Hold up Henry; what's a libertarian?

[gaffo]

Henry Quirk wrote:

America ain't a collective. Warren and Sanders would have it be a collective, but it's not, and it won't be. There are far too many formal and informal divisions, and the country is just plain too big to have the cohesion associated with a collective.

No, America is a nation, a big, fractured, nation.

And: America ain't a democracy. America is a constitutional republic.

America's constitution is democratic as compared with communist or theocratic republics.

nope. I affirm and love my Constitution as a document that defines the best of humanity and the nature of a just state.

but its ratification is suspect, for the contental congress really did not have the authority of over-ride the Articales of confederation (which was written under a more democratic environment? (asking here for other that know history better than me).

and BTW per accurate definition America is an Republic. though it allows democracy via State Reforendums.

[Skepdick]

Not necessarily. Behaviour is ostensible, not merely self-reported.

Sure, but that's not how psychology is practiced.

Psychology is practiced on the self-reporting of behaviour, not on the observation of behaviour.

Hey, that was your "horse," not mine. You can drop it when you want.

Ready to drop my anti-realist horse when you drop your realist horse.

That which is "rational" conforms both to logic and to the way things are in the world.

So I called it. A correspondence theory married to realism.

Why should anyone care about the way things ARE in the world, if they WILL be different tomorrow?

A rational person does their best to ensure things WILL be the way they want them to be. Utility maximisation.

Logic has nothing to do with reality. Logic not even that popular amongst Eastern philosophers.

Then you'll have to explain why things like Lithium can address it.

Because it's caused by Lithium deficiency?!?

Because Lithium, and whatever similar chemicals will produce the same effect, are from the environment.

The environment may or may not have caused the Lithium deficiency in your brain. Any number of things could've caused it. Diet. Genetics. Some other disease.

Do observe, however that nobody cares about "what causes it?", if Lithium fixes it.

Utility maximisation.

I addressed this: the category error is yours, not mine.

And I addressed that too. The assertion of an error is yours, not mine.

I did not introduce the hemophilia example...nor, for that matter, did I introduce psychopathy as a case. They were both yours. And I made no analogy between them -- I'm arguing (rightly) that any such analogy is bad. You did that.

So you really are that stupid.

Are you actually aware that "sameness" and "difference" is the foundation of recognition? And the very process by which categorization works.

That you don't agree with my "categorization-sheme" it doesn't mean that it's wrong. If my categorization scheme maximises my utility - then I don't give a shit if you think it's "wrong".

I can say that about every living being. But in point of fact, hemophiliacs do not all die.

*sigh* Fucking sophist.

With proper treatment, life expectancy of a haemophiliac is about 10 years less than healthy men.

This is where you go "15% shorter life expectancy is nothing to cry home about. It can be safely discarded to conclude sameness".

Unless we accept your assumption that there's no such thing as intrinsic psychopathy, then we are not deducing from psychopathic behaviour to psychopathy. Rather, we can do things like dispositional testing, with "blind" subjects, to locate psychopathic dispositions.

And THEN (once you have classified people as "psychopaths" you actually have to demonstrate that the classification actually correlates with some 3rd variable. And you have to demonstrate that the correlation-rate predicts DIFFERENT OUTCOMES than the general population.

From that, we can asses a higher statistical probability of psychopathological doings in populations.

You are correlating it back to the very DOING which define psychopathy. It's circular - you aren't acquiring new knowledge from a psychopathy diagnosis. You are affirming the definition.

It cannot prove who goes to jail; it can show that a percentage of them will.

A percentage of non-psychopaths will go to jail also. A vast majority of psychopaths AND non-psychopaths don't actually end up in jail.

Selection bias.....

But all of this is moot. Where are we going with this?

I have no idea. That's why I asked you what your utility in categorizing people as "psychopaths" is?

That's why I told you that the method of diagnosing "psychopathy" matters to me.
Self-reporting - don't care.
Material evidence and body count - I care.

It depends what you're trying to "predict."

I am trying to predict my likelihood of having to deal with violence.

Self-reported arm-chair diagnosed psychopaths - lower risk.
Ex-convicts/repeat offenders - higher risk.

The diagnosis of psychopathy is "broken" only to the extent that it can't tell you what a given individual would do; it's quite excellent for telling you that statistically, aggressive and antisocial groups, such as convicts, are going to be disproportionately psychopathic.

Exactly! So I don't care whether you are a diagnosed psychopath. I care if you have been convicted of a violent crime.

The latter carries more information.

It's the "mixing" part I'm suggesting is fallacious.

