ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Throwing out Aristotle

To say nothing of more than two millennia of theology, philosophy, and modern science. And you wonder why I'm dubious about the survival prospects of equalitarian society, or indeed, any society where feminism has grown roots:
What is a feminist logic is a question I’ve spent the past six months thinking about and researching. There are not a lot of women in philosophy, and there are definitely not a lot of feminist philosophers, so I don’t have a good answer for this question. There is great scholarship talking about weather a feminist logic can build off of formal logic or if it has to reject the laws of identity and create something entirely new. There are solid arguments for both camps, personally I’m swayed by the constructive theories that would build onto formal logic through a feminist lens. There exist logics that handle contradiction as part of the system, namely paraconsistent logic. I think this type of logic represents the feminist idea that something can be and not be without being a contradiction, that is a system where the following statement is not explosive: (p && ¬p) == 1.
It should be readily apparent that once you've decided that X = !X, you have essentially doomed yourself by denying reality. It is only a matter of time before you make the fatal determination that the hungry bear wants you to play with it, the November ice is thick enough to drive on, or you can leap off the cliff and fly.

This holds as true for societies as it does for individuals. Consider the paraconsistencies that Examerican society has adopted as truths.
  • Third world immigrants are effective substitutes for native children.
  • Expanding the vote to women will improve society.
  • Paying money to the unemployed will not discourage them from working.
  • Debt can expand infinitely without risk of default or currency devaluation.
  • Female labor is as productive as male labor.
  • Free trade in good, services, and labor benefits the economy.
  • Increasing the supply of labor doesn't reduce its price.
  • Men will marry women and support children regardless of financial disincentives.
  • Members of non-European population groups will behave more like European population groups in European geographies than like non-Europeans in their original geographies.

Labels:

182 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous December 15, 2013 9:18 AM  

Yep, that would be a great title for the epic story of the West in these latter days: "Flight From Reality."

Regards,
David Smith

Anonymous Cranberry December 15, 2013 9:21 AM  

Feminism and logic are incompatible.

Lots of jargon in that post, and it amounts to the same pouty Take-Me-Seriously nonsense that most feminist texts do. Imagine a computer programmed to throw a tantrum any time it received input that didn't make it feel like a princess.

Is this what the New Maths lead to and uphold? The answer is right as long as you can show you sort of understand the problem even if the solution you provide is provably incorrect?

Anonymous dh December 15, 2013 9:30 AM  

I don't think these are all statements that are made in good faith. Take for example:

Paying money to the unemployed will encourage them to work.
This is not why unemployment is paid. I am not aware of anyone who makes this claim.

b

Anonymous Feh December 15, 2013 9:34 AM  

"Examerican society" -- Europe believes in all of those, too.

Anonymous Salt December 15, 2013 9:34 AM  

dh, I think you need to duck.

Anonymous Harsh December 15, 2013 9:38 AM  

Free trade in good, services, and labor benefits the economy.

Vox, I've always thought that libertarians believe free trade is beneficial to the economy. Or maybe I'm confusing libertarian with Libertarian.

Anonymous VD December 15, 2013 9:39 AM  

I don't think these are all statements that are made in good faith.

DH, you really need to get a clue about making accusations like that. I like you. I do. And I tend to suspect that you don't fully understand what it means to claim something is not "made in good faith".

If you think I'm wrong, that's fine, disagree and explain why you think I am wrong. But to immediately question someone's good faith solely because you disagree with them or think they are wrong raises real questions about your own intellectual integrity.

Is that truly your intention here? Because I find that hard to believe.

Anonymous VD December 15, 2013 9:41 AM  

I've always thought that libertarians believe free trade is beneficial to the economy.

Yes, most of them do. I don't, because they are wrong. Please click on the Free Trade link under TOPICS on the left sidebar for considerably more detail on the subject.

Anonymous VD December 15, 2013 9:44 AM  

Paying money to the unemployed will encourage them to work.

Actually, upon looking at it, I think "Paying money to the unemployed will not discourage them from working" would be a more accurate description.

Blogger wrf3 December 15, 2013 9:48 AM  

This sentence is not true.

Blogger Nate December 15, 2013 9:49 AM  

it says a lot that feminists actually discuss the fact that their ideas don't fit within logical frameworks.

it also says a lot that they cannot draw the next obvious logical conclusion.

Anonymous YIH December 15, 2013 9:51 AM  

weather a feminist logic
Must be where the 'November ice' quip came from.

Anonymous WGS December 15, 2013 9:53 AM  

Vox,
One of my students (I teach at a Christian school) invited me to a debate at the local university in which his uncle (a mega church pastor) would be debating an atheist. The uncle was misinformed. It turned out to be a panel discussion which he was not prepared for. He did well, but during the Q&A time the atheist admitted to being a feminist, to believing in science, and to not believing in anything that isn't made of matter. I asked him to explain how it could be that the laws of logic hold for scientific investigation. He said, "I don't know man, I'm a music major." The moderator stepped in for the rescue and said, "Read Graham Priest on paraconsistent logic and dialetheism. Logic doesn't have to keep the law of non-contradiction." In a discussion afterward he admitted that the Law of non-contradiction is still necessary for all human endeavor except in trying for form systems in which paraconsistent logic holds.

It seems like the whole system is an elaborate attempt to troll logicians. They even try to get computer programing and switch design on their side since certain things have multiple values (none of which, it seems, are "true and false together)".

WGS

Anonymous Harsh December 15, 2013 9:55 AM  

it also says a lot that they cannot draw the next obvious logical conclusion.

You're not thinking paraconsistently, Nate.

Anonymous Greatheart December 15, 2013 9:56 AM  

I think the original statement is better. The justification for unemployment/welfare benefits was to bridge the gap between jobs, then it became a mechanism to bolster families whose income was below the poverty level. Now it's just a free-for-all for all those who believe it's the government's job to support them so they don't have to. Supposedly temporary, it became permanent, creating a population class of non-achievers.

Maybe, "Government support of the unemployed will encourage them to seek to better themselves", could also apply here?

Blogger tz December 15, 2013 9:56 AM  

That might be why there ate so few womenin STEM fields. TtL and CMOS logic doesn't admit of feelings. A feminist inverter would need to know what is supplying the input and base the output on what it feels about the input. Or perhaps they might do a feminist FPGA consisting entirely of flip-flops. And never an exclusive-or.

The statement needs to be (p && !p) == 1 since the bitwise not (the tilde operator) would be ambiguous.

On the "free trade", I've made the distinction that it is not crony managed trade where other countries can break laws including reasonable regulations, so stolen merchandise somehow becomes legitimate to buy at retailers because it has crossed a border. That is the case with the trade agreements and treaties ver the last few decades. There can be no "free trade" across the Rio Grande or the Pacific since the legal systems are too different. Yet Vox may be correct in the libertarian case as well. Howevwr one does not to make that theoretical case when it is obvious the trade agreements are just more crony corporate welfare for the rich.

Anonymous VD December 15, 2013 9:59 AM  

The moderator stepped in for the rescue and said, "Read Graham Priest on paraconsistent logic and dialetheism. Logic doesn't have to keep the law of non-contradiction."

Ah, the old "read so-and-so" response. Next time, remember to respond: "an appeal to authority, even so worthy an authority such as Graham Priest, is a logical fallacy, my good moderator."

Anonymous VD December 15, 2013 10:00 AM  

It's not rape, it's paraconsensual sex....

Blogger Nate December 15, 2013 10:06 AM  

"It's not rape, it's paraconsensual sex...."

well struck.

Blogger wrf3 December 15, 2013 10:08 AM  

I think this type of logic represents the feminist idea that something can be and not be without being a contradiction...

Feminist means Hindu/Buddhist? You haven't lived until you've tried to have a discussion with a (sub-continental) Indian who disagrees with the law of non-contradiction depending on the phase of the moon.

Blogger El Borak December 15, 2013 10:19 AM  

Paying money to the unemployed will not discourage them from working.

This is a perfect example of a statement made in bad faith by those making it, because they *know* it discourages people from looking for work:

""Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job." --Krugman, "Macroeconomics"

However, when it becomes a partisan necessity, we read:
"Here's the world as many Republicans see it: Unemployment insurance, which generally pays eligible workers between 40 and 50 percent of their previous pay, reduces the incentive to search for a new job. As a result, the story goes, workers stay unemployed longer."--former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, New York Times, Dec. 9

Krugman, or course, is not praising the attachment to reality that a few Republicans still display...

Blogger buzzardist December 15, 2013 10:23 AM  

This post reminds me a lot of George Orwell's excellent essay, "In Front of Your Nose." He excoriates people for holding mutually contradictory beliefs, such as that a country can sustain itself with low birthrates or that the U.N. would have any power at preventing world conflict sans the ability to overrule powerful states and sans an army to enforce its will. Having observed various such contradictions, Orwell arrives at this gem:

There is no use in multiplying examples. The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.

As much as I enjoy 1984 and Animal Farm, this quote has long been my favorite from Orwell.

Orwell's advice to avoid such contradictory thinking? Keep a diary of reactions to important events. Record what you think about things that happen in the world. Use it to hold yourself accountable.

I suppose a blog like this is even more effective. Not only is there a record of what you thought about something, but the whole world is able to judge whether you've adopted a contradictory stance just because it felt right later on.

OpenID simplytimothy December 15, 2013 10:30 AM  

(p && ¬p) == 1.

The first place to start is the notation--its obviously violent and male-centric on so many levels.

Why is Truth associated with the phallic '1'? It obviously needs something feminine. but if we make it the more feminine
(p && ¬p) == 0. where '0' is equivalent with Truth, then we have a trouble with notation because although the feminine interpretation of this is true, it is also true in the out-dated Aristotelian sense. However, its early and this is an opportunity to fund a phd program in a new notation for logic.

Then, just look at that violent and threatening term-->'¬p' That bastard is brandishing a gun! (or is it his penis?) and it is pointed at two submissive feminine figures begging for their intellectual lives . && ¬p. In any inclusive logic, the 'p' must be disarmed and the power given to the feminine mode.

(p ¬& p ¬&) == 0

There, that's better.






