On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 8:44 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 02 Oct 2016 22:18:40 -0500 "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:

...

I'll be honest, there are a lot of things I do not like about Hillary Clinton. However, they pale in comparison to what I do not like about Donald Trump, a man who can legitimately be compared to Adolf Hitler,

It's interesting how that sick murdering cunt HITLERY has staunch followers in this list.

I love how "I don't like Hillary but I hate Trump even more" becomes "staunch follower." Pick up a dictionary maybe.

People who are torbots. Or work for google. Or both! - Aren't the loyalties of silicon valley fascists rather transparent.

Everyone who doesn't agree with you is just an unthinking robot, huh? You're not going to convince anyone that way; you're just screaming angrily into the void.

It's a counterpoint to all the technocratic libertarian bullshit that appears here. as if that republican crap somehow 'punk'.

This society is sick and perverse and needs to be put out of it's misery like a rat dog that just bit some gentrified whore's kid.

While I do understand the frustration and anger to our current society and situation, I would encourage you to think a bit about what society would actually turn into upon its collapse. Invariably that comes at huge price, generally involving bloodshed, and resource shortages, and when things get really fucked, regional warlords, rape, pillaging, etc. Societal collapse is never a good thing for the people that have live through it. The USSR handled the transition about as well as can be expected, and organized crime took over a great part of their national wealth nearly overnight. As sick as this society is (and I do agree on that), bloodshed is relatively at a minimum, and resources are plentiful. Hell, even the homeless can be overweight and have ipods and shit. There are egregious acts of systemic violence, naturally - and I won't condone a single example of it - but I will note that oppression of blacks by police is certainly less today than it was in the 60s. And everyone is better off than we would have been under nearly any monarch that ever lived. My point, in as much as I have one, is that on the whole -- while human societies are deeply ill, with a long enough view of history it seems as if we are ever so slowly healing. I do understand that this isn't fast enough for you. I do understand that you deeply yearn for a just society. But there just isn't anything that can be done to heal instantly. It's not the way healing .. growth .. works at any scale. But try to keep in mind, when you yearn for its collapse, you might well be wishing for your sister, mother, or other innocents to be raped, or killed. You might well be wishing for a situation where kids need to whore themselves to help scrape up some food for their families. And YES that happens now. But we need not wish more of it on ourselves. Just a thought. And honestly, some days I think "fuck it all" too so, I get it, I really do. But I try to keep the other stuff in mind too. YMMV.

...

Hell, even the homeless can be overweight and have ipods and shit.

They can have iPods but no shelter. How does this sound for you?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/17/the-stuff-we-really-n...

Oh, hey I get all that. But the point is that a goodly number of people the world over would find being homeless in a first world country the proverbial "good life."

I suppose. If the 'good life' includes sleeping with a tire iron and a big knife to fend off predators of the human species.

In SOME COUNTRIES the homeless may not get fat or have ipods but the odds of being attacked by an idiot kid of the gentry, or being lit up, is pretty slim. I say it's a trade off.

Well, I can't speak to the exact forms of violence that may or may not be rampant in "shanty" communities or the like in third world countries, or what their people have to deal with, exactly, but I would be very surprised if those societies didn't have human predators as well. In many 3rd world countries, arms are essentially unregulated, and are quite common. That would suggest to me that violence, of some form, is a daily routine. I know that plenty of African women feel the need to carry around AKs to fend off rapists. I know that a first world homeless guy may have to worry about individual attacks from some college jock, but he doesn't have to worry about sleeping under the wrong bridge that gets bombed. I saw a study, by MIT recently, that estimated the carbon usage of first world humans compared to third world. In particular, it was striking to me because first world homeless people are estimated to use 8 tons of carbon in the form of the services they have available to them, whereas third worlders used about 4. I think energy consumption is probably a reasonable gauge for quality of life, at least in the physical sense. Again, I'm not saying by any stretch that first world homeless have it easy or anything like that -- but I'm just trying to keep an eye on the perspective and to remember that even part-time workers in the first world making $25k-30k USD are globally in the 1% or so. And my concern is, for those people that are just getting by or are on the streets, now.. societal collapse will burden them most of all. The rich are going to hole themselves up in their mountain houses, top-floor penthouses, and gated communities playing the fiddle like Nero as the world burns. It'll be every day people that get burned.

That's the kind of privileges you get by raping the whole world for centuries, including spanish empire, dutch empire, british empire(yours) and now british-amerikunt empire (yours). No wonder you are a loyal subject ahd defender of the status quo. Oh yes, if there's a 'societal collapse' then your comfortable position as 'first-world' skumbag will be affected, which si something a 'lefty' 'progressive' like you would never tolerate.

Hey fuck head, you're typing on a computer. That makes you one of the global 1% too. So if you really feel so much solidarity with the oppressed of the world, give up the laptop, and go shovel shit out of a latrine in the third world somewhere if it makes you feel better. But it won't do you, them, or anyone else any fucking good. Neither will pissing and moaning about shit that happened hundreds of years ago. You want to make the world better? Come up with ONE idea that could be an ACTUAL solution. Can't do that? Pick ONE PERSON, and make their life better.

...

Hey fuck head, you're typing on a computer. That makes you one of the global 1% too.

False. Like everything you said, stupid piece-of-shit.

Hey fuck head, any electronic device that can post stuff on the net is a computer.

...

Hey fuck head, any electronic device that can post stuff on the net is a computer.

How many 1000s of millions of people have phones that can 'post stuff on the net' are there? Oh I guess something like one third of the world belongs to the "1%" then?

And those phones are computers, fuck face.

Does it hurt to be as stupid and corrupt as you are 'xorcist'?

No, not at all. Because I'm smart enough to know that a programmable device that has a CPU in it is a computer. Even if, derp.. it can make a phone call. Hell, for that matter, there are analog devices with no CPUs that are computers. Fuck, while I'm on the topic, the ABACUS is a fucking computer. Because, news flash.. a COMPUTER is a DEVICE that COMPUTES.. that is does ARITHMETIC.

On the ohter hand, how many people get 25K/year in a part time job? Well certainly not me...

With your stunning lack of understanding of the even the basics of the devices you use every day, its no wonder.

Let me SPELL IT OUT for you, RETARD. I didn't deny I was typing on a computer (as a matter of fact, I use a desktop computer). I denied being in the "1%". GET IT now?

Wait, I lost track. Are we talking about wealth, or intelligence? Because I agree that neither of us are in the 1% of the most intelligent. That much is obvious. As for wealth, you're saying you make less than $32000 / USD a year? And you bought a desktop computer, AND a phone? And you pay for all the bandwidth for your 'musings' here ?? How fucking stupid. You're never going to get ahead that way. Ok. I believe you. You're not in the 1% of either intelligence, or wealth. I stand corrected.

...

Are we talking about wealth, or intelligence?

I know what I'm talking about but you don't know what you are talking about. You seem to have some kind of problem...

You're right, I do have several problems. At the moment, I can't find my lighter. And you never shut the fuck up. Those are two problems I have.

...

Because I agree that neither of us are in the 1% of the most intelligent. That much is obvious.

Intelligence was never mentioned...

Sure it was. I mentioned it. And it's call fucking with you.

...

Ok. I believe you. You're not in the 1% of either intelligence, or wealth.

I think you should work harder trying to understand the meaning of the relative position of 0s, 1s and the rest of arabic numerals...

You seem to have real difficulty understanding playful obtuseness in an effort to let a conversation die for lack of genuine interest. Like I said some time ago. You're like autistic or something.

Here's some advanced calculus for you : World population ~ 7400 millions. What's the 1% of 7400? Why, it's 74 millions.

Now find out who those 74 million people are. Then try the 10% group. That one should include most of the US and europe...et cetera.

I skipped over this the first time, because you're mostly a bore. But I should respond to this for, well, accuracy. When speaking of the disparity of wealth in global income earnings it is not a matter of 1% of the population who have the most income. Well, that is one way of analyzing the situation. Often one compares the richest 1% of people and compares their wealth against the median 50%. That is one way. Another way is to look at the percentage of people who have incomes at the top 1% of the scale for all salaries paid to people. 32000 USD/yr represents the entry point for the top 1% of salaries paid to people the world over. 99% of people make less than that, per year. This graphic illustrates the situation well. The poorer countries have much larger populations, but their salaries are much smaller. http://www.equityforchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Global-Inequalit...

It's quite clear that your idiotic ramblings are anything but accurate. But of course, since your goal is propaganda, accuracy is something you don't want at all.

Thank you with going for the a-list troll move once again and ignoring and cutting things you can't refute. And to be clear: not taking the time to respond to a point, is one thing. But RESPONDING by ignoring what was actually said, and just going off road with distraction is why I don't take you seriously. It's been your go-to move, like all trolls, from minute one. So much for your supposed focus on rationality, or facts and such. This is why I have little to say to you, and am content to saunter off-topic, provide obtuse non-responses, and the like. Its impossible to take you seriously, so I don't. You'll harp on the error of making generalizations, but then go and make generalizations yourself. You'll argue for days about rationality with me, and then ask another "Well, how much logic do you need?" flippantly when they point out there is no direct evidence to support a hypothesis that appeals to you. You can offer nothing but weak tea, son. Which is why I'm content to fuck with you, not offer any real answers to your supposed questions, and generally make fun of the entire "conversation" that you're pretending to be a part of.

xorcist bottom line? DON"T MESS WITH MY BUDDIES THE ANGLO-AMERIKUNTS - WE HAVE THE PSYCHIARIC RIGHT TO RULE THE WORLD.

lulz. You're ridiculous, which is why I enjoy saying ridiculous things in return, sweet tits.

Besides since you are an anti-rationalist, why would you care about any 'refutation'.

