Litlog2018++

wh, short 7--Do you understand law?

--






--
wh,
2017-11-12

Senna Jawa said:

--

Law which is not minimal means lawlessness.​

wh,
2017-11-12

Click to expand...

Strong writing forcing a reader to really think about law and your meaning

Have you read the gulag archipelago?

wh, short 1--a comment

todski28 said:

[...] on economy i do not understand, [...]

Click to expand...

Let me repeat my short 1:


This is at the fundament of the economy and financial system since the time the money was used. It's crucial to change it, it's long overdue (well, I got the full understanding only a year and a half ago, including the constructive solution). It's about the human race happiness and prosperity. (My solution is called knaB; it took me over 40 years).

As it is these days, the big money monsters make HUGE money without any constructive work whatsoever. The monsters which usually stay in the shadow control politicians and the so-called public opinion (they brainwash them). If these monsters were simply rich, it'd be ok, who cares, at least I am never envious of anybody of anything, let them. However, with their lazy operations, they cause the flow of arms worldwide, they surround themselves with parasitic armies of politicians and bureaucrats which make sure that regular people work for them, wasting a lot of constructive time, and these monsters cause tragedies, they are behind the so-called refugee crises, etc. They cause it, then they hypocritically call for help. These monsters control the Europen Union, they nearly control the American presidential election. This world is CHAOS hence in addition to the horrible flukes sometimes nice flukes happen too like the defeat of Hillary Clinton--what a relief. Her defeat (or rather her winning the Democratic nomination) was ironic but I don't want to go into it.

Somewhat visible but not much is Warren Buffet. Very visible and vicious is George Soros who now is supposedly 22' richest in the world. If you read his bio, he was able to make a billion or more within a day or a couple of days, just like this (and the whole Britain financial system was on its knees for a while). This gives you the idea that in fact, the easiest money is money. We had here on this forum a silly claim that great scientists/artists are rich. C'mon, they get peanuts even when on some occasions they are successful. And they really worked. But those monsters do TRIVIAL things when they manipulate money.

There is certain yin & yang, it's all even interesting, but again to write about it would take a bit more than a Litlog.

Observe that objectively, the human society is very rich, at least potentially. Not only monsters make good money (well, monsters make HUGE money, and first of all they control a lot) but, as a side effect, even some actors, tv personalities, artists, and sportsmen are very well off. A few years ago a boxing champ got 300 million dollars just for one fight. Check NBA, they have 30 teams, each having at least 10 players for a total of over 300 players, and there are others (e.g.coaches, agents, managers, referees,...) who make good money. Even sports reporters can make it big. You may check, while now I'd estimated that the over 300 NBA players make on average close to ten million per year. Very few regular folks make half a million during their whole life, and still much less just one million dollars during their whole life. A single NBA player makes in one year more than ten of Einsteins or regular folks during their entire life.

When it comes to sportsmen, let them! These sportsmen are not monsters who manipulate societies. Sportsmen do not put a pistol to any kibitzer's head, kibbitzers pay for the tickets on their own will. Nevertheless, the system is sick. The monsters and a bunch of people close to money (banks, financial institutions, insurance companies) make money fast and easy. The easiest money is money.

In a healthy society, the importance of money would be severely reduced, would be a hundred times less important than today. For instance, today, a capable engineer would go into managing just to make more money. It's sick!

wh, short 8--The democratic XXI century economy

--




--

Senna Jawa said:

Let me repeat my short 1:

The easiest money is money.​

This is at the fundament of the economy and financial system since the time the money was used. It's crucial to change it, it's long overdue (well, I got the full understanding only a year and a half ago, including the constructive solution). It's about the human race happiness and prosperity. (My solution is called knaB; it took me over 40 years).