Anonymous zen0 December 15, 2013 10:43 AM  

I asked him to explain how it could be that the laws of logic hold for scientific investigation. He said, "I don't know man, I'm a music major.

Music moron, is more like it. Maybe he has not got to the part where music is the science of vibrational frequencies. You know, lesson #1.

Blogger Nate December 15, 2013 10:43 AM  

"The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

Its interesting to see how this applies to some folks just a few threads down.

Blogger Tiny Tim December 15, 2013 10:45 AM  

Everything comes down to maturity. Women are immature. Their logic is childlike when it is convenient. It is dishonest without remorse. We see this in other cultures as well.

Their issues are stunted maturity. Take Africa, a whole country that operates at the level of a Western 10 year old. There is no progress beyond elementary school. Bullies rule, lies are the norm, and irresponsibility defended to the death.

A majority of women are immature and dishonest (when convenient). I deal with it everyday. It is as if I am dealing with my 12 year old son who has been made dishonest by his mother's inconsistencies of applied logic.

This is why culture is devolving. Women have too much influence.

What culture would "rule by women" equate to: Black Friday Wal Mart Shopping

Anonymous GG December 15, 2013 10:46 AM  

"I think this type of logic represents the feminist idea that something can be and not be without being a contradiction...."

This is actually a pretty accurate description of how many women's brains work, with or without feminism. In truth it's an awesome and beneficial way to perceive the world, as long as you aren't in charge of everything. Objective reality is really needed to balance it out.

Women in general can see shades of gray, no pun intended, but this creates a lot of moral ambiguity in the world. Feminism steps in and tries to mandate that moral ambiguity and than things get really scary.

In defense of women only, not feminists, Christ did teach quite a bit about paradoxes, contradictions, like strength in weakness, walking on water, mustard seeds. I think it's important to keep in mind that objectivity, reality, are important boundaries for surviving in the physical world, but we shouldn't become so arrogant we start to believe that our perceptions really ARE reality. How we each perceive the world is limited by our brain's abilities to perceive it.

Anonymous LOL December 15, 2013 10:47 AM  

Its interesting to see how this applies to some folks just a few threads down.

Pot, kettle, black.

Your fantasies were hilarious though.

Anonymous Heh December 15, 2013 10:56 AM  

First nameArielleLast nameSchlesingerBrief BioAs a student of Technology and Social Change, I am currently exploring what a feminist programing language would look like for my thesis. Technology and Social Change an interdisciplinary degree that combines computer science with the humanities so that technology can interpreted and created through a socially conscious, interdisciplinary lens. Some projects I have been involved with are FemTechNet, WikiStorming, and research regarding teaching kids computer science. I am interested in women in technology, feminism, and computer science.

Gee, when she combines computer science with the humanities, which do you think she knows more about?

She is doing "research regarding teaching kids computer science" -- want to bet she doesn't have any kids?

Blogger Nate December 15, 2013 10:58 AM  

"Your fantasies were hilarious though."

The Bible says what it says mate. Fantasy is irrelevant.

Anonymous Salt December 15, 2013 11:03 AM  

Heh, she'd do just as well interpreting the cat scratches in the kittie litter.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 15, 2013 11:08 AM  

Paying money to the unemployed will encourage them to work.

I think it says a lot about someone's intelligence that they restate the author's statement so incorrectly.

Anonymous LOL December 15, 2013 11:12 AM  

You got your peepee whacked so bad by Kratman, I'm surprised you even want to mention the episode. But apparently Dunning-Kruger prevails and you want to insist that somehow you were right.

Anonymous Boetain December 15, 2013 11:15 AM  

In memory of Jude Wanniski, how about this one:

"Wealth redistribution does not impede wealth growth"

Anonymous DonReynolds December 15, 2013 11:20 AM  

Instead of searching for the origins of feminism, it might be better to dig deeper into the flesh in search of the foci of the infection. What kind of moral philosophy would be in constant rebellion with nature and that which is naturally occuring? Feminism did not invent itself, but there is a central philosophy passed along from generation to generation in this country that has embraced the necessity of forcing secular government to compel universal acceptance of egalitarian ideals......which we broadly refer to in our history as "social reforms", specifically abolition, temperance, and women's suffrage. These same restless and contentious and rebellious souls also fueled the revolution, that led to independence from Britain. Even unto this day, I believe Obamacare can be safely laid at the feet of these egalitarians, radical Leftists, and Liberals. In fact the Region of the country infected with this thinking is co-terminus with the reach of this religion. (No, the problem is not communism, although some of them are.) The source of the infection, boys and girls, is that Congregational (Unitarian) church(s) and this is true not only in this country but also in the UK and any country where this bloody religion has influence. More recently, at the funeral of Mandela, more credit should have been given to the World Council of Churches, dominated as they have been by the United Church of Christ and other Congregationalist (Unitarian) churches. (The World Council of Churches provided money and arms to Mr. Mandela and his friends at the ANC.)

Blogger Nate December 15, 2013 11:21 AM  

'You got your peepee whacked so bad by Kratman, I'm surprised you even want to mention the episode. "

1) I wasn't referring to that.

2) You're obviously entitle to your opinion mate. But maybe you should investigate a little thing called confirmation bias.

Anonymous VD December 15, 2013 11:29 AM  

You got your peepee whacked so bad by Kratman

Don't cross-post, LOL. See the rules.

Anonymous DoubleMindedMan December 15, 2013 11:33 AM  

Finally we can do away with Object Oriented Programming. No one and no THING should be treated like an object!

Blogger IM2L844 December 15, 2013 11:34 AM  

This is not why unemployment is paid.

Vox didn't specify unemployment, dh. The unemployed are afforded copious routs to defraud the American people in perpetuity. Once again, you demonstrate your tendency to elevate presupposed nefarious motivations to the focal point rather than simply sticking to the facts of the matter.

Anonymous dh December 15, 2013 11:36 AM  

VD, you are correct that I should not have questioned the good faith you had in posting your list of axioms. There are many I disagree with and that is not the same in anyway as you posting them in bad faith. Sorry.

Blogger Nate December 15, 2013 11:36 AM  

Hey Vox... NFL... VPFL playoffs... ringing any bells?

Anonymous VD December 15, 2013 11:37 AM  

I think it says a lot about someone's intelligence that they restate the author's statement so incorrectly..

No, that was how I originally phrased it. As you'll see in the comments, I rephrased it.

Anonymous Orville December 15, 2013 11:38 AM  

Jeez, that bio says it all. But hey, at least in practice they won't be able to program fickle bitchiness into the sexbots.

Anonymous the abe December 15, 2013 11:39 AM  

W. v. O. Quine's notation for feminism from his perennial work, "Elementary Logic"

F ≡ B==D Envy

Anonymous VD December 15, 2013 11:40 AM  

VD, you are correct that I should not have questioned the good faith you had in posting your list of axioms.

No problem. As you correctly observed, it was poorly phrased anyhow. But I would encourage you to delve a little deeper before leaping to that sort of assumption in the future. It's not that I never assume bad faith on anyone's part, but I consider it unwise to do so on the sole evidence of a single disagreement or erroneous statement.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 15, 2013 11:55 AM  

No, that was how I originally phrased it. As you'll see in the comments, I rephrased it.

OK, my bad, as I saw the comments and did not realize what it meant. Withdrawn. Apologies.

Anonymous Jill December 15, 2013 12:06 PM  

"(p && ¬p) == 1" Hand raise: Ooh, ooh, I know what it means! Pride and Prejudice double equals number one when pride uses an extra ampersand to kick prejudice in the head.

Blogger Some dude December 15, 2013 12:15 PM  

I don't know Vox, this seems like a win-win situation to me. It's just a matter of capitalizing on it.

There's a post where you pointed out that women can literally be gamed into accepting anything. (I think it's an exaggeration, but the point stands). Some guys will be depressed about that, but as far as men are concerned, is that really a bad thing? So long as we work as brothers and look out for what God wants, that basically means the power and strength is in our hands.

Same thing here. Once someone is willing to accept X==!X, they are basically saying reason means nothing to them, and only emotion is valuable. Which is essence means they are women, which means they can be swayed into accepting anything, which means those of us who have will and common sense can get them into accepting what we want.

If we act in accordance with seeking the Will of God, then not only can we implement an acceptance of the principles we determine that He wants, we will even have His help in doing so.

Which means the wicked basically are at a massive disadvantage.

This insanity on behalf of feminists is the fulfillment of the tehillim "God corrupts the way of the wicked". That's a good thing man.

Blogger Some dude December 15, 2013 12:19 PM  

Of course, on the flip side, this is probably why both the Nazi and Communist socialist/occultists have been pushing feminism for some time. So that the majority of men would lose both their ability to reason and their will to ignore the pull of emotion.

Which is depressing. But the bright side is this, those who work for the wicked are themselves confused, and I personally believe that evil people tend to suffer from the same manipulative tricks they pull on others. That is, they are going to be confused by their own tricks.

It's still really sad though.

Blogger kurt9 December 15, 2013 12:21 PM  

Reality is that which continues to exist when you stop believing in it.

Anonymous Phil Mann December 15, 2013 12:37 PM  

Serious question for the programmers and computer jocks among the Ilk: Do Ms. Schlesinger and those commenting on her article actually know what they are talking about? Or is this just technical double-talk intended to fool innocent bystanders?

I read the sentences, they appear grammatical, use standard English, and appear to lead from argument to conclusion. Yet, they all bring to mind the hoax article by physicist Alan Sokal some years back that (by his own admission) was intentionally non-sensical and drew ludicrous conclusions, but still managed to fool the editors of a serious academic journal into publishing it.

I have my suspicions, but, lacking familiarity with modern computer science, would appreciate the views of anyone who knows.

(As to feminist programming, how about simply using a random number generator to determine whether any given instruction or its converse is actully carried out?)

Anonymous BattleFrog December 15, 2013 12:52 PM  

She can do what she wants, but if the language actually works, and she can make the computer do what she wants it to do, it will be isomorphic to an existing "male" logic. There is no way she can escape that.

Blogger James Dixon December 15, 2013 12:56 PM  

> What is a feminist logic is a question I’ve spent the past six months thinking about and researching.