I'm not anti-rationalist, any more than I am anti-wrench. It's a tool. And when it is a useful too, I'm more than willing to use it. But not all problems are mere nuts and bolts.

...

lulz. You're ridiculous, which is why I enjoy saying ridiculous things in return, sweet tits.

And that sums it up. In reality, what you say to me is the very exact garbage you put in all your posts. You type the mental vomits that your brain creates. Like your proposal for a 'community' run cyber police state "little sister". Sick - but rather useful as a clue to what you really are.

Yes, it does: a realist. I don't like the idea of surveillance in general. Just as I don't like the idea of nukes, in general. But I'm a realist. Nukes, unfortunately, do in fact exist. In this, nation-states found the only workable strategy to be a strategy of mutual deterrence; so I find that this same strategy may be the only one workable with regards to a police state and surveillance. What's sick, to my way of thinking, is to KNOW that the state has surveillance abilities, and to oppose citizenry from making an equally capable system to keep the state/police in check. That would be like opposing the Soviet's from pursuing nukes when they knew America had them. It's, frankly, nonsensical. If I could, somehow, make all surveillance technology either cease to exist, or in some way moot, I'd happily do so. As I would for nukes. But that isn't reality. I don't engage much with ideology, and the 'should be' nature of people's opinions. I understand that the sunset might well be prettier if there were some greens, or silvers thrown in. Maybe things "should be" that way, according to your aethstetic, and I would likely agree so long as we're talking deep greens, and not some garish color. I might like two moons, as well. But it is irrelevant, because are not not that way, and anything you might do to the atmosphere to make some nice shades of green show up, would most surely make a worse mess of things than we already have. What is. Not what is not. 'Rational' 'principled' 'idealistic' thinkers tend to have difficulty in this. I get it. I really do. I once had difficulty with it as well. But then one day I realized its far better to appreciate the sunset, and do what you can to keep the park you're enjoying it in cleanly, than to sit around pissing and moaning about the garbage and how the sunset doesn't even have the appropriate colors.

...

I'm not anti-rationalist, any more than I am anti-wrench. It's a tool. And when it is a useful too, I'm more than willing to use it.

But not all problems are mere nuts and bolts.

It's the only valid tool for rational discussions. But you want to be able to use rational arguments if they serve your purpose and play the irrationalist card when the argument doesn't go your way. Neat.

Ah, now this is telling. Please take a moment, and consider our mutual choice of words here: I used the word "useful." Whereas you chose the word "valid." It is quite natural that "rationality" is the only "valid" tool for "rational discussions." This is a tautology. Sometimes tautologies can be quite profound, but in this case, I'm not finding it. But I chose the word useful. I chose that word because often times in "rational discussions" the participants cannot agree on basic axioms and perspective from which to reason. Rationality is, at its foundation, about AGREEING on some basic foundational ideas, and PROCEEDING from them. When the bedrock cannot be found, reason as a tool has no purchase. The teeth of the wrench have no bite. When this happens (among other times), rationality ceases to be useful, and one goes round and round getting nowhere in the discussion. As we have. It is at that point that I begin to make fun of the entirety of the discussion. It is at that point that I bring in "irrational" (more properly - non-rational) modes of thought to inform the discussion. Sometimes, they can help provide the friction needed to move forward. Other times there is such a great insistence on thinking only just a certain way, and such a volatile response to bringing in any other considerations, that I'm then content to just go into foolishness mode and fuck with the other participant. I may not get ideas from the "discussions" but I'll get ideas for a turn of phrase or such, and that's fun too. <much bogus misrepresentations and ill-thought out examples of 'logic' clipped>

Feel free to reply with the same nonsense, and have the last word...

Oh, we both know you won't let that happen. But thanks. Alternatively, you're welcome to the 'last word' so long as those words are simply a disagreement with what I've ACTUALLY said, rather than a misrepresentation, attack, or some pathetic conspiracy delusion.

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 21:36:40 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

Rationality is, at its foundation, about AGREEING on some basic foundational ideas,

"I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it."

“Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? ... Every concept that can ever be needed will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined.."

You subscribe to that one too? Well no, since scammers, charlatans and intellectual frauds love to hide their scams behind empty, ambiguous words.

Anyway, hopefully you got the point. Your 'understanding' of 'logic' is quite similar to that of the worst totalitarian.

I disagree, but I can understand where you're coming from. I always have understood your point. I've discussed this sort of thing, at length, with many people who put logic on a pedestal. I don't believe you've made an effort to understand my point, however. There is a danger in being too focused on logic and reason. It unnecessarily constrains one's thoughts. Consider the very word - RATIONAL. As in, rational numbers - numbers expressible as ratios. That is how the Pythagoreans thought of numbers. They had no concept at all of an "irrational" number - a number not expressible as ratios. So, to say to them that sqrt(2) is not expressible as a ratio of two integers was UNTHINKABLE. They had no framework for the concept within their "logic." They lacked the IMAGINATION to set aside their quite literally rational view of arithmetic and to simply THINK, with as few rules guiding that process as they could manage. And that is an example regarding something a simple as the concept of quantity. How much more should we be suspicious of such failures of imagination when dealing with complex concepts? As far as totalitarianism goes, I'm not sure what an example from fiction is necessarily supposed to prove, but I can counter with another: legend has it that Hippasus was murdered for proving that root 2 is irrational. A warning for taking systems of thought, ideologies, logics and so on, too seriously. But there is a deeper matter, here. When you ask for something to be "logical" what, exactly, do you mean? Logical according to what? A triangle has interior angles which sum to 180 degrees, says Euclid. Lobachevsky can prove all triangles have more than 180 degrees. Both are correct, given their assumptions. Both work in the real world. Which, then, meets your criteria of "logical" or "rational"? Which do we use? There is classical, "Aristotelian" logic. But there are parametric logics where induction and deduction are special cases of consequence. There are fuzzy logics where truth and falsehood are not 1 and 0's but take on a range of values .. formalized "grey area" thinking, essentially. More importantly, there are paraconsistent logics - logics which specifically deal with contradiction in definable, inconsistency-tolerant ways. So what type of logic should we use? And why? You want to use one type of reasoning, as most people do, usually Aristotelian; but there is absolutely no basis for this other than ignorance of the others - despite the fact that the others are often times the better tools for the job. That is why they were invented. I mentioned Godel's Incompleteness Theorem at one point. It says, informally, that in any logical system with a finite number of assumptions, one cannot have consistency, and the ability to prove all true statements. If you value consistency as the ideal, you put truth at second place. This is the choice of the mathematician. To have access to all truths within such a system, you need either an infinite mind to hold infinite axioms, or tolerance for inconsistency. This is the path of the philosopher. Some would suggest that complete tolerance for all inconsistencies and having an infinite mind are quite the same thing. Hence, the F.S. Fitzgerald quote. My point is that "rational" and "logical" only make sense according to some assumptions, according to a frame of reference. And that frame of reference needs to be agreed upon for use in order to have any utility in a discussion. You mentioned that 2+2 doesn't equal 5 before. True enough, at least not that I know of, but I countered that 7+10 does equal five. And it does, according to a different frame of reference. That frame of reference being the face of a clock. Circular. You choose to only think linearly. I choose to think according to any rules I choose, when I choose them, for the purposes of getting to the goal that I decide is worth pursuing. I'm free of thought that way.

You disagree because you just keep cheating. There isn't much to add. Logic isn't about 'agreement' with you, or with the party.

I take this to mean that you don't believe that logic requires fundamental assumptions that cannot be proven, but must be agreed upon? And using figurative language isn't misrepresentation of your position. You have dismissed as stupid/retarded/nonsense my opinions because they were not consistent. This is little different than a religious person dismissing my opinions because they are "sacrilege." They are incompatible with your system of thought. So, in this way, you quite do put logic on a pedestal. If it isn't logical (or holy) it is wrong. That is an accurate summation of your position, and it is clear that the figurative speech of "putting logic on a pedestal" .. in fact applies, pointedly.

Oh, and as far as I knew, the pythagoreans were credited with discovering 'irrational' numbers (which of course are not actually irrational as in absurd or meaningless) - And the legend I knew is that they killed one of the sect who 'leaked' (haha) the secret, but it's probably a bullshit legend.

I didn't hear the legend that way. As I recall it being told, they killed the guy who discovered it. I'm not sure either version is true, and if I had to bet, would wager that both are simply fiction.

Logic is what it is. I 'accept' it, if you wish. I'm not an arrogant asshole who believes that inconsistent nonsese is 'non-linear' 'valid', nay, even 'superior' thimking. It isn't.

You accept what, exactly? I've never claimed that inconsistent statements are superior to consistent statements, as such. What I claim in that regard is that there are certain truths that can only be indicated by inconsistent pairs of statements. And yes, within the context of our discussion, I have favored inconsistency as a balance to your focus on minutia, mere points of debate, and reliance on ideological principles which I obviously do not hold, and which therefore have nothing to do with the actual ideas that you started asking me questions about. The reality of logical inconsistency is trivially observable even in simple situations: It is logical for the USA to try to prevent nuclear proliferation. It is logical for Iran to seek a nuke. Therefore, what is LOGICAL tells us NOTHING about the actual situation. What ACTUALLY informs us about the situation is the inconsistency. It's also observable in more complex situations: A person may simultaneously "love" and "hate" another. The apparent inconsistency points to, and indicates, the underlying tensions of the situation as it really exists. In this way, there are REAL contradictions. But lets get down right to physical reality with it, too: A computer system with two sensors of arbitrarily high resolution and accuracy, measuring the temperature of tank of water will, nevertheless see inconsistent data from the two sensors. Measurement is an inherently subjective activity. Inconsistency and uncertainty is a fact of life, right down the the barest components of physical reality. The ability to deal with inconsistency without dismissal is, to me, vital for 'valid proper thought' which is the goal of 'logic' as a discipline, in my understanding.