As it is these days, the big money monsters make HUGE money without any constructive work whatsoever. The monsters which usually stay in the shadow control politicians and the so-called public opinion (they brainwash them). If these monsters were simply rich, and that's it, ok, who cares, at least I am never envious of anybody of anything, let them. However, with their lazy operations, they cause the flow of arms worldwide, they surround themselves with parasitic armies of politicians and bureaucrats which make sure that regular people work for them, wasting a lot of constructive time, and these monsters case tragedies, they are behind the so-called refugee crises, etc. They cause it, then they hypocritically call for help. These monsters control the Europen Union, they nearly control the American presidential election. This world is CHAOS hence in addition to the horrible flukes sometimes nice flukes happen too like the defeat of Hillary Clinton--what a relief. This defeat (or rather her winning the Democratic nomination) was ironic but I don't want to go into it.

Somewhat visible but not much is Warren Buffet. Vey visible and vicious is George Soros who now is supposedly 22' richest in the world. If you read his bio, he was able to make a billion or more within a day or a couple of days, just like this (and the whole Britain financial system was on its knees for a while). This gives you the idea that in fact, the easiest money is money. We had here on this forum a silly claim that great scientists/artists are rich. C'mon, they get peanuts even when on some occasions they are successful. And they really worked. But those monsters do TRIVIAL things when they manipulate money.

There is certain yin & yang, it's all even interesting, but again to write about it would take a bit more than a Litlog.

Observe that objectively, the human society is very rich, at least potentially. Not only monsters make good money (well, monsters make HUGE money, and first of all they control a lot) but, as a side effect, even some actors, tv personalities, artists, and sportsmen are very well off. A few years ago a boxing champ got 300 million dollars just for one fight. Check NBA, they have 30 teams, each having at least 10 players for a total of over 300 players, and there are others (e.g.coaches, agents, managers, referees,...) who make good money. Even sports reporters can make it big. You may check, while now I'd estimated that the over 300 NBA players make on average close to ten million per year. Very few regular folks make half a million during their whole life, and still much less just one million dollars during their whole life. A single NBA player makes in one year more than ten of Einsteins or regular folks during their entire life.

When it comes to sportsmen, let them! These sportsmen are not monsters who manipulate societies. Sportsmen do not put a pistol to any kibitzer's head, kibbitzers pay for the tickets on their own will. Nevertheless, the system is sick. The monsters and a bunch of people close to money (banks, financial institutions, insurance companies) make money fast and easy. The easiest money is money.

In a healthy society, the importance of money would be severely reduced, would be a hundred times less important than today. For instance, today, a capable engineer would go into managing just to make more money. It's sick!

Click to expand...

I haven't gotten this far in any of my attempts at thinking, economy is far above the peanuts I'm playing with, however I find no faults in your statements.

I'm at the moment contemplating a book called the great leveled by Walter Schiedel it documents economic inequality from the stone ages through to current times and discusses the effects of too much inequality within a society,

The male on male murder rate in societies that become too unequal jump by ridiculous margins

http://economichardship.org/archive...ng-murder-rates-income-inequality-and-respect

Which is reflective cross culturally more and more.

There is a lecturer I have been watching a lot lately that pointed out this book, and how it appears that once societies clear a certain tipping point it's only war, epidemics and pandemics, communist revolutions, complete economic collapse and total revolution that can reset the clock enough to start things up again

Political polarisation seems to pushing for either the first or last of these options...... it doesn't bode well from where I sit.

Especially when as it stands now the top 1% have half the world's wealth

todski28 said:

http://economichardship.org/archive...ng-murder-rates-income-inequality-and-respect

Click to expand...

I've read this article, thank you. Well, this is junk. (It's easy to show how muddy this article is--I can do it if you want me to do so).

Here are the four true intellectuals (Americans, three economists, and one a social specialist but VERY solid), from the oldest to the youngest one:

• Milton Friedman
• Thomas Sowell
• Walter E. Williams
• Larry Elder

But even the youngest one is already old. Actually, Milton Friedman got Nobel prize for the economy, was a Jew, was--because he's already dead for a longer time, so sad; the next three are all Black, all economists but the last one. All four are very nice, free of prejudices, open minded, free of political correctness, highly intelligent--authentically, not in a phony way.