You are the one harping on about "logic" but you haven't even heard of intersections?!?

Perhaps your logic is broken. Have you tried a different one?

You can pick the category you like: but mixing categories, like going from physiological to psychological, as you have done, is going to produce fallacious conclusions.

Is that what they told you in Philosophy-school? Shame

Is your claim that physiology and psychology are the same category? Bleeding is like thinking, you imagine?

In some ways they are the same.
In some ways they are different.

If the sameness is important to the predictive model they are "the same".
If the difference is significant to the predictive model then they are "different".

This is how abstract thinking works, you know?

Heh. Your understanding of Eastern philosophy needs some work. They always think in categories...just different ones from the West.

Q.E.D By tweaking the knobs on "sameness" and "difference" you can arrive at any conclusion you want. I know this. I do this.

Maybe you are ignorant of the fact that you do it too?

I am way too tired to refer you to all the experiments. Here's a book instead: The Geography of Thought.

You will find about 15 pages of references on the back.

Well, irrationally, then, you kept only one criterion, and arbitrarily rejected the rest?

By your conception of "rationality" which has nothing to do with my own.

No. Given the absurdity of your claim.

My claim is not absurd if you take the Medical view on the matter.

But since you've settled for "absurdity", it's safe to conclude that you are a layman.

No, you don't. But you do have to have some point. Right now, I'm not seeing any.

My point is that there is no point. Until we calibrate our respective utility-functions.

Hilarious. So now, here you are...a nothing...writing on a non-existent computer...to a nobody...

Exactly!

for no reason.

Not True.

Yep. That's my question, alright.

And what's your answer?

This you did for...what reason?

To test my hypothesis: psychologists lack the safety-checks of a real science.

The first rule is that you must not fool yourself. And you are the easiest person to fool.--Richard Feynman

Psychologists don't know how to avoid fool themselves.

Naive Verificationism again.

But Verificationism none the less.

Ah, so you think the reasons the jails are full is because of diagnoses of psychopaths?

That's quite the stretch of a strawman

I'm bored.

No shit. That's why you are on this forum.

[gaffo]

"failed"? not faling? you stopped the fight? if so why so?

Not a single person in the history of humanity has won it.

Some Stoics even celebrated it. They say that Seneca had outstanding principles, even if he failed to live up to them.

I don't much about Seneca though from what little is know he was a wise and thoughtful man.

i failed to make Nero one, but oh well, can't make a bad seed a good one can you?

he tried and failed.

oh well.

I've have fought and still do the same fight you speak of.

If you win - let me know. I'll change my mind.

life long battle/goal so do not expect me to write you with "i won"

sadly.

this is a personal war (i.e. for me to not be a hypocrite) internally, and externally toward others that are hypocrites.

Have you found a narrative that doesn't contradict your behaviour yet?

?? don't follow/understand

the other "goal" (not a war per say - but no less easy) is my wish to become Wise - or at least more wise tomorrow than i am today (and i do not assume i cannot backslide.

Is there wisdom in accepting and owning the things one cannot change? Is it self-deception to pretend one can?

I personally affirm Humility and so do not pretend i can change matters outside of me - let alone myself, and so why it is a life long battle for me to "change myself" to be as humble as possible, not a hypocrite (ego is a problem here) and to be wise-ish as i can.

oh i see, so you are selling the sellout theory of you got yours so i will get mine!

Oh i see i was wrong in my view of your post.

my bad, thanks for correcting me.

I'm not about Ego, so you do you and me will do me.

i care if later i find i was wrong, do not care what you think.




Not at all. I am being ironic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironism

You could even say that I anecdotally agree with "None are righteous, none - not one.".
But perhaps I have unrealistically high standards.

I stand corrected.

maybe you do.

[gaffo]

No, my 'philosophy' is stated up-thread, and it ain't what you think.

No, it's not.

then i missunderstood your philosphy. if so i appologise and if you are willing can you re-state it here so i many affirm or deny it per my own sir?

my take of your philospohy is "get off my lawn"

is that wrong?

[Skepdick]

I don't much about Seneca though from what little is know he was a wise and thoughtful man.

That is indeed what they say about him. Even though he failed to practice what he preaches. Even though he was a hypocrite.

Which is indeed good news for all of humanity, I guess: even though we are hypocrites, we can still attain wisdom.

life long battle/goal so do not expect me to write you with "i won"

sadly.

Then I'll wait to see what they say about you...

?? don't follow/understand

The definition of "hypocrisy" is failing to practice what you preach. Actions incongruent with professed beliefs.