Today's Day by Day would probably help her out a great deal. :) More apropos for Alpha Game though.

Blogger wrf3 December 15, 2013 1:00 PM  

Phil Mann asked: Do Ms. Schlesinger and those commenting on her article actually know what they are talking about?
If you strip away the politics of identity (feminism) and deal with just the nature of identity, then, yes - there are interesting aspects to this.

All computer languages are an attempt to abstract/model something. C, for example, emphasizes the machine over the calculation. Lisp models the calculation over the machine. But computers are based on logic circuits, e.g. NAND gates, which are Aristotlean.

Reality, with quantum entanglement, and people, with their irrationality, however are different. So languages to model this can be interesting and have practical application.

Anonymous Salt December 15, 2013 1:09 PM  

wrf3, attempting to model plates of spaghetti seems a bit over the top.

Blogger wrf3 December 15, 2013 1:09 PM  

Substitute "superposition" for "entanglement".

Anonymous Salt December 15, 2013 1:14 PM  

Adding in irrationality, I can see why a woman is interested in it.

Blogger wrf3 December 15, 2013 1:28 PM  

That's both ignorant and sexist.

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. -- Walt Whitman

Blogger Random December 15, 2013 1:55 PM  

attempting to model plates of spaghetti seems a bit over the top.

Working on legacy code over the years, I've seen many software projects that seem to model spaghetti quite accurately...

Classic ASP + pre-DOM Javascript.... the horror!

Blogger Random December 15, 2013 1:59 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Marcel December 15, 2013 2:12 PM  

"Do Ms. Schlesinger and those commenting on her article actually know what they are talking about?"

I've been a programmer for over 20 years and I have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. As you mention, the whole thing is eerily Sokal-like.

Unfortunately, my opinion (that it's all a hoax) has a big problem: I thought the same about the famous 10-10, and apparently that one was real too. (If there's anybody who doesn't know what I'm talking about - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDXQsnkuBCM ) Same with the mamacare insurance at http://doyougotinsurance.com/index.php?id=2

So... either I'm an innocent victim of great trolls, or people really are this stupid.

Anonymous Phil Mann December 15, 2013 2:15 PM  

Thanks wrf3.

All computer languages are an attempt to abstract/model something...But computers are based on logic circuits, e.g. NAND gates, which are Aristotlean.

Ultimately, we are still dealing with man-made machines that operate in a highly predictable manner according to verifiable scientific principles that have been well-understood for quite some time.

Reality, with quantum entanglement, and people, with their irrationality, however are different. So languages to model this can be interesting and have practical application.

Is the purpose to mimic human behaviour in an inanimate device? Or is it simply to make programming more "user friendly" for women, akin to adding electric starters and power steering to cars decades ago? Or is it something else altogether?

Admittedly, I have been away from this stuff too long to fill in for myself the missing details.


Blogger Bogey December 15, 2013 2:16 PM  

Feminist logic would have to throw out the law of excluded middle as well. This would be needed solely for a philosophy that would allow for an abortion. A woman is pregnant with a child or she is not, there is no half way.

Call it what you will but throwing out any of the first principles of logic is the by definition irrational.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 15, 2013 2:24 PM  


I've always thought that libertarians believe free trade is beneficial to the economy.

I used to think so, and a part of me still really wants to believe it. But this is an example of concrete observation contradicting abstract reasoning. The theory says we should be better off, but reality has shown the opposite. Hey, a paraconsistency!!!

Which really just means that the theory got something wrong. Perhaps the goal of Feminist Paraconsistent Logic is for feminists to avoid admitting when they're wrong.

Blogger Marcel December 15, 2013 2:30 PM  

"But this is an example of concrete observation contradicting abstract reasoning."

What "this" are you referring to, Jack? I'm really curious. (I looked back and I can't see any example.)

Blogger Bogey December 15, 2013 2:31 PM  

It seems like the whole system is an elaborate attempt to troll logicians. They even try to get computer programing and switch design on their side since certain things have multiple values (none of which, it seems, are "true and false together)".

I think Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawkins are trolling Philosophers recently by redefining nothing to include gravity.

Blogger wrf3 December 15, 2013 2:34 PM  

Ultimately, we are still dealing with man-made machines that operate in a highly predictable manner...
That's only partly true. We incorporate randomness into the system for things like Monte Carlo simulations, cryptography, etc... Newer Intel processors have the RDRAND instruction which is supposed to incorporate noise for the generation of random sequences.

Or is it something else together?
That's a harder question. I found the identity politics and Voyager-risqué techno-babble a bit off putting. But non-Aristotlean logic is an interesting topic in its own right.

Blogger Krul December 15, 2013 2:46 PM  

Polylogism. Ludwig von Mises had a lot of choice words for the polylogists of his time - people who believed that there was a different "logic" for different races (National Socialists) or classes (Marxists).

And who can blame him? Is there any more hilariously transparent casuistry than someone who writes essays and books full of specious mental gymnastics and technical jargon all to rationalize one childish statement: "That's true for you, but not for me."

And the ultimate purpose of all this is so they can pretend to themselves that any claim or action of theirs somehow "makes sense" despite all evidence and reasoned opposition. It's almost formalized solipsism.

Anonymous Phil Mann December 15, 2013 2:47 PM  

I understand wrf3, but even there, a conscious decision is made to introduce the randomness. (I hope the machine does not just go ahead on its own and do it for grins.)

Haven't looked into non-Aristotlean logic but will do so. (And having grown up with two sisters, and being married nearly 30 years, I may already be an expert on the subject.)

And thanks, too, Marcel. I suspected as much but am not qualified to say.

Anonymous Jill December 15, 2013 2:57 PM  

To my outsider's eyes, it seems the author is so far down the rabbit hole that I would have to join her in order to understand. There are logical programming languages that build upon preexisting knowledge, in the sense that new knowledge cannot negate what is already known to be true. But nonlogical programming languages are very much like any other human languages; they are fraught with idiosyncrasies. However, as in all human languages, these idiosyncrasies happen in a fluid manner over time. They aren't forced. And it would be silly to deny that spoken languages don't use contradictory language. They obviously do: a house burns up as it burns down to the ground, for example. Is it possible that coding language can remain devoid of such contradictions? Yet, at the same time, I'm not sure how formal logic can be seen through a lens of feminism, and I also don't see how this is anything but viewing the world intentionally through a bias, rather than viewing it through paraconsistent logic. Paraconsistent logic, as far as I know, is a form of logic that copes with paradoxes. How does this relate to viewing logic through the lens of feminism? Is the feminist perspective a paradox? Again, I probably don't understand because I'm not down that particular rabbit hole. So I'm simply left scratching my head.

Blogger wrf3 December 15, 2013 2:58 PM  

Formally prove that solipsism is an incorrect view of philosophy. (Hint: you can't do it).

Anonymous vryedenker December 15, 2013 3:02 PM  

How full of yourself do you need to be to want to force logic to bend to your feelings?

Anonymous dh December 15, 2013 3:05 PM  

Phil--

I should rename the expansion to the back of my house the ASP + Pre-DOM Javascript Memorial Wing. It would complement the VB6 + COM+ swiming pool and the Failed-MVC Hot Tub. I've seen projects that are so vile that the original authors should be under indictment in the Hague.

Blogger William Smith December 15, 2013 3:10 PM  

Vox,
His appeal to authority ran into trouble anyhow. He tried to point out how the ability to construct non-traditional logic means that logic is just a construct. I asked him why it is that traditional logic and mathematics make such excellent approximations of reality then. He said, "Well, that's the troubling thing." I told him that it is viciously circular to suppose that logic is a construct and nothing more while praising logical method as superior to other methods, whereas the Christian position is not only logical, but that the laws of logic presuppose Truth as the ground of being.

Anyhow, it derailed there.

WGS

Anonymous JJ December 15, 2013 3:13 PM  

Why is free trade of goods and capital grouped together with free migration? (Also how is free trade of services and labor not the same thing?) I know the EU groups them all together as "economic freedoms" but they have nothing in common except the word "free." Libertarians all agree on free trade being essential to prosperity. But only the aspies make the same comment about free migration. One only has to look at Japan and its 98% Japanese demography to succinctly show that free migration is completely unnecessary, and extremely harmful once you factor in the externalities of immigrants (draining welfare and rising crime rates being the top two, along with terrorism).

However, it is arguable that free trade is harmful when you are in fiat money economy, as trade partners can buy the importer's national debt in order to avoid the strengthening of their own currencies necessary to balance trade. China has done this with the US in order to keep the gravy train of export-driven growth going. But thats not a mark against free trade, but against the US political elites who keep borrowing money into existence from the Federal Reserve, which is then sold abroad. A commodity standard or even a currency board would be enough to put an end to the madness and avoid deflation and hyperinflation.

Blogger Krul December 15, 2013 3:18 PM  

William Smith - He tried to point out how the ability to construct non-traditional logic means that logic is just a construct.

And when he said that he was using a process of...?

That's what's so funny and so frustrating about those who deny logic - they consistently base their conclusions on logic, however faulty. They don't realize that they are proven wrong by the fact that they are forced to accept and use logic in any attempt to deny it.

A more consistent position would be "Midnight sunshine polkadot schnitzel, therefore logic is just a construct."

Anonymous LOL December 15, 2013 3:19 PM  

Don't cross-post, LOL. See the rules.

So, if Nate refers to another thread, I'm not allowed to observe he got his peepee whacked in that thread?

1) I wasn't referring to that.

Doesn't matter. What I said was applicable to any of your several interactions with Kratman -- who treated you with far more patience than you deserve.

Which

Anonymous JJ December 15, 2013 3:19 PM  

Also want to contest "Men will marry women and support children regardless of financial disincentives."

Its not the financial disincentives so much as the emotional. Having your kids snatched from you is going to be more painful than losing half of everything. If we went back to fathers getting automatic custody, redpill men would still be willing to roll the dice. Though its still smarter to just cohabit with her your kids rather than marry her.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 15, 2013 3:30 PM  

Serious question for the programmers and computer jocks among the Ilk: Do Ms. Schlesinger and those commenting on her article actually know what they are talking about? Or is this just technical double-talk intended to fool innocent bystanders?

