or your day off. That's the LAW NOW!
> If you don't know about this ask a cop! He has to as well!

   Yes, I know that. It's also explicitly explained to
pre-med students.

   You would have this apply to _all_ classes of labor?

<snip>

>> Yet again, I must be Evil since I do not slavishly agree
>>with you.

> Agreeing with me particularly is unimportant.
> Ceding to people what they deserve by rights is their business,
> and they will finally extract it from you.

   Yet again, you assume I'm withholding something from
somebody. Elsewhere you justify your "hoarding" by claiming
"stewardship" of the excess you admit you keep beyond your
needs. This is simple hypocrisy. Either admit it, or admit
that living in the current economy _forces_ you to
participate in "Evil" practices.

>> >>>> Please secede ASAP. Then try
>> >>>> living on the resources within your borders.
>>
>> >>> One: You haven't the vaguest idea who I am or what I do.
>>
>> >> I don't give a flying ***.
>>
>> > Preety well sums you up.
>>
>> Actually, it pretty much sums up your Ideal Socialism.
>>Who you are and what you do has no bearing on whether or not
>>California could subsist, much less prosper, on what
>>resources exist within its borders.

> Whether I exist or am a response engine written by a committee is
> unimportant to the content I am promoting. California can do fine,
> as can most areas. Trade with other regions is a luxury, not an
> absolute need.

   Except for fresh water, which California is way too short
of internally to support anything like its current
population or the high technology its economy depends on.

   Not to mention a shitload of manufacuring subsectors it
has outsourced to the point it cannot make most of its
consumer goods, even necessities. BTW I do not mean to imply
that this is specific to California. The issue was whether
or not (and has developed to how well) California could do
on its internal resources.

>> BTW, have you reconsidered your claims about the

   Oh, a reminder; the bit you "accidentally" snipped out
was your misconception of the source of irrigation water for
the Imperial Valley.

>> Which reminds me; what will you do for electricity? You
>>_do_ realize that across-national-border tariffs for power
>>transmission are somewhat different from interstate case?
>>The nearest Nuke plant to you is, I think, Palo Verde here
>>in AZ.

> No, guess again, Diablo Canyon, San Onofre, Avila Beach, and
> San Clemente. And 2% of our power comes from wind farms.

   Yet you're perenially short of electricity, and overuse
of air conditioning is not the culprit.

>>If you hypocrities had built it in your backyard
>>instead of juggling regulations so it got built here, you
>>could keep it. However, I s'pose AZ can find uses for its
>>total output.

> You could starve and turn all your lights on.

   If we kept our water, you'd have to buy more food from us
than you have to now.

>> Oh, and had you no reply to this part:
>>
>> >>> But NON-profit, publically owned utilities span the nation.
>>
>> >> Because they're _prevented by law_ from making profit.
>>
>> > A practice we need to expand to EVERY industry in the land!
>>
>> Then from where comes the added capital to pay for
>>improvements? NOWHERE!

> Costs are passed to consumers, even foreseeable future costs.

   What about unforeseen costs? Remember our discussion of
the dangers of JIT delivery and the need to "put things by"
for emergencies? The need to upgrade factories can hardly be
foreseen when labor-saving technologies are constantly being
invented, and nobody, not even you I hope, will seriously
consider suppressing such things in the name of "equalization".

> But that's not profit, that is cost. And new facilities are
> costed by increase to current prices for everything. If it
> were profit it would go to the rich for NO WORK. It doesn't.

   I didn't use the word "profit" in my last sentence, I
said "capital to pay for improvements". Profit is where that
capital comes from in our current economy. As for public
utilities, they have to raise capital by increasing
taxation, or raising the price at which they sell the bonds
they are financed with. If fewer people buy the bonds, no
capital is available.

   Mark L. Fergerson

Loading