They understand a lot, and--of course--they KNOW a lot. My erudition is next to nothing. Thus I am happy to learn from them. On the other hand, I have something unique, I have a POSITIVE program. People, even the above four are better at seeing the drawbacks of the existing situation, while their positive suggestions are not decisive. I guess me being a natural mathematician helps, to me mathematics is the art of thinking.

Anyway, all four of them easily identify the source of American poverty and high crime rate; it is fatherless families. And the economic reason behind it is the welfare economy which destroyed poorer families, especially black families.

Let me add that even in the case of elephants, due to the killings of male elephants for their tusks (ivory), the social fabric of elephant society is disrupted; the young elephants from fatherless families show the same criminal tendencies (violence and rapes) as in the case of human societies.

Todski, do yourself a favor, and read these four and compare them, if you like, with these other guys, see how many of those other are pompous, high impression making inferior brains. One of the big difference between the ones on a high level and the inferior ones is the CLARITY of arguments, C-L-A-R-I-T-Y.

Senna Jawa said:

I've read this article, thank you. Well, this is junk. (It's easy to show how muddy this article is--I can do it if you want me to do so).

Here are the four true intellectuals (Americans, three economists, and one a social specialist but VERY solid), from the oldest to the youngest one:

• Milton Friedman
• Thomas Sowell
• Walter E. Williams
• Larry Elder

But even the youngest one is already old. Actually, Milton Friedman got Nobel prize for the economy, was a Jew, was--because he's already dead for a longer time, so sad; the next three are all Black, all economists but the last one. All four are very nice, free of prejudices, open minded, free of political correctness, highly intelligent--authentically, not in a phony way.

They understand a lot, and--of course--they KNOW a lot. My erudition is next to nothing. Thus I am happy to learn from them. On the other hand, I have something unique, I have a POSITIVE program. People, even the above four are better at seeing the drawbacks of the existing situation, while their positive suggestions are not decisive. I guess me being a natural mathematician helps, to me mathematics is the art of thinking.

Anyway, all four of them easily identify the source of American poverty and high crime rate; it is fatherless families. And the economic reason behind it is the welfare economy which destroyed poorer families, especially black families.

Let me add that even in the case of elephants, due to the killings of male elephants for their tusks (ivory), the social fabric of elephant society is disrupted; the young elephants from fatherless families show the same criminal tendencies (violence and rapes) as in the case of human societies.

Todski, do yourself a favor, and read these four and compare them, if you like, with these other guys, see how many of those other are pompous, high impression making inferior brains. One of the big difference between the ones on a high level and the inferior ones is the CLARITY of arguments, C-L-A-R-I-T-Y.

Click to expand...

I have read some Sowell and Larry elder and agree with the single mother rate and social welfare system as well, it is part of my forming of ideas on masculinity and also the feminization of societies.

However I find myself seeing a need for a social welfare system, is all welfare merely a reward for the inability to apply oneself, or is it a foundation that can help the bottom of society, I can't help but seed a moral necessity for some form of safety net, there again morals and markets are alien concepts to me at the moment, so I speaking from a minimalistic knowledge

My thinking is muddy I always admit that because I am blundering around in the dark finding things by running into them, then blindly groping around trying to discern it's shape.

I have listened to Friedman's speech regarding freedom and equality and it is one of the most clear headed arguments against equality of outcome I have heard.

Universal Prosperity vs. Mathematics

An analysis of the social problem of achieving prosperity, when conducted on a high intellectual level, belongs to the Art of Thinking which means that it is a part of Mathematics--exactly.

People have a hard time to think about the Universal Prosperity just as they have a hard time to think about Mathematics.

Senna Jawa said:

An analysis of the social problem of achieving prosperity, when conducted on a high intellectual level, belongs to the Art of Thinking which means that it is a part of Mathematics--exactly. People have a hard time to think about the universal prosperity just as they have a hard time to think about Mathematics.

Click to expand...

I have never explored mathematics to any degree basically only started trying to think in the last 5-6 months beyond the little poetry I spit out, which is unedited and messy as hell

Just listened to this interview https://youtu.be/pH_9wNc5tBQ

I have basic minimal levels of maths ability have never experimented further than that. Maybe I should take a look into some online lectures on that.