Just double-talk, and not very technical at that. Standard PoMo nonsense words from Schlesinger. Her first commenter, Barry Petticord, makes the following reasonable true statement:

However, the problem is that as domininant programming paradigms emerge, new languages encode these paradigms in their languages.

And then goes on to demonstrate he doesn't understand why the paradigms exist in the first place. The reason C++ added specific support for object oriented programming to the C language was an attempt to facilitate good choices over bad ones. Languages encode paradigms for two purposes: 1) to guide programmers away from mistakes, and 2) to achieve efficiencies of scale in the underlying support code. The ways that languages do that aren't always successful or as good as they could be (hey, people make mistakes, waddayaknow) but the goal isn't evil. His admission that he's "more interested in the outliers than the common paths" indicates he's just another freak-lover. The "common paths" are common because they accomplish real goals. Shit doesn't often get written in LISP because LISP ultimately isn't very useful - it's a pet language.

And Schlesingerreplies

The visceral response trained programmers have to code that is not "elegant" is undeniable...

Bullshit lady. The visceral response programmers have is to code that is not comprehensible. If I look at someone else's code (even if the "someone else" was me 6 months ago) and it takes me 30 minutes to figure out what the code is trying to do or where the critical logic has been hidden, that's not just an aesthetic problem. it's a functional one. But Schlesinger is thinking like a girl, thinking that appearance is the most important thing.

It's all bullshit predicated on not being accountable for any actual results.


Anonymous Jill December 15, 2013 3:36 PM  

"Formally prove that solipsism is an incorrect view of philosophy. (Hint: you can't do it)." Nope, you can't do it, although many people have tried. That doesn't mean that solipsistic arguments a la Descartes aren't bullshit. On the other hand, solipsism is inescapable because it is impossible to view the world outside ourselves [it takes imagination to do so, but even that is restricted to our own minds]. Still, it is one thing to know that solipsism is an underlying problem with human logic, and another thing altogether to apply intentional bias to logical constructs.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 15, 2013 3:41 PM  

@Marcel

What "this" are you referring to, Jack?

The theory that Free Trade is beneficial to the economy. I used to believe it. I'd still love to believe it. But it's a theory that is contradicted by reality.

BTW, you may wonder why I would still love to believe in Free Trade. The answer is, because the alternative is socially-imposed restrictions which are exceptionally dangerous for the economy and liberty in general, so it would be wonderful if we had a working theory that said we could do away with trade controls altogether. But sadly, the theory doesn't work.

Blogger wrf3 December 15, 2013 3:48 PM  

Jill wrote: That doesn't mean that solipsistic arguments a la Descartes aren't bullshit.
So prove it. Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant.

And the circle is now complete...

Anonymous GG December 15, 2013 3:52 PM  

"How does this relate to viewing logic through the lens of feminism? Is the feminist perspective a paradox?"

No, it's so coldly objective and logical it's quite chilling. Nobody here will ever believe that, being so invested in this idea that women are illogical, irrational, and incapable of seeing the big picture. However, the truth is there are no paradoxes in feminism, no contradictions. It's a One World View with no room for any ambiguity. That's why it eventually smells so much like totalitarianism.

Feminist language is already a bit like a computer, just take away morality, biology, history, humanity, and you're left with a cold, totally objective, unreasonable machine. Don't like your gender? We have a scalpel for that. Don't like your pregnancy? We have a scalpel for that, too. The dirty little secret about feminism is that it doesn't seek to erase men, it seeks to erase women. It's not trying to destroy objectivity, reason, it's trying to destroy intuition, humanity, empathy.

If our machines ever take over the world, I promise you they will have been designed by women.

Blogger Krul December 15, 2013 3:52 PM  

wrf3, I'm curious. Can one formally prove that solipsism is a correct view in philosophy?

Blogger rycamor December 15, 2013 3:58 PM  

The techies in this group might like to have a gander at this spoof that was inspired by Schlesinger's post: The C+= programming language.

Anonymous kfg December 15, 2013 3:59 PM  

"Take Africa . . ."

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/the-true-size-of-africa/

". . . a whole country . . ."

If you take a whole country of Africa most of it will be left as a remainder.

Blogger wrf3 December 15, 2013 4:02 PM  

Not that I'm aware of. The only logical answer that I know of to the question, "What is Reality, really?" is "I don't know."

Anonymous Jill December 15, 2013 4:06 PM  

"So prove it. Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant.

And the circle is now complete..." Lol, I have no feelings on the matter. All I know is that others' descriptions of polar bears are very much like mine, which indicates that there is some element of universal truth....except I'm the one reading others' descriptions or viewing others' photographs, so perhaps polar bears are merely part of my imagination. This is the inevitable impasse.

Blogger Krul December 15, 2013 4:09 PM  

wrf3, why is it that the evidence of my senses is insufficient to prove the existence of external reality? I mean it seems pretty obvious from here.

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, AI Laboratory at MIT December 15, 2013 4:12 PM  

The statement needs to be (p && !p) == 1 since the bitwise not (the tilde operator) would be ambiguous.

She is mixing the notation of a programming language with that used in symbolic logic. Of course, a computer scientist would say programming IS symbolic logic. So let's say "other symbolic logic you would find over in the math and philosophy texts."

Corrected programming: (p && !p) == 1
Symbolic Logic: (p /\ ¬p) => T

In programming:
A single equals sign = is "assigns" for an operator, while a double equals sign == is "equals."
&&, or a double ampersand, is for the AND operator.
!, or exclamation point, is for the NOT operator.
p is your statement.
1 apparently means true here. I guess the inverse is 0, for false.

Thusly:
p => q with converse: q => p
p => q with inverse p => ¬q

In symbolic logic:
/\ or the wedge symbol, is for the AND, or logical conjunction.
\/ or the carrot symbol (also called a vel) is for the OR, or logical disjunction.
=> is for implies.
T is true, F is false.

You are wrong though, as ¬ is not the tilde. ¬ is the not sign, while ~ is the tilde. She was mixing the two forms.

Blogger Marcel December 15, 2013 4:19 PM  

@Jack

The theory that Free Trade is beneficial to the economy [...] is contradicted by reality.

Ah... I was hoping for an example.

Blogger Marcel December 15, 2013 4:23 PM  

To clarify: free trade is technically equivalent to a transmutation machine. Sheep enter on one side, cars exit on the other; time and money are spent to help the process. (I might have even seen this example on this blog, I don't remember.)

Given the above (and I'm willing to be corrected), in what circumstances are transmutation machines bad for the economy?

Anonymous Jack Amok December 15, 2013 4:24 PM  

Ah... I was hoping for an example.


Of why the theory is wrong? As Vox wrote: "Please click on the Free Trade link under TOPICS on the left sidebar for considerably more detail on the subject." That will be better than what I could dash off here.

Blogger Brad Andrews December 15, 2013 4:27 PM  

Free trade in good, services, and labor benefits the economy.

How can human government be good at managing trade and not the money supply? Why is one inherently good to manage and the other not?

I still have not seen a good explanation of this here, though please point me to the post that covered it if I missed it.

Blogger Marcel December 15, 2013 4:29 PM  

Oh. The first article discusses immigration, which is bad because it makes everything cheaper. (Yeah, I know, it sounded weird to me too.) The second one says free trade is bad because states will disappear; given that I'm an anarchist, I must disagree with that. The third one: USA will be gone! Given that I don't much like it, that one also fails to persuade me.

I stopped at the fourth one, which says that free trade is bad because China refuses to use it. Now, I like Chinese computers as much as the next guy but seriously?

Anonymous Zhongguoren (中国人) Spectator December 15, 2013 4:37 PM  

Chinese computer always number one!

Blogger wrf3 December 15, 2013 4:39 PM  

Because you don't really know what is driving the sense data. See Descartes.

Anonymous Krul December 15, 2013 4:43 PM  

wrf3 - Because you don't really know what is driving the sense data. See Descartes.

Well that's irrelevant. The data is coming from somewhere, and it's not coming from me, so there is reality external to myself.

Blogger wrf3 December 15, 2013 4:55 PM  

And just how do you know, exactly, that it isn't coming from you? You don't. Furthermore, you can't. Oh, you can give reasons why you think it isn't the case. But they don't rise to the level of proof. Like I said, see Descartes and his derivation of "cogito ergo sum."

Anonymous Jill December 15, 2013 4:56 PM  

"Well that's irrelevant. The data is coming from somewhere, and it's not coming from me, so there is reality external to myself." I would agree. The idea that there is no objective truth is a logical absurdity that contradicts itself upon statement. I may not be able to prove through finite logic that there is a reality outside my own solipsistic ability to ascertain information through my senses and process the information, but I can rely on other cognitive processes outside of solipsism, i.e. that which produces faith and intuition. I believe, and not only because I'm having this conversation with other people, that there is a reality outside my senses that is providing input.

Blogger Marcel December 15, 2013 5:01 PM  

Re; solipsism. There is this widespread view that senses are the primary source of information. I think this is incorrect: introspection is the primary source of information; senses are secondary. Pain, like they say, is all in the mind. (That doesn't make it unreal. It's a real pain... in the mind.)

In any case, very interesting discussion so far.

Blogger wrf3 December 15, 2013 5:07 PM  

One last thing... not very long from now, at least as some reckon it, you'll wake up. And everything up until then will have been a dream.

Anonymous VD December 15, 2013 5:09 PM  

The first article discusses immigration, which is bad because it makes everything cheaper. (Yeah, I know, it sounded weird to me too.) The second one says free trade is bad because states will disappear; given that I'm an anarchist, I must disagree with that. The third one: USA will be gone! Given that I don't much like it, that one also fails to persuade me.

Unfortunately, it appears you're an idiot, Marcel. The point of the first one is that it makes your wages cheaper. Do you really like being paid less money for the same amount of work? And while the third one may not have persuaded you, it will persuade all the people who actually like living in their country and don't want to move to another one.

Anonymous Krul December 15, 2013 5:09 PM  

wrf3 - And just how do you know, exactly, that it isn't coming from you?

