[PLUG-TALK] Scot Craighead's mailer

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Fri Jun 21 00:26:03 UTC 2002


On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, J Henshaw wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, J Henshaw wrote:
> > > But you can't do physics without knowing addition and algebra first, I
> > > submit.
> > >
> > > So, if all they want to do is argue semantics we will be wrestling in
> > > mud with pigs.
> >
> > Semantics are the "addition and algebra" of argument.
> >
> > You can't get do "argument" without knowing the semantics first.
> >
> > I'd also like to point out the fact that different geometries and
> > algebras, often those that contradict each other, are required for a
> > complete understanding of physics.
> 
> You just made my point again,  much like you did in the second post of the
> entire thread.

Which point is proven, do you think?

You tried to make two points, as I see it: 1. that an ability to work in
physics requires an understanding of addition and subtraction.  2. that
arguing semantics is "wrestling in the mud with pigs", which I interpreted
to mean "dirty and pointless".

Were those not your two points?

My statement agreed with the first (assumed it was true, rather than
proving it) and showed by analogy that it negates the second.  Different
semantics are required to approach different kinds of arguments and until
the semantics are defined, you can't make the argument.

> Now that your usefulness has reached it's limit, why don't you just
> follow along while the people who add in a Common method finish their
> friendly discussion?
> I said at the outset that unsound minds not fit to be jurors should not
> muddy the pool.
> That is all you can seem to contribute.

Uncommon is not the same as unsound.

That which is considered to be Common is that used by the majority (or at
least the dominant).  So you believe that the majority should be able to
ignore the concerns of the minority because they are not Common?

You can't have it both ways.  You must resolve this internal
contradiction to be taken seriously.

> Look at you muddy pool above, with the microbial dissection of one
> word?

Which word did I dissect in the above?

> My point has been made, in post 2 where you do the exact same thing,
> creating subsets of conditionals with orthogonal relationships to your
> Marxist views which have already been proven by me in one sentence to
> be flawed, a one sentence remark you never answered because you know I
> and a few others are correct and you can't stand to let it be;  so you
> misdirect, muddy.

First, I didn't claim that the Marxist views were my views, that's your
assertion.

Second, you have not proven flaws in Marxist philosophy, you have merely
stated cases where the core beliefs of Marxist philosophy conflict with
your own.  Since you insist that your beliefs are the one true set of
beliefs, you consider that evidence of a flaw.  The reasoning world would
disagree.

> and talk about how it sucks to be poor, and call me names and yet ask
> yourself why I think you are delusional.

I don't see the relationship between these three things.  And I don't
remember calling you names, but I've thought them enough that I admit that
it's possible some might have slipped out into my writing.

> Go build a house out of fiat studs, Jeme, with studs we all own or
> don't own, or whatever the *#(&% it is that your Marxist brainwashing
> has made you feel to be reality;

I don't think I'm a Marxist.  Marx didn't understand post-industrialism.  
I don't think his philosophies can be directly applied to a modern
society.

> and let me build mine with Douglas Fir or Steel. You stay out of my
> way and I'll stay out of yours, the concept is possible because we are
> enjoying Private Property.

Private property is exactly what allows people to get in the way of
others.  A claim of the right of exclusive dominion by possession exists
ONLY to prevent others from doing things.  It is a protection of the
freedom of the owner, but a restriction on all the other people in the
world.

Compare this, for example, to the GPL which forbids claim of exclusive
dominion (which, in this society, is relinquishing one of many rights) in
exchange for the guarantee of ALL OTHER rights for ALL OTHER people.

> You fight that because it is Biblical, don't you.

No.  I don't care about your Bible.

> Why did the Jews wander in the desert with no homeland?

Because someone else claimed exclusive dominion over their ancestral home.

The acknowledgement of private property rights over rights of necessity
forced them to suffer.

> It is Biblical principle that private property is freedom, and you
> hate it with a passion.

I disagree that private property is freedom.  I believe it is a kind of
bondage and a method of coercion.  I hate that aspect of it.

> So you are a resident enemy alien to the Constitution of the United
> States, in many ways.

I don't see that at all.

> Your ideas are antithetical to freedom.

I believe that my ideas respect freedom above all else -- but I do not
recognize the freedom to exploit and coerce as a valuable or respectable
freedom.  Greed is not a natural right.

> Whether you can muddy them so much others are sometimes fooled, or
> not. I already asked you straight up, are you ignorant, insane or a
> Satan worshipper.

I am a third thing... and probably a fourth and fifth, as well.

Your options are not the only options.  That's the fundamental
understanding that has impeded this discussion.

> You never answered that either.

Your answer is above.  I ignored it because the question unduly limits the
options.

> We know you aren't ignorant.

Thank goodness.

> You agreed with me last night that the distance from beautiful pizza
> to your house was fixed, that there are absolutes.

There are absolutes when all of the variables are defined.  I only have
the one house at the moment, there is just the one IBP, and you
specifically asked "How far do you have to walk?"  If you'd simply asked
"how far is it?", I would probably have given a different answer (based on
a different set of assumptions, like as-the-crow-flies distance).

> When do you recognize them?

When there is agreement in the assumptions required.

> When you are of sound mind.

Only if you want to define "sound" as "agreeing with Jeff Henshaw".  But I
guess that's what you've been doing all along.