So keep up with the parables, the false analogies (now from maths) and the preaching. The more you preach...I hope you can figure the rest =)

Not preaching. I have no reason to believe that you'll get yourself into any type of trouble, or doom for only thinking one way. I'm not trying to save you from the evils of classical thought, nor classical liberalism. I'm not interested in converting you, partly because I'm not interested in converting anyone. Mostly, in your case, because I'm sure I wouldn't want you in my circles. I'm just giving my perspective, and explaining what you continually misrepresent and attack. And I will point out that saying that I gave "false analogies" doesn't make it so. I gave NO analogies in the bit about logic, and maths. An analogy is to draw simile between two things. I didn't do that. I made direct statements of fact. There are different branches of logic, as I've described. There are different branches of geometry, as I described. There are theorems which prove facts about the limits of logic, which while stated informally, are in fact true. If you're out of your depth, that's quite alright. You said before you're not much for maths, so I didn't get into it, and instead tried to show some of those limits playfully instead. But you're not the playful sort either. So, I'll admit, I'm rather at a loss for how to convey these ideas to you, except to say -- rather than merely "accepting" logic, perhaps you really ought to consider studying it.

Again, truth is NOT a matter of agreement. And axioms are not to be 'agreed' upon. Also, axioms can be proven. If axioms couldn't be proven then any statement based on them would be...unproven, meaningless, useless, et cetera.

From the CRC Encyclopedia of Mathematics:

From the Wiki: An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. ... Within the system they define, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical

"AXIOM: A proposition regarded as self-evidently true, without proof. The word "axiom" is a slightly archaic synonym for 'postulate'. Compare 'conjecture' or 'hypothesis', both of which connote apparently true but not self-evident statements." proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow otherwise they would be classified as theorems.

On 10/05/2016 06:37 AM, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

"'conjecture' or 'hypothesis', both of which connote apparently true but not self-evident statements."

That's what you get for using dictionaries.

English language dictionaries also conflate "Want" with "Need".

Apparently that 'disease... that dumbing down of the English language, has spread to technical dictionaries as well. No wonder modern industrial output is half-baked shiny-and-soon-to-the-trashheap junk.

Conjecture or Hypothesis ALWAY MEANT the person making the statement believes it so. "Conjecture" is quaintly referred to on the intertubz as "IMHO". Hypothesis would have SOME facts to back it... Usually single-sided to suit the hypothesizer] awaiting it's 'graduation' to 'theory, where it's tested against other facts.

Please re-read the definitions. Yes, the person making the statement believes it to be true (i.e. apparently true, but not self-evident). One makes a hypothesis, and then tests it by experiment in order to establish it - but it is not self-evident. And note that the word 'connote' is in there, as well.

...

"AXIOM: A proposition regarded as self-evidently true,

Axioms being self-evidently true means that if you choose to DENY them, you need to USE them in the denial process anyway, therefore proving that they ARE true. Try assuming that the so called identity principle is not 'true' and see where you get.

No, one simply denies them. But, even if one HAD to USE them, that would not prove them. I might use several axioms to derive a contradiction. If one of my axioms IS the law of non-contradiction, I can then exclude one, or more of the axioms to rectify the situation, including the principle of non-contradiction. I'm not aware of any systems of logic that deny the law of identity. It is, of course, quite foundational. But since you claimed that axioms can be proven: well go ahead and prove it, then. After all, the burden of proof is never on the skeptic. But this all began not with a disagreement over the law of identity, but over the law of non-contradiction. The principle of non-contradiction IS denied, by example, in the philosophical school of dialetheism. It is used in mathematics, as well, in formal paraconsistent logics, which can not only be inconsistency-tolerant, but also have more states to a proposition than merely "true" and "false." These, and other multi-value logics, generally, are useful in a wide area of mathematics, physics, electronics and so on. In these complex systems they are quite useful. Why should we not use them in other complex areas of thought? Simply because you're not aware of them? Well then, OK. So then we have to AGREE on which system to use first, then. "QED"

I don't need to invoke internet authority or the sacred wikipedia scriptures xorcist. I can explain what an axiom in my own words.

I don't either. I've explained several times that axioms are assumptions, or if you prefer, propositions, and are not subjected to PROOF. You disagreed, so I quoted sources. Your statement about axioms was quite wrong. They are not subject to proof. You're now trying to walk that back and play a different angle -- one that I handed to you -- that of self-evidence. Quite good. Let's continue.

And even going by that definition, if axioms are self-evidently TRUE, then people who don't 'agree' that they are true are self-evidently...troubled.

They are self-evident only from a certain way of thinking. For example, in geometry, a point is axiomatic. An infinitely small object with no dimension. This is an intellectual abstraction that is self-evident and meaningful only from the perspective of that intellectual simplification used in geometry. Physically, there is nothing with no dimension. From an idealized, abstracted, way of thinking the existence and meaning of a point is self-evident. From a physical perspective, it is utter rubbish. What perspective you have, the way you're approaching a subject, informs which axioms you'll use as the foundation of your reasoning.

(and by the way, your first source is about mathematics, not logic or philosophy in general)

I'm quite aware of that. So? Formal logic, as studied and used by philosophy, is a branch of mathematics. And in any case, in philosophy, and informal logic, axioms cannot be proven, as you have stated.

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 21:04:32 -0000

...

No, one simply denies them. But, even if one HAD to USE them, that would not prove them. I might use several axioms to derive a contradiction.

So one or more of your 'axioms' are not true and not really axioms. The method is called reductio ad absurdum.

No, it just means the axioms are incompatible. And, reductio ad absurdum is quite a bit more general than proof by contradiction, but I won't quibble.

...

But this all began not with a disagreement over the law of identity, but over the law of non-contradiction.

Which are closely related. And no, this all began with you being a cheap charlantan who can't write a semi consistent rant. Since your rants are laughably inconsistent you embarked in even more stupid rants trying to 'prove'...who knows what about the 'logical' status of contradictory nonsense.

But, since you're familiar with reductio ad absurdum, perhaps you'd also like to read up on examples of ad hominems as well. Are they related? Yes, they are among the three classical laws of logic. That is their relation. Other than that, they do not depend on each other whatsoever. Holding to them as in some way objective is a matter of tradition, convenience, and little more than that.

I am well aware that you ignored my reply to your nonsensical example with iran and nukes for instance, So fuck off.

I did ignore it. Because replying was futile with someone who doesn't even have a grasp of axioms, and proof. But, if you insist:

From the USA/Iran's individual points of view, it is logical and rational to pursue the stated goals. It is rational for USA to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuke.

It is rational from Iran's POV to try to acquire one. Having nukes forces other countries to the negotiating table rather than invasion. Sure, as you point out, it might speed up invasion -- in to Tehran before they get a nuke. But if an axiom that Iran is operating by is that sooner or later, given USA's historical performance in the region, they WILL get invaded regardless, it is quite rational to try to obtain a nuke to prevent that. Individually, from different perspectives, and different goals it is possible to reason to quite different conclusions. You seem to be taking the position that there is Rational/Logical (note caps) that somehow transcends these individual frameworks. I don't see it, and if you really had a clear idea of it on any sort of firm basis, you ought to write a book -- because no one else has such an idea either.

...

The principle of non-contradiction IS denied, by example, in the philosophical school of dialetheism.

Nonsense.

What is nonsense? The philosophical school of dialetheism? Fine, that is your opinion. I'll wager you couldn't argue against any of it, successfully though. But in any case, it is TRUE that this school of thought exists. And it is TRUE that they reject the classical principle of non-contradiction; at least within certain bounds.

...

These, and other multi-value logics, generally, are useful in a wide area of mathematics, physics, electronics and so on.

I already dealt with the fact that 'complex' systems are made up of simpler 'linear' bits. You seem to have ignored it. I don't need to add anything.

I didn't ignore it, I was waiting to get some more ground-work covered. You're right. Some complex systems can be simplified, and linearized and dealt with that way. But not all can: hence the reason multi-value logics exist in the first place. But, more generally, in complex systems there is emergent behavior. One might state the notion with the old phrase "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts." The whole can develop properties that none of its parts have. Moreover this can happen spontaneously, or at least accidentally apart from the human design. So, the type of thinking or analysis that is sufficient for a smaller part will not be sufficient for the whole. You can use quite simple mathematics -- nothing more than algebra, to characterize an audio amplifier, and an audio microphone. Under the right conditions, those components will generate feedback -- and at that point, algebra is entirely insufficient to characterize the system's performance. In the same way, with governments, social systems, and so on where emergent behavior and feedback are at play, one needs a wider view than merely the algebraic philosophical notions that gave rise to a government, or simple economic modeling only according to one view, and so on.

...

I don't either. I've explained several times that axioms are assumptions,

There you go again...Axioms are NOT suppositions.

Wait for it...

...

r if you prefer, propositions, and are not subjected to PROOF. You disagreed, so I quoted sources.

There we go.. right. So PROPOSITIONS, then. Statements that ARE REGARDED (but not necessarily) as self-evidently true. Not subject to proof, as you claimed. Let's just be clear about that. You claimed that axioms can be proven. They cannot. There ARE different systems of logic, with different axioms. The axioms cannot be PROVEN, and therefore it is a matter of CHOICE which system you're using. That choice may be for any reason, really. Utility is a good one, and I've said above with regard to complex systems, but ignorance and simply not knowing of more than one equally valid. But that must be set out. There is no objective criteria of which to use.

...

Your statement about axioms was quite wrong. They are not subject to proof. You're now trying to walk that back and play a different angle -- one that I handed to you -- that of self-evidence.

Don't make up stuff . I provided my version (correct) and even went with your defination.

Denial #1.

...

And in any case, in philosophy, and informal logic, axioms cannot be proven, as you have stated.

I didn't state that. But it's beside the point anyway.

Denial #2. Refutation: On Wed, October 5, 2016 6:11 am, YOU said:

Again, truth is NOT a matter of agreement. And axioms are not to be 'agreed' upon. Also, AXIOMS CAN BE PROVEN. If axioms couldn't be proven then any statement based on them would be...unproven, meaningless, useless, et cetera.

Emphasis mine.

On 10/05/2016 04:14 PM, juan wrote:

Even unicorns. They exist as fantasy creatures

Excuuuuse Me? Unicorns are real! They just found work and aren't hanging around the corner 'shooting the shit' quite as often as the good ol' days. Example of a gainfully employed unicorn today > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTuL_M4HDdc Rr

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 22:18:19 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

...

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 21:04:32 -0000

...

...

No, one simply denies them. But, even if one HAD to USE them, that would not prove them. I might use several axioms to derive a contradiction.

So one or more of your 'axioms' are not true and not really axioms. The method is called reductio ad absurdum.

No, it just means the axioms are incompatible.

And, reductio ad absurdum is quite a bit more general than proof by contradiction, but I won't quibble.

...

...

But this all began not with a disagreement over the law of identity, but over the law of non-contradiction.

Which are closely related. And no, this all began with you being a cheap charlantan who can't write a semi consistent rant. Since your rants are laughably inconsistent you embarked in even more stupid rants trying to 'prove'...who knows what about the 'logical' status of contradictory nonsense.

But, since you're familiar with reductio ad absurdum, perhaps you'd also like to read up on examples of ad hominems as well.

As used as a colloquial (and snobbish) synonym for insult? It's not the same thing as the 'informal fallacy' you know...

Showing that Mr Smith is wrong and then calling him an asshole is not an 'ad hominem'...

...

Are they related? Yes, they are among the three classical laws of logic. That is their relation. Other than that, they do not depend on each other whatsoever.

Holding to them as in some way objective is a matter of tradition, convenience, and little more than that.

...

I am well aware that you ignored my reply to your nonsensical example with iran and nukes for instance, So fuck off.

I did ignore it. Because replying was futile with someone who doesn't even have a grasp of axioms, and proof. But, if you insist:

No I don't.

...

From the USA/Iran's individual points of view, it is logical and rational to pursue the stated goals. It is rational for USA to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuke.

And you are still not addressing my reply. You first ignored my reply and now you are repeating your same stupid bullshit.

"But if an axiom that Iran is operating by is that sooner or later, given USA's historical performance in the region, they WILL get invaded regardless,"

That is NOT an axiom. But hey, keep redefining words, equivocating and the like.

...

...

...

The principle of non-contradiction IS denied, by example, in the philosophical school of dialetheism.

Nonsense.

What is nonsense? The philosophical school of dialetheism? Fine, that is your opinion. I'll wager you couldn't argue against any of it, successfully though.

LMAO! Oh, but that would be 'false' according to my 'axioms' and 'true' according to 'your' axioms.

Or perhaps the other way around? Or any combination of combinatorial nonsense that your alpha superpowers could conjure? Or that a fucking intellectual fraud and charlatan could come up with.

...

But in any case, it is TRUE that this school of thought exists.

Of course. Jew-kkkristianity also 'exists'. And JESUS! And santa claws. Even unicorns. They exist as fantasy creatures or mental vomits in the case of jew-kkkristian religion. Et cetera.

...

And it is TRUE that they reject the classical principle of non-contradiction; at least within certain bounds.

Pussies. They don't even have the balls to completely reject it?

...

...

You can use quite simple mathematics -- nothing more than algebra, to characterize an audio amplifier, and an audio microphone. Under the right conditions, those components will generate feedback -- and at that point, algebra is entirely insufficient to characterize the system's performance.

a1 = 1 a2 = 0 v = 0 p = 0 k_r = -0.01

data=[]

for c in range(0, 1000): a2 = p * k_r at = a1 + a2 v = v + at p = p + v data.append(p)

So, what does the 1000 points figure in data[] look like? Why, it's a sine (or cosine, whatever). So, combine (sum up or 'integrate') a bunch of linear operations and you get a curve. Recursive corner cutting is also a nice example of this. And what of it? The curve is STILL ruled by the 'linear' 'logic' used to create it.

...

In the same way, with governments, social systems, and so on where emergent behavior and feedback are at play, one needs a wider view than merely the algebraic philosophical notions that gave rise to a government, or simple economic modeling only according to one view, and so on.

bla bla bla and oh more bla bla bla

...

...

...

I don't either. I've explained several times that axioms are assumptions,

There you go again...Axioms are NOT suppositions.

Wait for it...

...

...

r if you prefer, propositions, and are not subjected to PROOF. You disagreed, so I quoted sources.

There we go.. right. So PROPOSITIONS, then. Statements that ARE REGARDED (but not necessarily) as self-evidently true.

Oh yes, I then realized that your 'definition' was POORLY worded by some subjectivist retard. Big deal.

...

Not subject to proof, as you claimed. Let's just be clear about that. You claimed that axioms can be proven. They cannot.

OK, let play your game. THey can't be proven. Are they still true? How THE FUCK do you know they are true?

...

There ARE different systems of logic, with different axioms. The axioms cannot be PROVEN, and therefore it is a matter of CHOICE which system you're using. That choice may be for any reason,

So truth is a matter of choice? And Party 'Agreement' of course!

You are still got getting O'Brien's quote huh.

And of course, since you don't believe in really proving anything, you just vomit nonsense and believe or 'assume' it's 'self-evident' in some deranged mental universe or other. Cool.

...

really. Utility

Utiliy is just an arbitrary linguistic construction that exists in your collective mind. Created by the dialectical structures of post-capitalism and patriarchy deprivation. With influence from pre-semiotical sub-cultural displacements.

...

...

...

Your statement about axioms was quite wrong. They are not subject to proof. You're now trying to walk that back and play a different angle -- one that I handed to you -- that of self-evidence.

Don't make up stuff . I provided my version (correct) and even went with your defination.

Denial #1.

...

...

And in any case, in philosophy, and informal logic, axioms cannot be proven, as you have stated.

I didn't state that. But it's beside the point anyway.

Denial #2.

Refutation:

On Wed, October 5, 2016 6:11 am, YOU said:

...

Again, truth is NOT a matter of agreement. And axioms are not to be 'agreed' upon. Also, AXIOMS CAN BE PROVEN. If axioms couldn't be proven then any statement based on them would be...unproven, meaningless, useless, et cetera.

Emphasis mine.

Yes, I STATED that AXIOMS CNA BE PROVEN. So far so good?

You then commented "And in any case, in philosophy, and informal logic, axioms cannotbe proven, as you have stated."

So what you actually meant is that axioms cannot be proven in the way I suggested they can be proven? I'd say that your remark was poorly worded and ambiguous, but hey. this shitty imperial language is not my native language.

This would have been better :

"And in any case, in philosophy, and informal logic, axioms cannotbe proven, CONTRARY TO WHAT you have stated."

Of course, I 'disagree'. Bu then, it is self-evident that you are dishonest charlatan, willing to play the 'subjective' bullshit card whenever he feels like it.

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 21:45:54 -0300 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:

On Oct 5, 2016 9:16 PM, "Razer" <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:

...

On 10/05/2016 04:14 PM, juan wrote:

...

Even unicorns. They exist as fantasy creatures

Excuuuuse Me? Unicorns are real!

Razer is correct. Unicorns do exist. Now Juan probably will say that Nyan Cats don't exist, hunfs! ;P

nyan cat does exist : here's the proof http://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aYpKqMV_700b.jpg

The famous Star of Bethlehem was a bright Nyan Cat crossing the skies and there was an unicorn in the manger when Jesus was born. Unhappilly, the Bible is not a precise document, tsk tsk... :(

I prefer to believe in unicorns, dragons, nyans cats and giant robots than in honest politicians! :P

On Oct 5, 2016 9:16 PM, "Razer" <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:

Razer is correct. Unicorns do exist. Now Juan probably will say that Nyan Cats don't exist, hunfs! ;P

I unicorn is just a horny horse, and a pegasus is just a horse high on dope. Rather elementary.

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 17:16:09 -0700 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:

On 10/05/2016 04:14 PM, juan wrote:

...

Even unicorns. They exist as fantasy creatures

Excuuuuse Me? Unicorns are real!

They just found work and aren't hanging around the corner 'shooting the shit' quite as often as the good ol' days.

Example of a gainfully employed unicorn today > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTuL_M4HDdc

This product seems related somehow... http://i.imgur.com/v5srPIw.jpg

On Oct 5, 2016 9:41 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:

...

This product seems related somehow...

http://i.imgur.com/v5srPIw.jpg

Never thought about unicorns when touching my "sin zones", but it's a good idea. Unicorns have horns, I will be horny... Makes sense. Thank you for the inspiration, Juan! :D

Damn! you beat me too it. well done.

On Oct 5, 2016 10:07 PM, "Razer" <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:

As seen on: http://georgewbush.org/georgewbush/ironhymen/ and it's companion site http://georgewbush.org/georgewbush/sexisforfags/

Brought to you by the George W. Bush Presidential Library.

Well, few years ago, when my mommy discovered I was not virgin anymore, she was really very, very, very shocked and said: - But you are not married yet, Cecilia!!! :-o True story. :P :P :P

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 00:45:55 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

...

But, since you're familiar with reductio ad absurdum, perhaps you'd also like to read up on examples of ad hominems as well.

As used as a colloquial (and snobbish) synonym for insult? It's not the same thing as the 'informal fallacy' you know...

I just meant that you might like to add it to your repertoire.

...

That is NOT an axiom. But hey, keep redefining words, equivocating and the like.

You really don't seem to get it.

I do, I do. Your are the poster child for equivocation.

Essentially ANYTHING that is unprovable (therefore not disprovable) can be postulated as an axiom.

...by you, yes =) So back to your mental vomit about iran. ""But if an axiom that Iran is operating by is that sooner or later, given USA's historical performance in the region, they WILL get invaded regardless," So "being attacked by the US nazis is an axiom" - But it's not provable nor disprobable. So how do they know it will happen? Ah, they have xorcist's crystal balls!!!

...

So, combine (sum up or 'integrate') a bunch of linear operations and you get a curve. Recursive corner cutting is also a nice example of this. And what of it? The curve is STILL ruled by the 'linear' 'logic' used to create it.

This is your example of linearizing complexity? You consider piece-wise curve construction and integration complex? My lord, we have work to do.

The example is perfect.

Sure - simple curves are differentiable, and expressed by approximations - and if taken to infinitely many terms, there is identity. So, fine - we have a Taylor series. Quite good. A Taylor series cannot be used to express a non-differentiable function, however.

So what. What are you proving now? That you know some math and can troll for days?

For that, we have to level up. Taylor series gives us sine/cosine,

Actually what I posted is not exactly a taylor series. In the code a stands for acceleration, v for velocity and p por position. Since you are such a genius you could have figured that out, but somehow you didn't...?

and we must create series of sine/cosine terms in Fourier series to approximate periodic, non-differentiable functions. And again, with infinitely many such terms, we get identity.

All quite good - but none of this represents emergent behavior, feedback,

Actually my example does illustrate feedback. Since you mentioned a fed-back amplifier, I posted a mathematical representation of a similar system. But hey you are the Great Master of Mathematics, aren't you.

or any type of complexity. It's trivial to find functions or data sets, that cannot be expressed by Taylor, or Fourier, approximation.

A better example for you would have been one of Wolfram's cellular automata rules.

No sonny, my example is perfect. It goes from a linear system to a more complex, 'curved' result. It is good enough to illustrate my point.

...

...

Not subject to proof, as you claimed. Let's just be clear about that. You claimed that axioms can be proven. They cannot.

OK, let play your game. THey can't be proven. Are they still true? How THE FUCK do you know they are true?

Well, that is a deep philosophical question, in fact.

Oh really.

There are different answers to it in different philosophical schools and ideas about epistemology.

Is that so?

MY answer is: Axioms are not true, and are not false.

Righ, right. You are really an amazing genius are you not? Or are you? Or is it truefalse? or falsetrue?

The property of true and false doesn't apply to them.

Is that true?? Or false? Wait, I...

It is for this reason that they are able to PROVIDE that property of truth/falsity to other claims,

Ah that really makes sense! They can provide something they don't have. That is like you providing reasonable answers? Like you providing any non-shitty non-trolling non-absurd ideas? Hmmm....

...

So truth is a matter of choice? And Party 'Agreement' of course!

Yes, but no. Perhaps.

Right. Infinite, involuntary, self-parody. Absolute.

But you know what, I'm not going to worry about the fact that you repeatedly made incorrect statements about axioms before, because you do it for me again:

Right. Wrong. What.

...

Yes, I STATED that AXIOMS CNA BE PROVEN. So far so good?

No, because they can't. And since you won't accept reference citations of this, and since you're thick and obviously not listening to me. I'll listen to YOU. Completely open mind. No agenda.

Prove some, then. Prove either the law of the excluded middle, or the law of non-contradiction. Your choice.

Igonre it, like you actually do all the time, and all you get is nonsense, like the nonsense you post all the time. But again, let's say the 'law of non contradiction' can't be proven. So? It stops being self-evidently true? =)

Prove both? I'll shut up, leave the list, whatever you like, diety.

It can't be done. You're a fool for thinking it can.

The fact that ignoring it leads to nonsense is good enough proof. But if you don't like that proof, so-fucking-what. The 'law' remains valid.

On Thu, 6 Oct 2016 02:22:16 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

The fact that ignoring it leads to nonsense is good enough proof. But if you don't like that proof, so-fucking-what. The 'law' remains valid.

Only according to your opinion, and the opinion of the majority.

Whereas all your Enlightened Superior Knowledge is 'true' according to 'your opinion'. In other words, your philosophical discourse boils down to : In my opinion <insert anything here> is <true/false/pink/blue/an axiom/everything/nothing> Could be made even shorter <anything> is <anything> Shorter still: <anthing> And then : Nothing. Hope you enjoy your floating room.

http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/dissociative-identity-disorder-multiple... Were you abused as a child? -------- Original Message -------- On Oct 3, 2016, 3:32 PM, wrote:

...

Hey fuck head, you're typing on a computer. That makes you one of the global 1% too.

False. Like everything you said, stupid piece-of-shit.

Hey fuck head, any electronic device that can post stuff on the net is a computer.

Juan is extremely onry -------- Original Message -------- On Oct 3, 2016, 4:22 PM, wrote:

http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/dissociative-identity-disorder-multiple...

Were you abused as a child?

No, just having some 'fun' with Juan. Trying different strategies to see what will actually shut him the fuck up and just ignore me.

On 10/03/2016 05:22 PM, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/dissociative-identity-disorder-multiple...

Were you abused as a child?

No, just having some 'fun' with Juan.

Trying different strategies to see what will actually shut him the fuck up and just ignore me.

Ignoring what he writes, and declining to address whatever I notice, works pretty well :)

On 10/04/2016 07:19 AM, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

Ignoring what he writes, and declining to address whatever I notice, works pretty well :)

Truth. I should learn to look at chatter like juan's as something akin to entropy.

It's worse than that :( In that I agree with much of what he says. Or at least, I get his perspective, as part of a working understanding. But he's clearly not interested in that :( So it goes.

Alas, I have difficulty accepting the heat death of the universe as well; I suppose that's 'on me' as they say.

I'm rooting for a big crunch :)

On 10/03/2016 01:20 PM, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

remember that even part-time workers in the first world making $25k-30k USD are globally in the 1% or so.

There use to be an informational leaflet going around called "If the world was 10 people". In that scenario, Americans have ALL the stuff. I did my carbon footprint on some website once about 10 years ago. It's impossible to keep it as low as anyone in the third world. Even subtracting the 3 or 4 airline flights within the US I've taken in my lifetime I still blew.

I know that plenty of African women feel the need to carry around AKs to fend off rapists. I know that a first world homeless guy may have to worry about individual attacks from some college jock, but he doesn't have to worry about sleeping under the wrong bridge that gets bombed.

I'm the one who continually reminds people I know who think they have it rough that they COULD be living in a country that 'needs to be bombed in the national interest'. But I'm a hard-case renegade redneck 'hippie' with a baaaad atititude and a history dating back to living on lower east side rooftops running with yippies and motherfuckers, and used to simple living. Times have changed. Most of the street people today NEVER expected to be in that situation. They're highly dependent-codependent don't share well, and in general mirror the affluent middle class lifestyle lost to them. I spent a lot of my time doing, umn, 'psychotherapy', with desperate people who have more hope than the potential for achieving what they hope for. Rr

...

I suppose. If the 'good life' includes sleeping with a tire iron and a big knife to fend off predators of the human species.

In SOME COUNTRIES the homeless may not get fat or have ipods but the odds of being attacked by an idiot kid of the gentry, or being lit up, is pretty slim. I say it's a trade off.

Well, I can't speak to the exact forms of violence that may or may not be rampant in "shanty" communities or the like in third world countries, or what their people have to deal with, exactly, but I would be very surprised if those societies didn't have human predators as well. In many 3rd world countries, arms are essentially unregulated, and are quite common. That would suggest to me that violence, of some form, is a daily routine.

I know that plenty of African women feel the need to carry around AKs to fend off rapists. I know that a first world homeless guy may have to worry about individual attacks from some college jock, but he doesn't have to worry about sleeping under the wrong bridge that gets bombed.

I saw a study, by MIT recently, that estimated the carbon usage of first world humans compared to third world. In particular, it was striking to me because first world homeless people are estimated to use 8 tons of carbon in the form of the services they have available to them, whereas third worlders used about 4. I think energy consumption is probably a reasonable gauge for quality of life, at least in the physical sense.

Again, I'm not saying by any stretch that first world homeless have it easy or anything like that -- but I'm just trying to keep an eye on the perspective and to remember that even part-time workers in the first world making $25k-30k USD are globally in the 1% or so.

And my concern is, for those people that are just getting by or are on the streets, now.. societal collapse will burden them most of all. The rich are going to hole themselves up in their mountain houses, top-floor penthouses, and gated communities playing the fiddle like Nero as the world burns.

It'll be every day people that get burned.

On 10/03/2016 12:05 PM, Sangy wrote:

...

Hell, even the homeless can be overweight and have ipods and shit.

They can have iPods but no shelter. How does this sound for you?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/17/the-stuff-we-really-n...

Obama phones. Around these parts many of the homeless use the cheap androids they're given to keep in touch with their shrink b/c there's no work but if you play it right you can get a gubmint check, and maybe even rigidly controlled subsidized housing... If you're 'endangered'. Another contingent uses them to play video games and keep in touch with their drug connections. Regarding shelter. The ONLY solution municipalities ever come up with are federally funded solutions,. You'd be hard pressed to find any city in the US that spends more than a minuscule amount of their own budget on the homeless in the way of job development or targeting housing for their own low-income working people. What typically ends up happening is all the working homeless leave, and the behavioral health 'problem children' and addicts (incl alcohol) remain. Which allows cities to Perception Manage the gentry some more about dirty, filthy, feces homeless people, even as they provide housing for them on the federal government's tab. My city officials claim it's not their job to develop jobs... even as they created a booming industry for police hiring, security guards, and CCTV surveillance cam operators. Rr "Arm the Homeless" ~Tom Morello's guitar inscription.

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 18:47:08 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

As sick as this society is (and I do agree on that), bloodshed is relatively at a minimum, and resources are plentiful.

What kind of moral agent, sorry, robot, would say that kind of thing?

<yawn> Sorry, we you talking?

...

But try to keep in mind, when you yearn for its collapse, you might well be wishing for your sister, mother, or other innocents to be raped,

What manual did you get that bit from?

Actually, I found it scribbled on a cheap hotel bar napkin, crammed between the pages of 'Dick Niglet and the Shit Wizards of Asscabin' .. curiously your mom really cums ridiculously hard when you read her passages from it. But whatever, I dig that dirty shit. I mistakenly read the bit off the napkin, and she assured me you'd get a kick out of it. I guess she was right.

Not 'we'. I'm commenting on the estalishment progaganda you post.

Yah.

What? You can't come up with any decent answer, piece-of-shit psychobabble scam artist?

Actually, I found that answer quite entertaining. And seeing that our previous interaction has proven to me that you will persist in intentionally misrepresenting anything I write, and ignoring those parts which you can't misrepresent, I have already decided that my future interactions with you will be for entertainment purposes only. So how about that margarita there, Juanita?

xorcist's bottom line : society is great after all and don't rock the boat or the terrists will get you!

Yup. That is clearly what I said. And any other the people on this list who shares your reading difficulties will obviously also get that out of it, so there is no point in me repeating a correction that will be willfully misinterpreted by a two-bit shit-for-brains troll like yourself. But I'll be glad to flirt any time, tiger.

So, from what manual does that come from?

Like I told ya. A dingy hotel bar napkin. I'd scan it and prove it to ya, since I know you like evidence and logic, but unfortunately I used it for cleanup and tossed it with the condom wrapper, and your mom's phone number already. True story.

Yes, piece-of-shit - That's clearly what you said, and like the 'good '(pretty mediocre) scam artist you are, you prefaced it with "I agree with you, but...".

Oh Juanita, sing that sweet sweet song of love to me once again! Of all the trolls under heaven, there is none as fair as thee. Thine voice is mightier than all the goblins, and thine breast as comely as a common rogue. Speak again, fine vagabond, and slather us with your wiles.

Sadly, the mental rigour required for precise communication and clear thinking is not for many.

I'm fine with mental rigor, except when its used to box in ideas, and try to control people. Which is, ALWAYS, how ideologues use it. So, in those circumstances, I eschew it. Because I don't let people put rules on me. If I adopt rules, and choose to obey them, it is because I decide they have authority. Not others.

Fortunately, throwing in gutter phrases which the average schooled Westernite predictably reacts to (like "shit-for-brains"), is one way to weed out, relatively quickly, those who care more for entertainment than substance.

Oh, I don't care about insults. And the only reason he's been getting snippy with me is because I won't stop flirting with him. But I refuse to adopt ridiculous opinions and engage in lazy thinking which lay all the problems of the world on a convenient, scape-goat enemy. The Nazi's used the Jews. Others like to point at the Americans, or the Brits or whatever. It's all bullshit. The problems of the world have always BEEN the problems of the world. As they say, "history repeats itself" .. the same modalities come up, time and again, with agrarian societies, with industrial societies, with capitalism, with communism. So what's the common denominator? People. People are the problem. That means YOU. That means ME. So change. I, in point of fact, used to think very much like Juan. Then I started doing some thinking on my own.

LOL LOL LOL - I honestly can't believe xorcist is THIS stupid.

So it's now obvious that the little 'progressive' 'syndicalist' 'whatever' asshole got offended because he got called out. He KNOWS what kind of shitbags he collaborates with, he KNOWS he is 'one of them' - HE belongs to the '1%', and he doesn't want people to remind him.

Offended? About my standard of living? Now that would be stupid. No, I'm not offended. Nor am I ashamed, nor proud. It is what it is. Globally, even paycheck-to-paycheck Americans or Brits scraping by are the 1%. I just think its stupid to point to causes that post-date the problems. Like all the shit America does. It's colonialism, basically. But America WAS a colony. So obviously COLONIALISM, as a problem, isn't America's fault in the sense of having its genesis there. Now, as I believe I've made clear elsewhere, the only extent to which I "defend" the status quo is in my disagreement about "revolution" - particularly violent revolution. In my reading of history, that never solves the problems, and may in fact make things worse.

...

It's all bullshit. The problems of the world have always BEEN the problems of the world.

Ah yes. No doubt the guy is Real Top Master of Philosophy. And A is A! Next thing, he'll start sucking ayn rand's cock!

No, I'm not objectivist libertarian. But my statement wasn't a statement of identity. Note the HAVE ALWAYS bit. The problems we have now (with the exceptions of global warming and nuclear proliferation) are really no different than the problems we've always faced. Colonialism is marauding. No doubt about that. And it goes back to the cave men. Revolution won't solve that. What will? Well, nothing that has been tried, and failed, before, thats for sure.

...

I, in point of fact, used to think very much like Juan. Then I started doing some thinking on my own.

Priceless =)

Also quite true.

...

Like I told ya. A dingy hotel bar napkin. I'd scan it and prove it to ya, since I know you like evidence and logic, but unfortunately I used it for cleanup and tossed it with the condom wrapper, and your mom's phone number already. True story.

Mean :(

I know, I know. I'm not proud of that either. I should have been a gentleman and called her back.

Ain't no "if" about that collapse; "when" would be more accurate.

Agreed.

And the wonderful achievements of Progressive Liberalism only cost us:

Agreed.

But our "homeless people" can have a shiny toy to compensate them for their lack of basic security and so-called necessities. Yes, they are marginally better off than (for instance) the residents of cities bombed out by U.S. proxy forces to protect and serve the U.S. National Interest. So that makes it all OK.

Whoa now. Never said it made anything OK. But from the POV of the peasants, human history is largely about getting the means to migrate from one place where life is really screwed up, to a place where it is less screwed up. At present, the West is less screwed up: which is why those refugees you mentioned are walking north, and German's aren't walking south.

Slowly healing? But not fast enough? I wish I had the kind of income and assets that make it possible to submerge oneself in that delusional fantasy world.

Has nothing to do with my income, not that I'm rich at all. But I've held that view even when I was dirt broke. Given the choice between pessimism and optimism, I always choose optimism. But, in terms of humanity growing, or healing? I don't think its a fantasy. Look at Western history: Open, official monarchs have been dethroned, we now only deal with largely covert oligarchs. God is dead, and we only deal with a vocal minority and unraveling the cultural norms informed by the myth. Personal racism is on the decline, and systemic racism is once again the topic of the day where different races, and age groups, come out to speak out against it. Look at Asian history: China is finally coming out of its slumber and will provide a much needed counter-balance to Western dominance. Already there are forces at work at reforming the Chinese economy and society, and they haven't even really gotten off the ground yet. Look at the Middle East: For all intents and purposes they are in the midst of their Dark Ages. In the 1950s in Saudi Arabia, wealth was defined as the number of camels one had. Today, education is highly valued and prized. The current tensions are largely due to the earth-shaking effects of modern life on a culture that is largely still in the 16th century. That is rapidly changing, and already there are several key partners in the region that, at least for now, are committed to helping advance the Arab world and bring it to the table, so to speak. Africa: Yeah, Africa is totally fucked. But not if the Chinese have their way. China (and thank goodness for that long-term Confucian thinking) has already began to build important relationships there that are free of the old European colonial tensions. China is bankrolling the creation of the African Union headquarters, and has invested heavily in getting infrastructure and communications networks going.

Our Middle and Ruing classes voluntarily participate in rationalizations

So? When was that ever not the case in human history? Every society has engaged in some type of cultural mythology that plainly disagrees with the facts. This is nothing new, and certainly nothing worse, than in other times in history.

Blame the victims, and anyone who disagrees with you about how fucking wonderful Industrial Age civilization is. That's the Party line.

Yeah, but I never said that. If I had it my way, we'd transfer all technological and industrial production to one city, maybe two cities per continent. Those would be the centers of production and learning. A handful of modern cities could produce all the goods, medicine, and so on needed if most people CHOSE to live simply as in circa 1800. Maybe with a modern convenience or two in the way of communications/education. And even that is mostly just a bone tossed to those that simply MUST HAVE technology. But I'll never get my way. Because people don't want that, and it isn't some propaganda job that makes them not want that. They don't want it because the death rate is higher. They don't want it because the infant mortality rate is higher. They don't want it because the common work they will have to do will mean busting their ass in a field actually GATHERING food, rather than walking around an air-conditioned store. Why would they? You can't seriously expect people to individually work against their self-interest. Well, I mean, I guess you can.. but you're going to be disappointed. This goes to my naturalistic thesis. You wouldn't expect a lion not to eat your pet dog, so why the do you expect a glorified ape to NOT act like a glorified ape?

Meanwhile, the "mature, responsible citizens" who parrot that propaganda line do not WISH for their relatives to be raped and killed: They support the rape and murder of whole cities, which pays for their comfortable, upwardly mobile lifestyle.

Come now. Very few people SUPPORT the rape and murder of whole cities. First of all, rape in Western militaries is lower than any time in history. It's actually a crime, rather than an approved war trophy. So stop with that. But, murder is on-point, so I'll stick with that. It's not that your average guy SUPPORTS it.. its that they don't have any tools to stop it, nonsenseand are largely unaware of any of it to begin with. This goes back to laziness. Most people - your average person - doesn't learn this sort of thing. Because they are too busy getting their asses kicked all day at work. Then they come home, deal with the kids, bills, or whatever OTHER problems they have in life, and when they get a few spare moments, the last thing they want to do is delve into geopolitics and the problems of the world too. They want to fucking relax, and take it easy for a few moments, before they go back out there the next and wage their personal war against life all over again. That is the story of being human, and its why we don't want to have to bust our ass raising animals, or grinding grain too. After 9/11, I got into a discussion with an American that started off very heated because I had gently implied that, frankly, it should have been expected the States' had it coming. He didn't like that. Went on for a moment about 3000 people dead and so on, trying to simultaneously intimidate me, play on my compassion, and shame me. I didn't budge. I simply responded "I feel deeply for those that died in New York. But I also feel deeply for the people Clinton killed Frandala. The killings in Frandala were one of the reasons bin Laden cited for 9/11. He wanted revenge. Now you guys want revenge, and I understand that too. But an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, won't you see?" He had never heard of Frandala. Didn't know of the bombing, at all. And when I explained it to him, and explained that it was, in fact, a cited reason for the 9/11, I could tell that he was ashamed for not knowing it sooner. Now, you can tow the "party line" about education being indoctrination, and to the extent that you mean "learned what they were taught" you'd be right. But to the extent that one can be SELF educated. To the extent that one can possess FACTS, this type of education is sorely needed. And, in my view, if anything is going to raise us on the whole out of that glorified ape strata, it is going to be possessing facts, having critical thinking skills, and knowing how to balance that with poetic license. I.e. developing as much of the uniquely human traits as possible.

They also pointedly ignore the fact that their own families WILL face that kind of deprivation and violence as an unavoidable natural consequence of living in a purely self-serving fantasy world.

That may be, but it still does no good for anyone to wish societal collapse. Not to mention, humans faced those consequences BEFORE our society, in previous societies, and indeed before civilization itself. So I find the idea that all of the problems humanity faces can be squarely placed at the feet of modern industrialism alone dubious. There are barbarous marauders, thieves, rapists and all sorts of shit well before any of this modern nonsense came around. And I'd point out, that against a 25 year old drunk/beserking Viking, a little old lady has no chance. But a little old lady with a shotgun is a credible threat against a methed up biker. So, keep in mind that when you get rid of industrialism, you give the advantage to the youngest, and the largest. And, I would add, that if people, and their leaders today truly ARE as bloodthirsty as you imagine? Then that only drives my point home more. Because before the collapse, it would stand to reason that they will fire off the nukes.

The thing we call civilization now faces an existential crisis, but as long as it serves their self interest our Middle and Ruling Classes will welcome any opportunity to indulge in pathological denial.

I understand that civilization is the core problem. I'm not in denial about that. The question is, what do we do about it? People will not be willing to scale down civilization. And even if we could get a society to unilaterally try, they would simply become prey to their enemies who have maintained industrial weaponry. Sometimes, when you go down the wrong road.. the shortest way back is forward.

Sorry, I know this extended rant of mine will annoy a few people, amuse a few others, but change not one fucking thing in the real world. Sometimes one must vent.

Indeed. This is why I try to choose optimism. It still won't change a fucking thing, but it feels better, and makes you more popular at parties.

ignorant establishment bot is also an expert in chinese history! amazing.

Expert? No. But you don't need to be an expert to know a few things. Like you. I see you occasionally use verbs and nouns properly.

...

Look at the Middle East: For all intents and purposes they are in the midst of their Dark Ages.

establishment bots parrots anti-arab party propaganda

LOL. If you knew shit about history, you'd know this isn't anti-Arab at all. What is usually termed a "dark age" period is the period following the collapse of an empire. Empires tend to expand, and suck in resources from surrounding areas - giving the citizens/subjects of the empire a ever-increasing source of goods, ideas, trade, and so on. When it collapses, the culture goes into shock, and becomes very insular. The Christian dark ages occurred after the fall of Rome, and lasted nearly 1000 years, and they only really got shook out of it when it came in contact with the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire would hit a period of severe stagnation in 1700's, right around the time that Newton was getting set to slingshot Europe into Industrialism. It would exist really only in name for some time, with large patches of its former lands having become independent. This led to a contraction of Muslim expansion, and a very much cut them off from the rest of the world. Until recently. When industrialism came knocking for its life blood: oil. Much like what happened in Europe in the 14th century when the Ottoman Empire came knocking at the doors of Vienna. I'm not anti-Arab at all. I often inform clueless rubes like yourself that it was the Ottoman Empire that had the world's first "hate crime" laws specifically protecting Jews and Christians from getting singled out in Ottoman-controlled lands.

...

Africa: Yeah, Africa is totally fucked. But not if the Chinese have their way. China

chinese colonaialism good, according to piece-of-shit british colonaliast.

The Chinese aren't engaging in colonialism. They are footing the bill, and giving resources to Africa, not pulling resources out.

...

Yeah, but I never said that. If I had it my way, we'd transfer all technological and industrial production to one city

WOW! The piece-of-shit is even more of a joke that I imagined...Now indulging in deranged social engineering fantasies.

Like I said, and you conveniently cut out and ignore like you always do: I realize I'd never get agreement, and it therefore wouldn't work and that I'll never get my way. It's no fantasy. It's an idea of how to balance and contain industrialism.

...

Come now. Very few people SUPPORT the rape and murder of whole cities. First of all, rape in Western militaries is lower than any time in history. It's actually a crime,

LMAO!!!

Sure, laugh. I expect a sociopathic troll to laugh at rape. But the fact is, that in previous times, a conquering army would fuck the defeated population to a different shade of skin color. Mass rape, as in nearly every woman was raped, or killed if she was too old or ugly to bother fucking. Rape was used TACTICALLY. It was ORDERED. That, in fact, doesn't happen anymore. At least not with armies in the West. If you can provide a citation to the contrary, I'd be interested in hearing it. My understanding is that the Russians used rape as a tactic in Afghanistan, though. In any event, in the Iraq war, the number of rapes by soldiers in the Western forces numbered in the hundreds. And each one of those soldiers deserves, in my opinion, to be put to death for it. But it is NOTHING like the scale, of say, Attila the Hun, or Genghis Khan. It is NOTHING like the scale of the American or Spanish forces against the Natives.

...

I'm not in denial about that. The question is, what do we do about it?

You? Take off your mask and get lost.

Take it off for me, honey. I won't bite.

...

And even if we could get a society to unilaterally try, they would simply become prey to their enemies who have maintained industrial weaponry.

LMAO!!!! Not even the neocunts are as neoconnish as you are.

Why? Because I have a clue about reality and the likely response of competing nations? I'd love it if the world was all sunshine and rainbows, darling.. but it isn't. Most people, are useless, negative shit-bags not unlike yourself who will take any opportunity at all to get a leg up on someone else, just for the enjoyment. I don't like it. But I cope with it, and I develop my opinions accordingly. Like my glorified ape opinion. You're proof of the theory, if there ever was one.

Actually, people who support to varying degrees things like tor (a pentagon's cyberweapon), google, clinton and even the US military (not as bad as russia's) are not unthinking. They understand perfectly well what they are doing.

Says a pinhead using Gmail. 'tard.

From: Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> On Mon, 2016-10-03 at 01:13 +0000, jim bell wrote:

...

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/10/02/wednesday-hillary-clinton-done-reports-... "Is it the October surprise? MSNBC’s Jesse Rodriguez posted what could be interpreted as an ominous reemark on social media last week regarding Julian Assange. …ominous if you’re with Team Hillary.

You know what... up until now I have supported what Julian and Wikileaks have done. If he costs Hillary the election, though, that could very well change in a hurry. Explain your reasoning.  I myself would prefer that Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, wins.  And of course I will vote for Johnson.  But if the American people decide, as a consequence of (truthful, accurate) information revealed by Wikileaks (or anyone else) that Hillary Clinton SHOULDN'T be president, aren't they entitled to their choice?  After all, I don't think people are advocating that anybody forges fake information.  They want true information.

I'll be honest, there are a lot of things I do not like about Hillary Clinton. Welcome to the club! However, they pale in comparison to what I do not like about Donald Trump, a man who can legitimately be compared to Adolf Hitler, One big difference between Hillary Clinton and Adolf Hitler is that when Hitler was chosen as Chancellor of Germany in 1933, the public didn't know him to be a criminal, except for the "beer hall putsch" in 1923.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch      I am quite convinced that the Clintons are running a massive pay-for-pay operation, calling it the "Clinton Global Initiative".    I am also convinced that Hillary and her staff deliberately erased 33,000 emails AFTER being subpoenaed by Congress, which amounts to 33,000 Federal felonies.  Does that bother you?  I certainly hope these emails are among the information eventually to be released by Wikileaks.  Hillary might call them "private", but I suspect that most of them were actually CGI material which would have been incriminating. and even setting that aside, a man who has shown he is unqualified and would make the most dangerous president we have ever had. I think it's too bad that Rand Paul, or Ted Cruz, wasn't selected as Republican nominee.  But I think the main reason Democrats reject Trump is that he clearly isn't PC (politically-correct), but mostly they lie and claim other drawbacks of Trump, real and imagined.  Further, I think the RINOs deliberately steered the nomination away from Ted Cruz and other Repubican candidates, primarily because Cruz wanted to shake up the system, perhaps even more than Trump wanted.  Blame, in large part, the MainStream Media for giving Trump $1-2 billion in free publicity prior to his winning the Republican nomination. I don't know what the fuck Julian is thinking trying to get Trump (or as I refer to him, Rump) in office. If he was doing something useful, like leak Rump's tax returns, I'd obviously have a different opinion. Releasing true facts has potentially dangerous consequences, it is true.   Look at the 'Arab Spring' thing, a few years ago.   But if mistakes are to be made, I would prefer those mistakes to be releasing the information, rather than failing or refusing to release the information.

               Jim Bell

I am always astounded by intelligent people buying into political theater ... please take a history lesson ... start before the formation of the NSA and look at the roles of the council on foreign relations ... there is also the formulation of the central bank > the fed which is privately held ... then have a bit of a discussion with yourselves On Oct 3, 2016 12:09 PM, "John Young" <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:

All leaks advance a particular agenda with biased information, that is their purpose. None are neutral or wholly truthful or complete representation of material assembled for release. Withholding and redaction and censorship are obligatory for the marketing pretense of candor.

No reason to expect WikiLeaks to be any more honest and angelic than the context from which it derived, is sustained, and reaps the rewards from. The information spectrum from openness to Top Secret Codeword is single complicity with pretense of oppositional multiples to cloak the covert unification.

Moreover, leaks, like hacking and whistleblowing and Tor and privacy policy and HTTPS, have become lucrative businesses, profit and celebrity driven. These are urged and supported by the giants, pipsqueaks, start-ups and spy fronts of commerce and non-profits and governments.

Leaks are tools of spies before all else, and spies are tools of authority. Inherently dirty, deceptive, manipulative, dishonest, all too human. Primarily leaks are entertainment, and in this like political campaigns, lies and prevarication are essential.

But this is the case with media of all kinds, history, economics, business, social research, science, math, religion, education, cryptography, comsec, infosec, espionage, NSA, The Intercept, Snowden, Manning, Assange, and so on, especially here.

On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:

I don't know what the fuck Julian is thinking

This is true, you don't.

trying to get Trump in office.

They're trying to get Hillary out. The distinction there is huge. Since the news media and plenty of others are trying to get her in, I'd call it balance. Though it's deeper than that.

If he was doing something useful, like leak Rump's tax returns

All these fuckers cheat, or at least utilize the law, no news there.

...

“security concerns.”

Gee, I wonder why?

Power really doesn't like sunshine invading their shadows.

From: aestetix <aestetix@aestetix.com>

I'll preface by saying I hate both candidates, and support neither. However, if>there is something in the public interest, they should publish it, regardless of timing. I'm reminded of the NSA wiretap story that was delayed due to the 2004 election, and would possibly have influenced the outcome.

One thing I don't understand is why 'they' haven't talked more about the NSA storage facility in Utah, the one outed by Snowden, that was said to be set up to record "all" (or as many as they could get) emails. (They were shut down by Federal court order awhile back, but I don't recall anybody saying they were ordered to delete already-acquired emails.)   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center    Why wouldn't that have included those of Hillary Clinton, her correspondents, the Clinton Global Initiative, etc?  Maybe 'they' don't want to admit officially that this thing ever occurred, but hey, guys, "the word is out!".  And now, if anything, for them to fail to use that data set to re-create Hillary's deleted emails smacks of collusion.  While this specific facility was said to only have been opened in 2013, presumably it isn't the first such data storage bank, so Hillary's missing emails should be findable somewhere.              Jim Bell

On Mon, 2016-10-03 at 05:06 +0000, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

The argument goes like this: he enters the GOP race, and gets all the candidates talking about him, rather than Hill. Running interference for her. If you look at the time line, whenever the media began running back to her emails, Trump would do his most outlandish shit and distract the attention back to him.

I don't buy it, myself, but it is interesting to consider. I think Trump is in it just for his ego. Obama embarrassed him, and now he wants to stick it to the political elite, beat them at their own game, and get the respect that all Presidents get.

But I don't buy half the nonsense he says, anyhow. He's just playing this whole thing like a reality TV show to get the votes.

I don't think Trump is the maniac he is playing himself up to be. But he knows that if he crafts that image, he'll get a bunch of maniacs that never ordinarily vote, to come out and vote for him. It's a smart move.

It doesn't make any sense. He either wants the job or he doesn't. If he does, he needs to figure out--FAST--that running the United States of America is not a reality TV show!! If he doesn't, he could have declined the GOP nomination and let... just about anyone else in the running (besides maybe Ted Snooz) have it. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com>

On 10/02/2016 10:06 PM, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/10/02/wednesday-hillary-clinton-done- You know what... up until now I have supported what Julian and Wikileaks have done. If he costs Hillary the election, though, that could very well change in a hurry.

Makes no difference either way. Hillary is as corrupt as they come, that's just a fact. Trump may be a meglomaniac, but I don't see him as substantially different than Hillary.

Hell, as I understand it, Trump donated shit tons to the Clinton Foundation as late as recently as 2008.

I'm not sure I am ready to go down this rabbit hole, but a friend is fairly convinced that Trump is shilling for Hillary.

Absolutely. Donald Trump is a lifelong Democrat of the neoliberal persuasion. His job was to blow up the GOP while Burn-E siphoned 3rd party support, and is still trying to do so. The fix was in from the start. Hillary seem left, and progressive if you compare to Trump talk BUT he doesn't believe a word he says. Trump's only interest is Trump, and Hillary would further his wealth opportunities too, or at least not interfere in any significant way. Hillary is working the levers just the way the economic elite want them pulled ... will be GW Bush's 5th term, and no changes are necessary. The WARS will continue. American Style Austerity Measures will continue, and the rich will continue to get richer while the poor get still poorer, or if you're a young black male, dead... ...and the bombs will keep falling where the extractive resources and their routes of extrication are, and Americans still won't do shit about it except to scramble to accumulate what little is left of the shit on the shitpile. Rr "We came, we saw, he died HAHAHAHA" – Hillary Clinton, creeming her panties rehashing an assassination I gotta say, he

called the debate performance before Trump even clinched the GOP nod. He said if he gets the nod, he'll blow the debate with Hillary.

The argument goes like this: he enters the GOP race, and gets all the candidates talking about him, rather than Hill. Running interference for her. If you look at the time line, whenever the media began running back to her emails, Trump would do his most outlandish shit and distract the attention back to him.

I don't buy it, myself, but it is interesting to consider. I think Trump is in it just for his ego. Obama embarrassed him, and now he wants to stick it to the political elite, beat them at their own game, and get the respect that all Presidents get.

But I don't buy half the nonsense he says, anyhow. He's just playing this whole thing like a reality TV show to get the votes.

I don't think Trump is the maniac he is playing himself up to be. But he knows that if he crafts that image, he'll get a bunch of maniacs that never ordinarily vote, to come out and vote for him. It's a smart move.

By-the-way, I saw somebody on the interwebz suggesting that trump's job is to get the cunt elected. The idea is to have somebody like trump to point at and say "look! the murderous cunt is better than him!". Sounds sorta plausible. At least if your target audience is 'progressive' 'politically correct' fascists, who are the majority of the US electorate apparently.

Yeah, a friend of mine is in that camp. Plausible? Quite. But too conspiratorial for me. I tend to believe that human stupidity is a larger force than conspiracy. I may, however, simply be being stupid.

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:58:03 -0400 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On 10/03/2016 08:36 AM, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:

...

...

By-the-way, I saw somebody on the interwebz suggesting that trump's job is to get the cunt elected. The idea is to have somebody like trump to point at and say "look! the murderous cunt is better than him!". Sounds sorta plausible. At least if your target audience is 'progressive' 'politically correct' fascists, who are the majority of the US electorate apparently.

Yeah, a friend of mine is in that camp.

Plausible? Quite. But too conspiratorial for me. I tend to believe that human stupidity is a larger force than conspiracy.

I may, however, simply be being stupid.

I see what you did there. ;o)

But that's not stupid. Just cautious. Collusion between Clinton and Trump makes complete sense, but in the absence of evidence directly confirming it one should not "believe" it.

What kind of evidence, exactly, you think is needed? That's not just a rhetorical question. As a matter of fact, the US has a one party rule system with the One Party being composed of two factions, for appearances' sake. (all 'democratic' systems work roughly that way of course) You could argue that there's no formal secret agreement between the two factions, but if you did, perhaps you should provide proofs for the claim? At any rate it is obvious that even if the formal agreement doesn't exist, the factions operate under a tacit agreement.

Most people can not avoid conflating a speculative model that does fit the facts, with the facts themselves. Intelligence services do all they can to train their personnel out of that habit, with limited success.

There is also a wild card factor: It is reasonable to presume that Clinton really is psychotic, Trump really is profoundly neurotic, and that either would turn on the other under the right kind of pressure. This leads to all kinds of amusing speculation: Is it even possible that Trump could keep such a deal, vs. double crossing Clinton and trying to win the election by any means necessary? How much temptation can a narcissistic personality resist?

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

To this day, State sanctioned history books do not mention Roosevelt's well documented and brilliantly successful "plan" to provoke the Japanese to declare war on the United States. This was as much a covert military operation as a series of foreign policy moves: It included close monitoring Japan's own plans and force deployments, and timely changes in U.S. force deployments to facilitate the unopposed Pearl Harbor attack while preserving U.S. aircraft carriers.

Conspiracy! You probably believe in lizards from the 6th dimension and DON'T believe in the superpowers of our savior jew-kkkrist.

History is fossilized propaganda.

:o)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJX8qo7AAoJEECU6c5XzmuqD/0H/R4ttEEfjnnvgje17tZxWzzD MjiC6duEPwCn3fmOQv5FaH9pJNCFQZC6PLpnrzZ4OMrKVdAsxJCQja2iacGgw+KB nIbNzghHSqxOWueRlnLiPPI2qayS7IrwonKE5pFTY2vGW58CjZRGDNTbRaVOW2A/ A945vz/kyJ+qMqqHe3xTrY5e6GPsl3MJMuB3PJBFC93voRT88+l+IDrU2dQUEBNs s8ZUgtPAVJnSRp/Sp1E5CQy4Gaz2LNryX0nh55/2HqKKfDw83zqFCJqjYbHUe2Nq 2hVYcj25cN9szMShp6kkVCq/db/U23sts+Rbv0kQ658buipeLbNCrrrVXKy923Y= =2zPt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----