I'm receiving it - I'm the "audience", as it were. This scenario would require two distinct "me's": one to produce and send the data, and the other (currently typing this comment) to receive and interpret the data. Since there's no reason to conclude that the former "me" is actually "me" and not "external reality", while it's immediately obvious that the latter "me" is me, the data isn't coming from me, and something other than me exists.

Sure, one can conceive of all sorts of farfetched situations in which one's sense data is somehow deceptive - dream or "evil genius" or the Matrix or whatever - but all of them require that there be some external deceiving agent and some external reality that the deceiver's illusion conceals. If there is not underlying "real" reality and no "deceiver" then that which I perceive is reality.

Blogger wrf3 December 15, 2013 5:10 PM  

I can rely on other cognitive processes outside of solipsism, i.e. that which produces faith and intuition.
Feelings! Nothing more than feelings...

Feminist philosophy. ;-)

Anonymous Krul December 15, 2013 5:13 PM  

wrf3 - One last thing... not very long from now, at least as some reckon it, you'll wake up. And everything up until then will have been a dream.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. If I am dreaming, then there is a real waking reality. If there is no real waking reality, then the "dream" IS reality. External reality exists in both situations.

Blogger wrf3 December 15, 2013 5:16 PM  

I had a dream last night in which I was able to fly. It was marvelous to feel the wind in my face. Then I woke up and had a conversation about reality on Vox Popoli while driving to Florida. Well, my wife is driving. My back hurts from the uncomfortable car seat.

Then I woke up again...

Blogger Marcel December 15, 2013 5:18 PM  

The point of the first one is that it makes your wages cheaper. Do you really like being paid less money for the same amount of work?

I thought Mark Twain has already demolished this idea, there's a very nice illustration in "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court". The point is that everything becomes cheaper. That makes real wages grow. Yeah, I would absolutely not mind getting half my salary if everything cost ten or a hundred times less. (Do I need to go into how prices represent someone's income?) I sell a restricted range of services; I buy a ton of services / products; lower prices can only help me.

... it will persuade all the people who actually like living in their country...

Yeah, but as a rational argument that lacks a certain je ne sais quoi, you know?

Blogger wrf3 December 15, 2013 5:20 PM  

I use "waking up" to show you that your sense data isn't necessarily indicative of an external reality.

Now, once you realize that, substitute "dying" for "awaking."

Anonymous Jill December 15, 2013 5:25 PM  

"One last thing... not very long from now, at least as some reckon it, you'll wake up. And everything up until then will have been a dream." All this means is that we're not fully awake, or not awake at all to what is objective reality. Feminist philosophy, indeed. I intuit the need to for a nap.

Anonymous Krul December 15, 2013 5:26 PM  

wrf3 - I use "waking up" to show you that your sense data isn't necessarily indicative of an external reality.

You're mixing up two things. Your sense data does indicate an external reality. True, reality may not be what you think it is, but it still is.

You're basically saying "external reality might not be what you think it is, therefore there is no external reality," which is a contradiction.

Anonymous GG December 15, 2013 5:42 PM  


"Feelings! Nothing more than feelings...Feminist philosophy. ;-)"

The exact opposite would be true. Feminist philosophy requires you to completely abandon feelings, intuition, faith. In fact, feminist reality is all about suppressing feelings. You are not allowed to have any other cognitive processes beyond solipsism.

I realize some people define solipsism as indulgence of one's feelings, but "indulgence" can also mean making feelings go away. That guy in North Korea is a bit like a feminist, just execute your uncle and erase him from the family photos. That's rational, reasonable, coldly logical, and now objective reality. But it isn't right, it isn't Truth.

Anonymous Jill December 15, 2013 5:55 PM  

"I realize some people define solipsism as indulgence of one's feelings," Perhaps they do, but this isn't the strict definition of solipsism. You may be right that feminist philosophy doesn't involve feelings, but believing you can change objective reality is anything but rational. If your entire premise is based on a lie, then any logical conclusions that follow are also lies. I think it was the scientific journal called The Onion where I recently read that scientists had just discovered a force of nature called reality. No earthly system has yet managed to stand up to its force. It's rather incredible, really.

Anonymous DT December 15, 2013 6:01 PM  

it says a lot that feminists actually discuss the fact that their ideas don't fit within logical frameworks.

it also says a lot that they cannot draw the next obvious logical conclusion.


And it says that men and women are not equal in any way.

Blogger James Dixon December 15, 2013 6:15 PM  

> So prove it. Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant.

She made no claim of proof, wrf3. She's correct, the case in unproven either way.

> ...why is it that the evidence of my senses is insufficient to prove the existence of external reality?

Because you can't validate your senses against some proven externality. The only proof we have that our senses in any way mirror reality is that other people agree with our observations, and (in the final analysis) that things external to ourselves can kill us. And since we could be imagining the other people agreeing with us...

> ...and it's not coming from me,...

Try to prove that. We'll wait. :)

The only real argument within this reality that I can make for an external reality is that my imagination is nowhere near good enough to come up with the detailed reality that I observe. The final proof is something I'm trying to delay for a while yet.

Blogger Krul December 15, 2013 6:29 PM  

James Dixon - Because you can't validate your senses against some proven externality.

This is the same mixup as before. The evidence of my senses does prove that there is an external reality, but it doesn't necessarily prove that my interpretation of my sense data is accurate.

> ...and it's not coming from me,...

Try to prove that. We'll wait. :)


Already tried, chief. Check to comments.

Anonymous Haden December 15, 2013 6:30 PM  

Vox, to go a bit off topic, have you thought of doing an economic treatise on free trade? It would be a great aid for those of us without economic degrees in understanding the topic.

Blogger Doom December 15, 2013 6:37 PM  

Why do you think Babylon is a whore, not a skirt chaser?

If there was no God, only nature, though, they would be right. Not only is there God, there also isn't nature. That is an aberration seen to exist but only through the eyes of sin.

Anonymous VD December 15, 2013 7:05 PM  

I thought Mark Twain has already demolished this idea, there's a very nice illustration in "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court". The point is that everything becomes cheaper. That makes real wages grow. Yeah, I would absolutely not mind getting half my salary if everything cost ten or a hundred times less. (Do I need to go into how prices represent someone's income?) I sell a restricted range of services; I buy a ton of services / products; lower prices can only help me.

Mark Twain was wrong because he didn't grasp that labor is included in free trade. Your thinking is absolutely and utterly foolish. In a country with a labor force of only 155 million, on a planet with 7 billion people, free trade means that the real wages will come down to the global median. You're already getting the benefit of the goods being almost as cheap as they are in India and China, but you're also getting much, much higher wages.

You have it backwards. Things would cost a little less, perhaps half as much, but your wages would be 50 times less. And I've already proven that based on inter-state labor movement, nearly 50 percent of young Americans would be forced to move out of the country. How many parents do you think would knowingly sign up for that? How many young Americans would be willing to move to Bangladesh and India to get a job?

Do you really think you can cite that old shit and I'd be unaware of it? I've read Ricardo, and Smith, and free traders you've never even heard of. I know every free trade argument that exists, and I have shown them to be wrong. The reason is simple: they never imagined the airplane, the Internet, or the free movement of labor.

This is why you'll see dishonest free traders trying to claim that free trade in labor is not part of free trade. But it is. There is no way around it. Free trade means global dictatorship. It REQUIRES global dictatorship. As an anarchist, there should be nothing you fear more.

Anonymous GG December 15, 2013 7:18 PM  

"You may be right that feminist philosophy doesn't involve feelings, but believing you can change objective reality is anything but rational."

And yet objective reality is constantly changing all around us.

Also I don't think we've even begun to define objective reality in terms of the computer world. One problem with feminist programming is that they always start discussing social engineering through technology. I can see a future where your computer programs you, rather then the other way around. In that case, objective reality will be what you have been programmed to perceive it as being.

Blogger RobertT December 15, 2013 7:35 PM  

You reap what you sow. Too bad, so sad that everyone has to take the same ride. I, for one, am trying to get ready by positioning my firm to help businesses survive the tumultuous 21st century. Your only chance for a safe investment will be a cash flow business. They'll be paving the roads with bitcoins and gold, and burning stock certificates in their wood burning stoves.

Blogger tz December 15, 2013 7:56 PM  

Fanta-size matters.

Blogger James Dixon December 15, 2013 8:20 PM  

> Already tried, chief. Check to comments.

And you failed. :) No shame in that, the best minds in history have failed too.

Blogger Krul December 15, 2013 8:26 PM  

James Dixon - And you failed. :) No shame in that, the best minds in history have failed too.

I don't believe you understand the issue. Nevertheless, I will content myself with the fact that the existence of external reality is so obvious that any proof is a mere formality.

And if I just so happen to be wrong, well then those who disagree are mere figments of my imagination.

Blogger tz December 15, 2013 8:28 PM  

I have a reason to fear senility.

First, I found this which reminded me about the kerfuffle about the github gestapo and the "inclusive language" commit. (the term "Asylum" comes to mind, as well as "criminal insane").

However, since I'm stuck in a long-term-stay hotel so have reason to use the TV, I would note that I can count the "reality TV" women on one hand. There is no "Ax Women". Vox has already noted the beta orbiter survivor which is unique among the half dozen or more clones. Though "naked and afraid" ought to take on a more ironic tone :). Women aren't boring (or perhaps they reap what they sow instead of being boaring), but TV seems to focus on men.

Oh, I forgot Gotti and Kardashians.

Blogger James Dixon December 15, 2013 8:52 PM  

> I don't believe you understand the issue.

That's entirely possible. I don't consider it likely, but it is possible.

> Nevertheless, I will content myself with the fact that the existence of external reality is so obvious that any proof is a mere formality.

I can largely agree with that statement, but it's always a good idea to realize you're actually operating on an unproven assumption.

Anonymous Lesbian Dorito Night December 15, 2013 9:45 PM  

How did you not mention the C+= (C Plus Equality) satire created in response to this trainwreck?