I'm really erratic and scattered thinking I feel like a hyperactive dog chasing a million variables of frisbee I may be fracturing my own attempts and making things worse than better. But I see correlation between a lot of different elements it's frustrating and eye opening at the same time

todski28 said:

Just listened to this interview https://youtu.be/pH_9wNc5tBQ

Click to expand...

Todski, thank you, thank you a lot! A great interview! I passed it to FaceBook, with a note:


(End of quote).

wh, short 9--A chance for analogies

--

In a discussion,

an analogy has a chance to hold water
_ _ only in an absence of hostility.
​

--

wh,
years ago.

Senna Jawa said:

--

In a discussion,

an analogy has a chance to hold water
_ _ only in an absence of hostility.
​

--

wh,
years ago.

Click to expand...

Yet, in poetry? You seemed previously to believe that extreme hostility toward a poet whom you scarcely knew was a desirable and even repeatable offense. Well not offensive if it is only poetry? Which is offense against both poet and poetry.

cherries_on_snow said:

[...]

Click to expand...

Cherries, I've invited the whole PF&D to my Litlog, welcome. Have fun.

wh, "A chance for analogies"--a comment.

I don't know the original author of the saying:


A friend of mine used to quote it on many occasions. Obviously, it was a paradox and not simply truth. This made me think. We all know that analogies are useful, that they help to understand by illustrating a problem in a similar but different situation. This is why analogies are useful--looking at a different problem might help.

Thus, analogies are useful except in a hostile atmosphere; and again, once more, because they address a different case. A hostile participant of a discussion will stress the difference, thus killing the usefulness of the analogy. The whole idea of an analogy is, when possible, to neglect the difference instead of stressing it.

***

It's another story that many analogies are poor, are not real analogies; however, there are plenty of wonderful analogies which educate people. In my saying I used a bit of a poetic license. My more mundane formulation (which I have used in the past) would be:


while my version above is more fun. Oh, well...

I've done my share of airline commuting

A mathematician had to explain themselves ( ) in a court why they always carry a bomb with them when traveling by plane.

They said that they are afraid of a terrorist bomb exploding when they travel. They explained that the chance of it is very small. Nevertheless, they carry their own bomb just in case because of a chance of two bombs exploding on a plane is then still dramatically smaller.


***

Senna Jawa said:

Cherries, I've invited the whole PF&D to my Litlog, welcome. Have fun.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

https://youtu.be/ti2bVS40cz0

https://youtu.be/lmZmDNRDb2c

https://youtu.be/G1Jx3oV8a_U

https://youtu.be/4vJruAT3oBg

https://youtu.be/FtgKRpjVXSg


I dunno if any of my darker of non specific erotic poetry regarding there being no consent will soon be targeted as being too offensive for some women to read

will our right to write be next???

Remeber the precedent..... context doesnt fucking matter anymore other peoples feelings do.

The canaries in the coal mine are starting to die, we need to wake the fuck up.......

Political correctnes is there to protect peopl........e maybe it was but the best intentions are starting to oave the road to hell.

when the state becomes a tool of power for the weakest and most fragile, then we have no choice but to be dragged down to their level at the end of a gun.

It is over, Todd. Breathe.

cherries_on_snow said:

It is over, Todd. Breathe.

Click to expand...

Truthfully its only beginning

Easy to sneer at the sensational when its miles away but the peoblem with naieve assuptions that everyone is after everyone elses best interests is what moves things toward a more sensational end.

Read a book called

A Few Good Men

I dont know how many of the clips you happened to watch, but who are the people predominantly "not politically correct" that wpuld in large part be men and young boys... which I guess means stuff all to you.

And this bullying from the governments lead too...... civil wars and murders

wh, short 4+5+7 - a commentary

Art of Agreement, or AoA for short, should be taught since kindergarten. Indeed, the three (just three) cornerstones of a harmonious and prosperous society are:

• Art of Agreement;
• Education;
• Philanthropy.

where the last two have to be done in the spirit of AoA. But who's going to teach AoA? Oh, well... (EdRooms would be a great start!).