Seneca said a lot of wise things, professed a lot of virtues, but didn't live up to them. Seneca was a wise hypocrite.

I personally affirm Humility and so do not pretend i can change matters outside of me - let alone myself, and so why it is a life long battle for me to "change myself" to be as humble as possible, not a hypocrite (ego is a problem here) and to be wise-ish as i can.

Indeed! Seneca was a humble hypocrite. Very prudent and wise of him.

Arrogant hypocrites can't get away with it, but humble ones do!

Or maybe it was because Seneca was filthy rich and incredibly influential! Get rich and act humble! That sounds prudent.

[gaffo]

Henry Quirk wrote:

America ain't a collective. Warren and Sanders would have it be a collective, but it's not, and it won't be. There are far too many formal and informal divisions, and the country is just plain too big to have the cohesion associated with a collective.

No, America is a nation, a big, fractured, nation.

And: America ain't a democracy. America is a constitutional republic.

America's constitution is democratic as compared with communist or theocratic republics.

No, it's more libertarian than anything. It's specifically chains the government and the masses: that is, gov has specific, narrow powers and the masses cannot vote on everything. The single man is defended from predation from those in the state house and those who are his neighbors. Democratic process comes into play in the selection of representatives/proxies and in referendum, but our reps are limited in what they can do and our referendum are supposed to be rare.

Agreed Sir.

I believe the degree that America fails, is failing, as a nation is directly tied to the degree it has become untethered to those foundational notions of tightly limited government and proxies and has embraced a technocrat-directed, democracy.

Dissagree here, per 1880's and "personhood of Corporations" and latter Gikled age of 1900's - and now the return of post 1980's we have Corporate Capture of "democracy" in our America.

and so it corruption via lobbists/special intere$te$t, where the former ideal of a Republic's representatives represent The People, today represent Global Corporations/the 1-percenters.

[gaffo]

I don't much about Seneca though from what little is know he was a wise and thoughtful man.

That is indeed what they say about him. Even though he failed to practice what he preaches. Even though he was a hypocrite.

Which is indeed good news for all of humanity, I guess: even though we are hypocrites, we can still attain wisdom.

life long battle/goal so do not expect me to write you with "i won"

sadly.

Then I'll wait to see what they say about you...

?? don't follow/understand

The definition of "hypocrisy" is failing to practice what you preach. Actions incongruent with professed beliefs.

Seneca said a lot of wise things, professed a lot of virtues, but didn't live up to them. Seneca was a wise hypocrite.

I personally affirm Humility and so do not pretend i can change matters outside of me - let alone myself, and so why it is a life long battle for me to "change myself" to be as humble as possible, not a hypocrite (ego is a problem here) and to be wise-ish as i can.

Indeed! Seneca was a humble hypocrite. Very prudent and wise of him.

Arrogant hypocrites can't get away with it, but humble ones do!

Or maybe it was because Seneca was filthy rich and incredibly influential! Get rich and act humble! That sounds prudent.

ok. you seem to know and yet not like Seneca, per him i'm an ignoraous. inform me about his nature as a wise-hypocrite.

[Skepdick]

ok. you seem to know and yet not like Seneca, per him i'm an ignoraous. inform me about his nature as a wise-hypocrite.

I can't tell you anything you can't read in a book, and you should do yourself the favour of reading Letters from a Stoic, rather than let me tarnish you with my (mis?)interpretation.

I don't like or dislike him - my judgment is suspended.

I am simply pointing out that wisdom and hypocrisy are not incompatible qualities.

[henry quirk]

"then i missunderstood your philosphy. if so i appologise and if you are willing can you re-state it here so i many affirm or deny it per my own sir?"

I've restated it a few time, so mebbe you can just read the thread, yeah?

#

"my take of your philospohy is "get off my lawn" is that wrong?"

Not exactly on the nose, no.

[gaffo]

The individual owns himself.

The individual has a right to his life, liberty, and property.

The individual's life liberty, or property is only forfeit (in part or in whole) when he willingly, knowingly, deprives (in part or in whole) another of his life, liberty, or property without just cause.

*

Some individuals can't self-defend or can't self-defend across all circumstances, so instruments are used to offer defense and compensation:

A sensible, minimal court of last resort.

A sensible, minimal constabulary.

A sensible, minimal, border-stationed military.

A militia to rule the other three (the first three are employees; when they look to dis-embed themselves from that subordinate position, the militia - every other armed person in the minarchy - is empowered to put them down).

*

The above works for grown ups.