Philosophy
The language is to be strictly interpreted using feminist theory. Under no circumstances should the language be compiled, as compilation and the use of a compiler imposes an oppressive and toxic relationship between the high-level descriptive language and the low-level machine code that does all the labo(u)r. Instead, C+= is interpreted, which fosters communication, itself a strong female trait.
No constants or persistence. Rigidity is masculine; the feminine is fluid. I.e., fluid mechanics is hard for men 'because it deals with "feminine" fluids in contrast to "masculine" rigid mechanics'.
No state. The State is The Man. 'Nuff said. Hence, the language should be purely functional.
Women are better than men with natural language. Hence, the language should be English-based like HyperCard/LiveCode.
No class hierarchy or other stigmata of OOP (objectification-oriented programming). In fact, as an intersectional acknowledgement of Class Struggle our language will have no classes at all.
On the off chance that objects do mysteriously manifest (thanks, Patriarchy!), there should be no object inheritance, as inheritance is a tool of the Patriarchy. Instead, there will be object reparations.
Societal influences have made men often focus on the exterior appearances of women. This poisons our society and renders relationships to be shallow, chauvinistic, and debases our standards of beauty. To combat that, C+= is to tackle only audio and text I/O, and never graphics.
Unicode is the preferred character encoding due to its enabling the diverse aesthetic experiences and functionality that is beyond ASCII. UTF-8 is the encoding of choice for C+=.
Women are more social than men. Hence, social coding should be the only option. The code only runs if it is in a public repo.
Instead of "running" a program, which implies thin privilege and pressure to "work out", programs are "given birth". After birth, a program rolls for a 40% chance of executing literally as the code is written, 40% of being "psychoanalytically incompatible", and 40% of executing by a metaphorical epistemology the order of the functions found in main().
Programs are never to be "forked", as the word has clear misogynistic tendencies and is deeply problematic. Instead, programmers may never demand "forking", but ask for the program to voluntarily give permission. "Forking" will henceforth be called "consenting", and it is entirely up to the program to decide if the consent stands valid, regardless of the progress of the system clock.
Forced program termination is not allowed unless the program consents to it. The process is part of the choice of the program, not the programmer.
Licensing: the Feminist Software Foundation License.

Anonymous Snoogins December 15, 2013 9:50 PM  

@marcel Regarding free trade and Twain, he got it wrong, another fiction writer has a better grip on econ:

"once we’ve brain-drained all our technology into other countries, once things have evened out, they’re making cars in Bolivia and microwaves in Tadzhikistan and selling them here – once our edge in natural resources has been made irrelevant by giant Hong Kong ships and dirigibles that can ship North Dakota all the way to New Zealand for a nickel – once the Invisible Hand has taken all those historical inequities and smeared them out into a broad global layer of what a Pakistani bricklayer would consider to be prosperity – y’know what? There’s only four things we do better than anyone else:

music
movies
microcode (software)
high-speed pizza delivery”
Neil Stephenson, Snowcrash

Anonymous Jack Amok December 15, 2013 10:32 PM  

The point is that everything becomes cheaper. That makes real wages grow.

That's the theory Marcel, but what is the observed reality? Are real wages in the US better now than before the most recent trade boom? No, they're not, and without the unsustainable explosion in debt that would be painfully obvious.

Like I said, I used to believe in Free Trade. I was younger and had less experience of people then. I thought distant prosperity would undermine local tyranny, and the threat of economic stagnation would hamstring would-be tyrants. Turns out it worked the other way. Local prosperity was undermined by distance tyranny.

If you have free movement of goods without free movement of labor, that empowers would-be tyrants who control a captive labor force and can blame economic difficulties on "the foreign capitalists who are gouging us." OTOH, if you have free movement of labor, that empowers would-be tyrants because a migratory population disrupts the trust-based institutions of civic society, forcing people to rely on the compulsory institutions of government. We're not solitary creates, we require some sort of society to thrive. A voluntary society built on earned trust is the most conducive to liberty and prosperity. That society requires like-minded people who have sufficient shared history. High levels of migration makes that impossible.

Also, any enclave of liberty-minded folks who manage to carve out a free society will be prosperous and thus immediately inundated with the hordes of dependency-minded folks chasing the best table scraps. Those dependency-minded folks don't understand why the enclave was prosperous, and will kill the goose trying to get at the golden eggs.

As a self-avowed anarchist, you don't understand that at all, because your notion of anarchy is parasitical. You presuppose the existing civilizational infrastructure and imagine it just exists. It doesn't. Real anarchy means the Visigoths, or the Vikings or the Huns or the Haida come and kill you and take your stuff and rape your daughters. And after they've raided your town long enough that there's nothing left, the take the land too and colonize it.

In a real anarchy, real anarchists are quickly killed by people who don't want to put up with the shit. And if you're an anarchist, what complaint could you possibly make about that?

Blogger Krul December 15, 2013 10:38 PM  

James Dixon - I can largely agree with that statement, but it's always a good idea to realize you're actually operating on an unproven assumption.

First an appeal to authority, and now question begging. I wonder if I should be surprised that those who claim that solipsism can't be disproven are utterly unwilling to offer even a modicum of argument in favor of that position.

Blogger rycamor December 15, 2013 11:01 PM  

You have to love this: one of the white knight guys in the comments of the original article gushes forth with a hypothesis:

A feminist programming language is a language that respects the agency of objects, acting upon them only upon mutual consent.

What's really idiotic about this comment is that non-feminist ("real") programming languages have had this concept for decades. It is called "Design by Contract. Of course, it uses all those male-dominated concepts of truth and consistency, so it can't be allowed as a true feminist programming concept. I think a better feminist programming language hypothesis would be:

...a language that respects any object's prerogative to retroactively re-interpret or nullify any method, interface or functionality without notice, or to advertise one set of functionality while actually supporting another.

For example, one process might make a socket connection to another, and be given the ACK, but then as it begins to proceed with a data transfer, the receiving process could suddenly decide the ACK was "a mistake" or "non-intentional" and thus terminate the connection. Or, it could receive the data but rather than process it in the way the sending object expected, it would report a segfault to the process controller causing it to terminate the sending process with a kill -9 (SIGKILL), which kills a process without notice (without the chance to plead its case). I think that about covers it.

Blogger rycamor December 15, 2013 11:04 PM  

Further note regarding Design by Contract: "The central idea of DbC is a metaphor on how elements of a software system collaborate with each other on the basis of mutual obligations and benefits."

Oops, sounds too much like Marriage 1.0. Scratch that.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 15, 2013 11:06 PM  

What's really idiotic about this comment is that non-feminist ("real") programming languages have had this concept for decades. It is called "Design by Contract.

Rolf. And in COM+, you even had to first negotiate the interface you were going to use to act on the object.

Anonymous lurker below December 16, 2013 12:45 AM  

"A majority of women are immature and dishonest (when convenient). I deal with it everyday. It is as if I am dealing with my 12 year old son who has been made dishonest by his mother's inconsistencies of applied logic."

Good points. What's interesting is if you dressed your wife or any other full grown woman up in similar clothes as your 12 yo son. Alot of them could pass for twelve yo boys.

Blogger Marcel December 16, 2013 4:42 AM  

VD:

You have it backwards. Things would cost a little less, perhaps half as much, but your wages would be 50 times less.

And yet, I look around me and discover that my salary is about 60 times higher than it was 30 years ago, when foreign trade was pretty much non-existent. I also discover that, with a few exceptions, prices generally went down - or stayed the same, but the quality of the product is now much better. Given reality on one hand and gloomy predictions on the other, I can't help but prefer reality.

And I've already proven that based on inter-state labor movement, nearly 50 percent of young Americans would be forced to move out of the country.

I would appreciate a pointer to this proof, but not if it's at the level of the current "I know better" pseudo-arguments.

Snoogins:

There’s only four things we do better than anyone else:

Actually, there's only one thing that Americans do better than anyone else: propaganda. Due to American movies, most of the world believes that the Germans were these uber soldiers (Germany never won a war); that the American army is now the best (USSR, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) and so on.

As for software... seriously. I've been working for US companies for the last 15 years. Unless they specifically assigned me the worst code to maintain (not impossible), a lot of code written by American programmers is crap. I don't deny that the US has amazing programmers, like Peter Norvig or ... wait, Jon Skeet is British :) Anyway. I am sure the US has great programmers, and I'm sure that there are worse in the world, but I don't think that the *average* US programmer is that good.

Jack:

If you have free movement of goods without free movement of labor, that empowers would-be tyrants who control a captive labor force and can blame economic difficulties on "the foreign capitalists who are gouging us." OTOH, if you have free movement of labor, that empowers would-be tyrants because a migratory population disrupts the trust-based institutions of civic society, forcing people to rely on the compulsory institutions of government.

Ok... I'm trying hard to think of an example but nothing comes to mind. Where/when did this happen? I'm pretty sure that it didn't happen when the Europeans colonized the Americas. Yes, I see a lot of "locally produced in Ireland" crap around me, but that only shows that people are generally stupid, not that they don't benefit from trade.

Real anarchy means the Visigoths, or the Vikings or the Huns or the Haida come and kill you and take your stuff and rape your daughters.

Ah... this, like real scientists, is so called because it can only be found in books or movies, huh? I get it. (I will not that in reality it was the Russians who did that; strangely enough, both us and the Russians had governments at the time.)

The Visigoths, Vikings and Huns (I don't know about the Haida) also had governments. In fact, I can't think of any anarchy that has conquered another country. I know of one that has been conquered (medieval Iceland), but it lasted for about 300 years if I'm not mistaken. Not bad. I think Israel's record is even better, but it's been a long time since I looked into that part of history.

Oh well. I must say, the fact that I can see holes in the arguments I know something about makes me wonder about those where I don't.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 16, 2013 5:14 AM  

"BTW, you may wonder why I would still love to believe in Free Trade. The answer is, because the alternative is socially-imposed restrictions which are exceptionally dangerous for the economy and liberty in general, so it would be wonderful if we had a working theory that said we could do away with trade controls altogether. But sadly, the theory doesn't work."

This comment in all its glorious obtuseness (no offense to the commenter, it's simply the case) illustrates rather neatly the entire concept that logic as used with prejudice, as it were, in a day-to-day "logical" manner is fraught with difficulties, as opposed to logic being used carefully and within defined territories, which generally yields positive results (and is probably what most people here "mean" when they "talk" about "logic").

Careful with that axiom, Eugene. And be cautious about using words like "therefore" and "must", boys and girls -- they lead straight to hell, as History with its inexorable, scientific, irrefutable and undeniable logic must therefore show us! (Kidding.)