Let's signal some of the axioms of AoA (there are more):

• meta-views
• simplicity
• directness
• minimality
• decentralization

etc.

Let's start with the views (short 4+5). There are a lot of prejudices, and--on the other hand--many people don't like this or that or another prejudice. OK, these are the views and you're entitled to both kinds of them. They are not nice but this is not an end of the world. The real harm happens when your views blind you, be it a prejudice or an anti-prejudice, i.e. when people violate the meta-view, namely TOLERANCE.

Next, let's pass to minimality (short 7). A British comedian has presented a video on Youtube. I didn't spend much time on it. The video was somewhat shocking but so what, so I was shocked, no big deal. Indeed, the main character was a cute dog, and some highly unpleasant sounding phrases were flying around.

Then something truly awful happens. The righteous idiots sentence the comedian...

There was no reason what so ever to involve LAW. This was and is TRUE LAWLESSNESS.

Now the comedian mentions his girlfriend, etc. There was no reason to mention anything. The court was 100% wrong without any explanations.

This kind of righteous damage, here and in general, is not something of an isolated effect. It induces right away, in each case, a lot more of further damage.

Once you start to PERSECUTE people for being simply themselves, as ugly as they may be or not, you're the UGLY one. People will defensively join the persecuted party, they will get radicalized, etc. Then the persecutors will get more active (enthusiastic ), and there is NO END TO IT. Once tolerance is missing people get ugly.

On the top of it, people select conflicts in a quite chaotic way. They should zero on important things but they get manipulated into conflicts but those who can afford to manipulate. And manipulate they do!

The British comedian and his dog make for a great metaphor.

Apropos, just in case. I am sensitive to the issues casually touched by the said video. I am a Jew (or of Jewish descent, not religious, not at all, not even an agnostic nor an atheist ). Most of my family was murdered by Germans during WWII, I was exposed to antisemitism (and to anti-Polish prejudice) even in the US, ... Prejudices are no big deal, a lack of tolerance--IS.

It follows that LAW must be minimal to be called so. There should be no notions in the law like "hate crime", and similar legal nonsense. Law should not talk about race, religion, etc. For instance, the notion of religion is too vague to start with, it cannot be sufficiently clearly described or delineated. Of course, lawyers and politicians and bureaucrats love all kind of notions and pseudo-notions, that's how they make their living, and a good living it is (vomit).

Law should mention as crimes only things like killing, raping, injuring, threating criminally, invading someone space, intimidating criminally, etc. -- law should NOT talk about races, religions, etc. we are simply people in the eyes of law.

An explanation (of criminally): when you say that you're an author of 20 published poetry collections then possibly you are intimidating (or trying to ) some other poets but it is not a criminal intimidation. But when you shove a fist under someone's nose and asking them to smell your fist then this most likely is criminal.

Also, when you say that you will write a better poem than the other Literotian then this would be a threat but not a criminal threat. Even when you say: repeat what you said and you'll look extremely stupid--this is a threat but not a criminal threat. On the other hand, when local guys in New Mexico promised to burn me and other gringos in our houses when we were asleep then it was indeed a threat of criminal nature. It was in Las Vegas (New Mexico). No, I didn't lose any sleep.

"dve gitary", lyrics in Russian & English.

You may find dozens of great renditions of "dve gitary". Click on Youtube again and again. Here are the lyrics:


Enjoy.

Define persecute, please? If someone who was attacked confronts her attackers, is that persecution? Is that not just normal human resilience?

cherries_on_snow said:

Define persecute, please? If someone who was attacked confronts her attackers, is that persecution? Is that not just normal human resilience?

Click to expand...

From my understanding the discourse is fine, the physical violence is not. If you want to argue and tell someone they are a dick for what they've done you are within your rights if you attempt further than discourse then you are commiting assault if violence is amped up to physicality then its battery as per standard law and the same in reverse if violence is committed against the accuser then they would be protected by the law

From what I can tell

Persecute is defined by the violent act itself..... i.e. jail is the violence for a distasteful joke, but aside from feelings being hurt what other physical damage was there?