> You cannot recognize that a dollar is a certain thing and not an
> electron, etc;  I can't keep track of how many fallacies you have
> presented as supporting arguments for your Satanic worldview.

And you cannot recognize that new laws can override old laws and
definitions of things like "dollar" can change over time.  As you say, it
is a legal fiction and fiction is subject to revision.

> We have a freedom of religion which should be respected, which means I
> should not be forced to use debt instruments as money among other
> things, not submit to the tyranny of the majority just because the
> majority might become illegal immigratns that want all whites
> banished.

Then don't submit.  But don't expect the benefits of societal membership
when you've rejected the burden of costs.

And here, again, you write about your fear of becoming a racial minority.  
You claim that we should use our existing power of majority (as english
speaking white people) to outlaw the minority (non-english speaking brown
people) before they get too strong.  You say this because it protects you
from the "tyranny of the majority".  Again, I restate that you only
believe that "tyranny of the majority" is a bad thing when you are not a
member of the majority.  You want the Common to rule, as long as you
yourself are among the common.

> I could go on and on, but you are firmly entrenched in a pit you do
> not want to escape, you try to camoflage it with more paragraphs and
> bigger words than everyone else and ten times the posts, making it
> tedious for all who care to follow;

I would be shocked if the difference in scale between our posts in this
thread was outside the bounds of 1-1.5 times either way.  That is to say,
I don't know which of us wrote more posts, but neither of us wrote more
than half again as many as the other.  And certainly neither of us wrote
more than twice the number of the other, let alone ten times!

I probably used ten times the number of words (both unique words and total
word count), but that's because most of your posts consisted of a short
list of non-sequitors interspersed among copious quoted text.

As for whether my arguments or yours are more tedious and hard to follow,
I leave that to each individual to determine for their self.

> I know a couple already unsubscribed due to volume, and you are the
> most volumious one of all with mostly nothing but tedious non-issue
> distraction and misdirection and fallacy, because you desire a world
> that cannot happen.

Can you give some post counts?  Russell?  I don't think I believe that
assertion without some proof.

And I would say that most of your comments are non-issues, distractions,
and fallacy.  We share very few assumptions.  However, I believe I have
done a fine job of laying out my assumptions and I believe that you don't
really know the difference between facts and assumptions.  I arrive at
this belief not by prejudice or fear, but by an analysis of your lists of
"facts", which contain many non-factual assumptions that are not true for
all observers.

> And will not.

Same with you, bub.  We've all got our dreams.

> So you were very poor as a child, I take it?  Get over it, please.

Depends on what you want to call poor.  We had food and shelter.  We had
crops in the field and livestock in the barn.  Nobody went to bed hungry
except as punishment (and that particular punishment was extremely rare,
being exceptionally cruel).

My father was an electrician by trade (union member and nearly always
working).  The family made up for any shortcomings in his wage by
gardenning and tending to farm animals that provided food (mostly eggs and
milk, but there was the occassional set of pigs for raising and slaughter,
and once a cow -- the milk was from goats).  My father really enjoys and
has a knack for barter.  He designed the house in which we lived and he
and our neighbors raised it together.  He, of course, handled his own
electrical systems and added the wiring to a plumber friend's house in
exchange for his work on the pipes in ours.  He traded an old trailer for
a pool table for the family room until we bored of it, then it was traded,
in turn, for a jacuzzi until that, too, was no longer worth the effort of
maintenance and was traded for a car for my sister's coming of age.  What
we did not use was offered to those who could use it and most of the time
those grateful people offered something in return.  Sometimes nothing was
offered in return and there was no pain or vindictiveness because we did
not lose the things we truly needed.

My mother is a Christian, of sorts (I mean to say that she follows one of
the American Evangelical sects that worships the creeds without actually
remembering the message).  Her views were mine until I could reason.  At
that point (when I was about thirteen), the fellows in her sect could not
answer my questions and, instead, spent their time attempting to disprove
other systems of belief that they assumed I held.  I didn't understand how
a disproof of one particular evolutionary theory, for example, was proof
of a divine creation.  These are not coins that have only two sides.  The
possibilities are limitless.  I hink it's ironic that the people who are
so certain about the existence of eternal life and an omnipotent,
omniscient, omnipresent deity have a very hard time understanding
limitlessness.  Even if every OTHER system of belief man has ever invented
is demonstrably contradictory to observation (or itself), that does not
imply that the one un-disproved system has been proven.

In other words, there is no reason to believe that one set of assumptions
is the ONLY set that could possibly be consistent with the facts.

> Democracy is not my heritage.

Nor mine.  I'm working to bring something new to my culture.  One of those
things I would like to bring is a style of democracy that does not promote
tyranny.

> Republican govt is.

Perhaps you lay too much faith in heritage and not enough in free
thinking?  Just a conjecture.

> I wa strying to show the non-satanic people why it was possible to
> transform the latter into the former;  and all you do is block.

This, to me, reads as though you are calling all people who agree with you
non-satanic.  And while that might be true (I haven't fully explored the
relationship between Satan's attributes and the attributes of your belief
system), I would hope that you realize that this is not a comprehensive
list.

> I hope that someone picks up on how fearful lucid communication is to
> a swine.

Do you encourage lucidity?  Are you a bringer of light?  A lucifer?

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list