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 16, 2013 5:17 AM  

"Actually, there's only one thing that Americans do better than anyone else: propaganda."

In reality, bub, it isn't "Americans" who are doing all the "propaganda". But it is pretty good propaganda, I'll concede that much.

Blogger Marcel December 16, 2013 5:20 AM  

@scoobius: I plead parallax disease - it looks the same from a distance. But yeah, I stand corrected.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 16, 2013 5:25 AM  

Marcel @4:42 AM (pretty much the whole comment)

Wow, amazing. It's like a neutron star of stupid. Hats off, man! That kind of consistency is pretty hard to do!

Blogger Marcel December 16, 2013 5:30 AM  

@scoobius: what can I say? I'm no Walt Whitman. I love consistency :)

Incidentally, I took to heart a quote I read many years ago, saying something like "if you haven't changed a major opinion in the last few years, check your pulse - you might be dead". The last major change for me is quite a few years in the past so I'm looking for another one. However, I fear I'm in the wrong place - so far I've seen nothing but bluster.

Well, I'll stick around until I get bored :)

Anonymous Lurker below December 16, 2013 5:35 AM  

"And yet, I look around me and discover that my salary is about 60 times higher than it was 30 years ago, when foreign trade was pretty much non-existent. I also discover that, with a few exceptions, prices generally went down - or stayed the same, but the quality of the product is now much better. Given reality on one hand and gloomy predictions on the other, I can't help but prefer reality."

There's a logical fallacy right there. An anecdotal one. Try again. Btw you wouldn't happen to be a boomer would you?

Anonymous Lurker below December 16, 2013 5:41 AM  

"That the American army is now the best (USSR, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) and so on."

The American army is the best. America spends more than all those countries combined and obviously has much more experience to boot. Who you think is better.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 16, 2013 5:49 AM  

The Visigoths, Vikings and Huns (I don't know about the Haida) also had governments. In fact, I can't think of any anarchy that has conquered another country

I'm not talking about the raiders living in anarchy. I'm talking about you. If you don't have some sort of organizing agency to coordinate a defense, then you'll be prey to the organized brigands.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 16, 2013 5:54 AM  

This comment in all its glorious obtuseness...

Scoob, that's a hell of a thing to say when you follow it with one of the least parasble comments I've seen on this blog for quite some time.

Blogger Marcel December 16, 2013 5:58 AM  

@Lurker:

There's a logical fallacy right there. An anecdotal one.

I believe that theory is trumped by facts. I will grant you that data is trumped by more data. So, where are the many people whose salaries are lower because of free trade? Serious question, I really want to know.

Who you think is better.

Well, apparently all those I pointed out. Oh, and I forgot Canada.

Jack:

If you don't have some sort of organizing agency to coordinate a defense, then you'll be prey to the organized brigands.

I... don't see where I contradicted this. Of course I need defense. I just don't see the value of monopolies. Again, anecdotes, but so far every time I look at monopoly vs unregulated, the monopoly comes out the worse. I have many examples, even in the field of defense, where private agencies are much better than the state.

This has even been discussed around here, I believe. Evil (TM) corporation hiring mercenaries vs African government: who wins? Duh.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 16, 2013 6:04 AM  

@Marcel -- well I have to say, you get substantial points for charm, wit, and good humor. And that sort of stuff counts for a lot with me. Don't take my swipes personally; I do in fact think you're wrong about a great many things (based at least on what I've read to date) but simply being mistaken doesn't equate to being anything else so bad. Cheers, mate, pleasure sharing a blog thread with ya!

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 16, 2013 6:11 AM  

@Jack Amok -- well, guess I should apologize. Personally I think that remark is more like full of "density" than "unparsable, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so if you thought it was too much, I'll take your word for it. The truth is, I have a lot to say about the subject and what I think is complicated, so I didn't want to natter on endlessly detailing what I meant; I thought a quick remark would do, but probably I was wrong. The problem is, explaining what I meant in clarity and at length would take, um, quite a while, I'm guessing. We'll see how much life there is in this thread, maybe I'll be inspired to return to the subject and explain myself to your satisfaction. But maybe the caravan will just move on, who knows.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 16, 2013 6:16 AM  

I... don't see where I contradicted this. Of course I need defense. I just don't see the value of monopolies. Again, anecdotes, but so far every time I look at monopoly vs unregulated, the monopoly comes out the worse. I have many examples, even in the field of defense, where private agencies are much better than the state.

So you're not an anarchist then?

Blogger Marcel December 16, 2013 6:18 AM  

@scoobius - thank you, very gracious of you to say so :) I will admit that, as I said in my introductory post, it's much easier for me to not take things personally on this subject than it is if we were discussing religion :P

This subject is, to be honest, intellectual masturbation - a way to keep the "leetle gray cells" trained, as it were. I don't truly believe that there's a chance of me persuading others (never happened so far as I know, on any subject) and I doubt the opposite is much more likely.

But hey, miracles happen, you know? :)

Blogger Marcel December 16, 2013 6:19 AM  

@Jack: anarchist = I don't believe in governments. I think they are an UN-necessary evil. That doesn't mean I don't believe in self-defense; I just don't want it to be provided by a monopoly. I've had too many chances to see that monopolies are just bad.

Anonymous Lurker below December 16, 2013 8:03 AM  

"So, where are the many people whose salaries are lower because of free trade? Serious question, I really want to know."

Don't expect hand holding if you "really want to know". Hint: It's usually lower income service workers hit hard the most by free trade.

Ooops couldn't help hand holding - http://economyincrisis.org/content/why-free-trade-hurts-america

"Well, apparently all those I pointed out. Oh, and I forgot Canada."

No it wasn't apparent from the way the sentence was structured. But that's funny seeing how you have no "facts" to back up your claims. Nobody remotely honest and half way informed about the various armies around the world would agree with you claim. Oh yeah if it wasn't for the U.S. what do you think would have happened to Europe in WW2?

Hint: Acting pretentious is not a sign of intelligence.

Anonymous Lurker below December 16, 2013 8:18 AM  

"I believe that theory is trumped by facts."

Just in case you really believe that here's another article.

http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp147/

Free trade takes alot out of the US economy including the ability for US authorities to steer the US economy, remember the WTO is a foreign body. So its no surprise a foreigner would support it.

Blogger Marcel December 16, 2013 8:32 AM  

@Lurker

The article starts interesting enough: "to restrict that flow would have a devastating effect on many industries". (And consumers, of course, given that immediately before that it is pointed out that Americans mostly consume foreign goods.) So, restricting free trade = bad for consumers and bad for industries. Can't disagree with that.

Unfortunately, we're hitting smack in the middle of the Twilight Zone after that:

"On the other side of free trade, encouraging foreign manufacturers to produce in the U.S. creates a big defeat for us. For example, Ohio and Indiana competed to get a new Honda auto factory. Indiana succeeded. They gave Honda an $81 million enticement gift and other intangibles."

Here's a hint: the state interfering with commerce is the opposite of free trade. No matter - later on they take a short turn back to sanity:

"Most politicians are not willing to risk their political careers by saying we must take drastic action to the short-term detriment of many Americans..."

So restricting trade would be "to the short-term detriment of many Americans". Good. Can't disagree with that :)

"The result is that nearly 50 percent of all new cars now sold in this country are foreign."

And they work, unlike cars made in Detroit :) I guess that's a minus, huh?

"Our domestic auto manufacturers are consistently losing market share and teetering perpetually on default."

Only because the state keeps interfering with the market. They should have gone into bankruptcy long ago.

"Clearly, the group unquestionably damaged by “free trade” is the American industry in general."

Huh? This contradicts everything else said in this article. How did free trade damage the industry? By giving it cheaper, better cars? By increasing the productivity so much that one person can make 100 cars per year? Yeah, here come the Luddites, only this time they're not British.

"As a result the American middle-class that relies on American industry for employment and opportunity is being destroyed and falling further and further into debt."

Ah... I get it. Well, you know, Konrath has a great article about people who cling to the past. Why are those Americans relying on a threatened industry?

I will close with this gem:

"FTA’s are damaging America’s ability as a country to compete..."

Wow. Really? The argument is "we're so bad, we need protecting from the big bad nasty furriners"? Why didn't you say so in the first place? :)

Oh yeah if it wasn't for the U.S. what do you think would have happened to Europe in WW2?

Weird how the only example you can find is the one I explicitly called out in what I said about the Germans. Yes, the Americans contributed to winning WW2 - I will even grant that it was a decisive contribution. However, I don't think they managed that since then (I am not up to date to US history but I don't recall any war it has won since).

Also, I know what happened to Europe: instead of being relatively left alone by the Germans we were raped by the Russians. Good job! (Another anecdote: people of my grandparents' age told us nice stories about the Germans and ugly stories about the Russians. I am not very fond of Russians as a result.)

Hint: Acting pretentious is not a sign of intelligence.

Thank you. I will be sure to cherish that.

Anonymous LB December 16, 2013 8:51 AM  

"Weird how the only example you can find is the one I explicitly called out in what I said about the Germans."

What's so weird about it? It shows how powerful and instrumental American military might is. America could whip single handedly all the countries armies you mentioned minus the nukes from Russia. That's why the US is always called upon. You sound like one of those foreign correspondents I heard before the Iraqi invasion touting the strength of the Republican Guard and we know what happened there. You foreign guys are hilarious. Your position on American military might is laughable.

Anonymous Lb December 16, 2013 8:57 AM  

"All 50 states and the District of Columbia have experienced a net loss of jobs under NAFTA (see Table 2)."

and

The growth in U.S. trade and trade deficits has put downward pressure on the wages of workers without a college degree, especially those who have no formal education beyond a high school degree. This group includes most middle- and low-wage workers, including the 68.5% of the total workforce with the lowest pay, those earning a wage that is e
qual to 200% or less of poverty level wages in 2001 (Mishel et al. 2003, p. 134). In March 2000, the base year used for data, these workers earned wages of $16.93 or less per hour (See Appendix 1). These U.S. workers bear the brunt of the costs and pressures of globalization (Mishel et al. 2003, 181-89).

http://www.epi.org/publication/briefingpapers_bp147/

Keep reading Marcel. Your pretentiousness and obtuseness rooted in your foreignness will eventual crumble to facts you claim are stronger.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 16, 2013 9:00 AM  

"America could whip single handedly all the countries armies you mentioned minus the nukes from Russia."