Confront all you want but there is always a line before physical violence and severe threats of violence. Tolerance permits a person to be of a contrary view or opinion despite how much it offends so long as their view is not being forced on others. I.e. were you forced to watch the vid of the guy making the nazi jokes with the pug? You had the ability to turn off or click away to avoid further offence if that's how you viewed it.

The grey area is always other peoples tolerance to words. I've been stabbed and almost stabbed over words.

But to legally enforce fragility is dangerous to the nth degree.

To be able to think and speak clearly you need to be able to risk offending people even if it is to be told you are wrong which we all need at times to derail our own echo chamber and to be able to confront our own personal biases.The ability to be able to have your speech and views criticized is the only way free society can stay free.

Identify politics leads to fascism

Speech control and thought policing leads to fascism and communism, both kill millions of their own citizens.
So by view of histories staggering death toll both are not desired outcomes.

But what would I know I just a thinking ape at best.

Maybe Senna can elaborate further.

cherries_on_snow said:

Define [...]

Click to expand...

I said:

Thus you already had an answer to your questions. (OK, have another look ).

About freedom of speech, law, violence, ... (a discussion)

todski28 said:

From my understanding the discourse is fine, the physical violence is not. If you want to argue and tell someone they are a dick for what they've done you are within your rights if you attempt further than discourse then you are committing assault if violence is amped up to physicality then its battery as per standard law and the same in reverse if violence is committed against the accuser then they would be protected by the law

Click to expand...

Certain impositions, not literally physical (perhaps psychological, and I mean truly psychological, not any popular nonsense), still should be considered criminal. For instance, when certain folks sit on a bus on one bench while other, say, bad guys like racists, sit on another, and they make nasty faces--that's clearly not nice but perhaps such is life, tough luck, a public bus is not a rose garden. Next stage, if bad guys say some things loudly then they disturb the public peace, which should be punishable. And if they get out to confront the peaceful folks, when ugly guys say nasty things straight to the peaceful passengers then ugly guys act seriously criminal, even if they use polite language (rude language would make it still worse). HOWEVER, the offensive party should be punished only on the general principles of disturbing other people, and not on any legal nonsense like "hate crime". Hate crime is a proper topic for discussions, for social studies, etc. but not for LAW.

BTW, if some passengers persistently impose on others in the seemingly most polite way against the other party's wishes, then possibly the imposing party is still acting criminally depending on the scale of imposition. Sometimes courts might decide about the borderline. But courts should never talk about "hate crime". For instance,

todski28 said:

From what I can tell

Persecute is defined by the violent act itself.....

Click to expand...

Just in case, let me mention something obvious, that the persecution notion includes repetition over some time. either a single person is persecuted i.e. repeatedly treated unfairly over some time, or a group of people or even an activity/idea may be persecuted but always, by definition, it has to happen repeatedly over some time; e.g. the usage of one's own language can be persecuted, or participating in education, etc.

todski28 said:

[...] a distasteful joke, but aside from feelings being hurt what other physical damage was there?

Click to expand...

Indeed, there should be a wide and tolerant margin for allowing for subjectivity, bad taste, limited rudeness (when it's not clearly harmful), etc. This kind of margin is necessary for a healthy society. The real harm comes from interfering legally or administratively with the said margin. Otherwise, if you have to or if you stupid then yes, by all means, fight with that margin within the legal means risking a huge waste of time and energy.

For decent people there is one and only one commandment though:

todski28 said:

The grey area is always other peoples tolerance to words. I've been stabbed and almost stabbed over words.

Click to expand...

This is a result of certain immaturity; entire regions and cultures are immature this way. The respective soccer World Cup match between France and Italy can serve as a symbol. France was a favorite but French star was immature hence France lost the match.

todski28 said:

To be able to think and speak clearly you need to be able to risk offending people [...]

Click to expand...

You have to!

Regards,