Children (and the deficient) need and want central control.

good perspective and i concur with it.

[gaffo]

Henry Quirk wrote:


Engineering principle of the lever for instance. Your personal freedoms and mine are possible because of other people.

No. Certain conveniences and advantages are possible because of advances in knowlege. Good example: my kid benefits from what I do, what I've done, but his freedom, his liberty, is intrinsic, not bestowed. I don't make him free, I just make it easier to be free.

Very true. You've explained why John Adams wrote: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."


This is why secularism seeks to replace what is intrinsic or the human potential for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and enables one nation under God with man made conceptions. Secularism or the belief in government supremacy cannot tolerate freedom so struggles against it. Consisting of man made interpretations they must be doomed to failure and result in their opposite; a natural result for the human condition.

The government has replaced the church in the center of town. The disastrous results of this change is obvious in terms of human freedom and ethics

You view of Secularism is not mine. I'm an Atheist Liberal Libertarian, and welcome Secularism as affirming my liberty as an Atheist.

i do not equate Secularism as Statism.

[gaffo]

No. Certain conveniences and advantages are possible because of advances in knowlege. Good example: my kid benefits from what I do, what I've done, but his freedom, his liberty, is intrinsic, not bestowed. I don't make him free, I just make it easier to be free.

Very true. You've explained why John Adams wrote: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."


This is why secularism seeks to replace what is intrinsic or the human potential for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and enables one nation under God with man made conceptions. Secularism or the belief in government supremacy cannot tolerate freedom so struggles against it. Consisting of man made interpretations they must be doomed to failure and result in their opposite; a natural result for the human condition.

The government has replaced the church in the center of town. The disastrous results of this change is obvious in terms of human freedom and ethics

It's queer to me, this notion that freedom or liberty or personhood or self-possession is a bestowed status instead of the obviously intrinsic quality or characteristic it is. Even more peculiar are folks who promote such a queer notion. Sculptor, for example, sez a person isn't a person till he's declared one by others. I can't wrap my head around it.

concur

[henry quirk]

The individual owns himself.

The individual has a right to his life, liberty, and property.

The individual's life liberty, or property is only forfeit (in part or in whole) when he willingly, knowingly, deprives (in part or in whole) another of his life, liberty, or property without just cause.

*

Some individuals can't self-defend or can't self-defend across all circumstances, so instruments are used to offer defense and compensation:

A sensible, minimal court of last resort.

A sensible, minimal constabulary.

A sensible, minimal, border-stationed military.

A militia to rule the other three (the first three are employees; when they look to dis-embed themselves from that subordinate position, the militia - every other armed person in the minarchy - is empowered to put them down).

*

The above works for grown ups.

Children (and the deficient) need and want central control.

good perspective and i concur with it.

[gaffo]

Nick_A wrote:

It's queer to me, this notion that freedom or liberty or personhood or self-possession is a bestowed status instead of the obviously intrinsic quality or characteristic it is. Even more peculiar are folks who promote such a queer notion. Sculptor, for example, sez a person isn't a person till he's declared one by others. I can't wrap my head around it.
Top

Freedom, liberty,and personhood are indeed bestowed by others than oneself. If they were qualities bestowed on oneself everyone would be free to be whatever they wanted, at liberty to do whatever they wanted , and every pet cat would consider himself a person.
None of the above is the case.

Freedom relates to good fortune of health, strength, and status.

DoI affirms Inalienable Rights as inborn - not affirm by The State.

I agree with the DoI myself.

We are not at liberty to deride people's sexual orientations on this website.

This forum is privately owned and so not require to allow free speech. it should IMO, but not required to allow it.

Personhood relates to social status. For instance slaves who are bought and sold are usually non-persons for their
buyers and sellers in the slave owning community.

yep. sadly per Britain until 1841? and the last Brazil in 1889 this is so.

BTW personhood was denied in American from 1789 to 1865 in America - in full contravention of the 9th amendent of the US Constitution.

sadly.

the best and most ignored amendment to my Bill of Rights.

In Nazi Germany Jews, Romany men and women, and homosexuals were non-persons.

yep, thanks for including the Romany, too often forgotten due to lack of a lobby.

[gaffo]

Sculptor, for example, sez a person isn't a person till he's declared one by others. I can't wrap my head around it.

The easiest way to wrap your head around it is the 13th amendment.

Slaves may have been persons even before that, but it didn't matter in practice.

13th? ok, but just note only a year prior was the Emancipation Proclaimation which was similar, but still allowed the Union States of Maryland and Delaware to have slaves/slavery - being members of the Union.