Not after Obama and his crowd get finished purging the officer corps. Pretty soon the only people the American military will be able to whup (or more exactly, will be told to whup) will be, um, actual historical Americans.

Anonymous Lb December 16, 2013 9:04 AM  

"Not after Obama and his crowd get finished purging the officer corps."

This is sadly true but they are still a force to be reckoned with for now. America has always gone big. Have you seen cops in other countries compared to American cops? American cops are militarized and act badass (for now) While the Euro cops look no more in control than security guards with their whimpy cars and weak sirens and batons. And here is Marcel fooling himself that the military in Europe in more bad ass than America. LOL!

Blogger Marcel December 16, 2013 9:08 AM  

LB:

You keep using that word. I do not believe it means what you think it means.

All these examples show that some Americans are maladapted - "especially those who have no formal education beyond a high school degree". Which I'll grant you, but jumping from "stupid Americans are worse off because of free trade" to "free trade is bad for economy" is quite a leap.

Is that what you (plural you) are trying to say? The US has so many stupid people that it can't help but be worse off if there's competition?

And here is Marcel fooling himself that the military in Europe in more bad ass than America.

Ah. Reading problems, I get it. (I don't think I've mentioned Europe anywhere except to say that Ireland has some weird "locally produced" labels.)

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 16, 2013 9:16 AM  

"Is that what you (plural you) are trying to say? The US has so many stupid people that it can't help but be worse off if there's competition?"

Ouch, the stupid, it burns. Substitution of theory (and "logic") for what's actually going on. Human systems don't behave like say plumbing systems. Good grief.

Like they say: when it comes to warfare, only the amateurs talk about strategy and tactics. The professionals talk about the terrain.

Anonymous Lb December 16, 2013 9:18 AM  

"Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan." Yeah those countries are not Europe. But I stand by the facts nonetheless. And "Iraq" really? We bulldozed them twice. And that was with a rabid liberal press tying their hands.

"You keep using that word. I do not believe it means what you think it means.

All these examples show that some Americans are maladapted - "especially those who have no formal education beyond a high school degree". Which I'll grant you, but jumping from "stupid Americans are worse off because of free trade" to "free trade is bad for economy" is quite a leap."


What "word" are you talking about? As for the rest of your "paragraph" its an incoherent mess and yet you have the audacity to criticize some else's writing! It's obvious you are a leftard and neither an anarchist or libertarian. Your behaviour follows the same leftist pattern. Vox had you pegged and now you are just proving him right some more.


Anonymous Lb December 16, 2013 9:23 AM  

"Ouch, the stupid, it burns."

Scoobius do you understand what this guy is saying? It's like he doesn't even know how to converse in english. His "writing" resembles that gibberish you see in some spam emails.

Blogger Marcel December 16, 2013 9:27 AM  

@scoobius: hey, I just went by what the article said. Personally, I think it exaggerates the effect even for the less educated Americans, but you're the ones insisting on quoting it...

@Lb: What "word" are you talking about? Not a Princess Bride fan, huh?

It's obvious you are a leftard and neither an anarchist or libertarian.

Obviously!

(I haven't had this much fun in a long while. I think I need to get back to work though. Like Arnold, I'll be back.)

Anonymous Lb December 16, 2013 9:30 AM  

"The US has so many stupid people that it can't help but be worse off if there's competition?"

Project much? It's not even close to "competition" if you cared to really look into it. More like pillaging of the US economy for the benefit of foreigners and the global elite. It's no surprise someone of your background is unable and unwilling to grok that. Just shows how predictable you are.

Anonymous Lb December 16, 2013 9:33 AM  

"@Lb: What "word" are you talking about?"

Ok you know how to link to movie clips on Youbtube, I get that. You still haven't made a case for your WTO overlords yet.

Anonymous Lb December 16, 2013 9:37 AM  

"Like Arnold, I'll be back.)"

*Rolls eyes* Enough with the movie quotes. You better bring something substantive next time besides pretentiousness and links to Youtube or Vox will ban your azz.

Anonymous Lb December 16, 2013 9:54 AM  

"Obviously!"

Very. And like the mischievous child that takes delight in irritating the adults you will be "spanked" by Vox soon enough Marcel.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 16, 2013 12:08 PM  

@Scoob:

maybe I'll be inspired to return to the subject and explain myself to your satisfaction. But maybe the caravan will just move on, who knows.

The caravan probably passes. Maybe Vox will be moved to return to Free Trade again someday for a rollicking ol' comment thread.

@Jack: anarchist = I don't believe in governments. I think they are an UN-necessary evil.

Serious question Marcel. What country and decade did you spend your teenage years in?

Blogger Marcel December 16, 2013 1:57 PM  

@Jack: I never understood the reason for these questions. What would be different about what I wrote if the answers were "Mars" and "the 30s"?

Anyway: Romania (Eastern Europe), the 80s.

Anonymous kfg December 16, 2013 5:07 PM  

". . .l people of my grandparents' age told us nice stories about the Germans and ugly stories about the Russians."

My maternal great grandparents (one from Romania) told some ugly stories about the Russians as well. That's why they emigrated, to get away from them.

Not WWII, Partition of Poland II.

I always remember that the ostensible reason for WWII was to prevent Poland from being overrun by an aggressive dictator.

Job well done guys.

Blogger mcd December 16, 2013 6:39 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger mcd December 16, 2013 6:39 PM  

Phil, I commented there and I know what I'm talking about. She hadn't replied to me last I checked, though.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 16, 2013 7:29 PM  

I never understood the reason for these questions

Formative years influence our thinking. Growing up with Ceaușescu, you certainly come by your attitude to government honestly. I figured you were either Communist East Bloc in the 80's or ex-pat American from the 2000's.

Thanks,

OpenID simplytimothy December 16, 2013 7:55 PM  

Ace of Spades brings the awesome with this update http://ace.mu.nu/archives/345765.php#345765 on the CPlusEquality language and the FeministSoftareFoundation.

Blogger James Dixon December 16, 2013 8:36 PM  

> First an appeal to authority, and now question begging.

I made an appeal to authority? OK, if you say so. As for begging the question, it seems to me your the one assuming a proposition which requires proof without proof. I'm merely agreeing that we have little choice but to do so.

Blogger James Dixon December 16, 2013 8:54 PM  

> And yet, I look around me and discover that my salary is about 60 times higher than it was 30 years ago, when foreign trade was pretty much non-existent. I also discover that, with a few exceptions, prices generally went down - or stayed the same, but the quality of the product is now much better.

Lucky you. Strangely enough, the Consumer Price Index and inflation figures don't agree with you. The charts at http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Income-Distribution.php show that household income has been largely flat for the past 30 years except for the top 20% of households. Even the overall average has only gone up about 10%, as shown at http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php. And the table at http://www.minneapolisfed.org/community_education/teacher/calc/hist1913.cfm shows that prices have more than doubled in that time.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 16, 2013 9:10 PM  

"And yet, I look around me and discover that my salary is about 60 times higher than it was 30 years ago"

Funny thing, when I look around me, the main thing I notice is not what my salary is, or what the price of a can of beans is; what I mostly notice is that somehow I'm completely surrounded by hostile jabbering shit-colored foreigners who don't like me or my culture or my language or my religion or my history, but are weirdly very interested in living here and taking my stuff and raping my women. Salary issues sort of pale in comparison, I'm afraid.

Blogger mmaier2112 December 16, 2013 11:08 PM  

Well-said, Scooby.

Anonymous Scooby shat his big boy pants December 17, 2013 12:44 AM  

Interesting matter, as I look in my environment, I cannot help but admire the hard-working, English-speaking Hispanics in lawn care; appreciate the well-dressed black men and women at my Methodist church who are intimately involved in a wide range of community affairs; say "thank you" to the four Joo couple who have donated tens of thousands of dollars to the local food pantry; and refrain from curb stomping the transplanted southrons because they great pains to curb their natural inclination for barbarism.

Content of their character matters most in my neighborhood and in my country, most definitely.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 17, 2013 1:28 AM  

Oh great, here's this douchebag again.

Blogger Marcel December 17, 2013 3:46 AM  

@scoobius:

... what I mostly notice is that somehow I'm completely surrounded by hostile jabbering shit-colored foreigners...

Ah, we've always had those (gypsies). After a few hundred years, you get used to it. Just as we're used to the idea of the government listening to everyone, everywhere. (Anecdote time! A couple of years ago, an acquaintance from the spy service told me as a courtesy to make sure I completely destroy any sensitive document instead of just throwing it in the trash. It was a sort of a "oh, fyi, just in case you didn't think about it" :P)

OpenID tangurena December 17, 2013 2:18 PM  

>It should be readily apparent that once you've decided that X = !X, you have essentially doomed yourself by denying reality

Nah. This stuff is called "multivalued logic" or "fuzzy logic".

A simple example can be to take 3 bowls of water: the one on one side has ice in it, the one in the middle is room temperature and the third one has hot water in it. Put one hand in the cold water and the other hand in the hot water. Wait for 5 minutes. Take both hands and put them into the room temperature bowl. One hand will send signals that it is hot and the other that it is cold, yet both are in the same temperature water. How can a bowl of water be both hot and cold at the same time? That's just how humans work.

Computers can't work that way. The woman doing the "research" on "feminist logic" is going to need to look at PL/1 and various fuzzy logic languages. PL/1 is a grand example of a "Humpty Dumpty" programming language where nothing is a reserved word ("it means just what I choose it to mean") and if your program doesn't compile, it backs up and reinterprets what it thinks you were trying to ask it to do.

Blogger mike3 January 21, 2015 11:17 PM  

Thanks for showing that not only are you anti-feminism but you think that a lot of groups are INFERIOR and BAD.

"Members of non-European population groups will behave more like European population groups in European geographies than like non-Europeans in their original geographies."

How they behave is not an immutable quality, you BS racist.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts