In an example of unparalleled hubris, Iraqi officials are demanding that the United States apologize and pay $1 billion for the damage done to the city. Officials are complaining that the blast walls installed by the U.S. to protect the public are ugly and that Humvees and vehicles have caused damage in patrolling the city and fighting insurgents.
The city released a statement saying “The U.S. forces changed this beautiful city to a camp in an ugly and destructive way, which reflected deliberate ignorance and carelessness about the simplest forms of public taste . . . Due to the huge damage, leading to a loss the Baghdad municipality cannot afford . . . we demand the American side apologize to Baghdad’s people and pay back these expenses.”
For those of us who opposed the war in Iraq, this is a particularly maddening moment. We continue to lose lives and billions in public funds as our states sell off parks, buildings, and cut critical programs. We have wasted billions of dollars in Iraq with little or no evidence of where money has gone.
In Afghanistan, we have a corrupt president who repeatedly states that he prefers the Taliban and views the United States as an enemy. Karzai also sought to tax U.S. contractors supporting his government and a bailout for his banks.
Yet, we continue to assume towering losses because our leaders are unwilling to take personal responsibility to pull us out of these countries. Rather than risk political backlash, President Obama and others allow our military personnel to die every day for countries that are increasingly openly hostile to us. This is becoming a truly Felliniesque farce.
Source: Reuters
Jonathan Turley
You haven’t been willing to put your “work” to the test by defending it from valid logical criticism, so until you “put it to the test”/”pull a magic rabbit out of your . . . hat”, your work is still crap pseudo-science founded upon circular logic, made up definitions, lies, appeals to religion and distortions of history, law, psychology and sociology and appeals to your inappropriate authority.
You made an assertion, I logically destroyed your assertion and you replied with a bunch of nanny-nanny-boo-boo and evasion.
Put up or shut up, troll boy.
Because if your work cannot withstand my onslaught – which it hasn’t absent a cogent rebuttal on your part – it sure as Hell isn’t going to survive peer review as science.
The path of perpetual evasion is the tactic of propagandists and cowards.
RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 20, 2011 at 10:06 am
“I know you are but what am I” is not a cogent defense of your “work”, windbag.
Boldface type doesn’t change that.
####################################
My use of bold italic was not for emphasis, but merely to identify the words I wrote from yours, while intermingling my comment words among your prior comment words.
Went to church, just got back home. One church member is a retired Cook County Employee who just recently joined AFSCME as a retired county employee, and told how to similarly join AFSCME. First thing in the morning, I get to call the Cook County Board to arrange membership. Then I get to volunteer as a scientific strategy adviser.
My brother, J. Don Harris, Ph.D. did his sociology doctorate on grass roots organizations. He indicated before he died from cancer in 1987 that I was the only person he knew who understood his thesis and dissertation.
At the Rally in Green Bay, yesterday, I observed some of the AFSCME people making the sort of strategic mis-steps that tend to damage grass roots organizations. I know and understand how to do better.
At church, some members expressed concern for the future safety of representative democracy in the U.S.A. I share their concern, and, furthermore, have a very clear, well-evaluated method for improving the citizen protest effectiveness.
What I know or don’t know may, if things work as I believe may be possible, soon no longer be a matter of mere sincere opinion.
I am putting my work to the test, the test not being merely someone’s super-educated personal opinion. If it be not practical, it be not engineering.
Thank you.
“I know you are but what am I” is not a cogent defense of your “work”, windbag.
Boldface type doesn’t change that.
RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 20, 2011 at 2:16 am
In this response effort, I shall use bold italics for my responses, as here illustrated to identify my writing from yours, and shall end each of my writings as this one is ended, with my initials (jbh_) thus –jbh
I’m not trying to sell you anything, troll boy. Only to discredit your nonsense. Which I’ve done without any substantive challenge from you. You’ve been presented – repeatedly – with logical and factual flaws to your “work” which you have failed to address. Evasion . . . that old troll standard.
I have repeatedly mentioned the fallacy of assuming the consequent as one of your diversiform tactics. I observe that you put forth an “argument” regarding myself and my work and purport that your “argument” is not about me or my work, but is only about those my work may lead to consider a viewpoint not in total accord with your viewpoint. I find that the flaws you observe in my work are actually constructs in the form of interpretations you make regarding the nature of nature and the nature of human nature, and I further find that your apparently-espoused interpretations you make of such aspects of nature deny the existence of the diversity of nature which from which your personal view is inseparable.
There are multiple systems of logic in use, many of which are grounded in inaccurate recognition of subtle violations of the four laws (identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle for dichotomies, and rational inference) of intelligible thought.
I find you espoused views contain some of the most common of such subtle errors which I have observed. I further find that your system of logic as I observe it here espoused as theory-in-use is cognitively astute beyond criticism and affectively riddled with horrendous disconnects of the form that, in my work, is of catastrophic-intensity thwarted freeze discharge neurological brain states, such states being forms, according to what I have so far come to understand, of the nature of focal affective catatonic stupor as described by Nick Cummings in, e.g. his book, Focused Psychotherapy. During the three years when I lived with some of the most severely mentally ill people I expect ever to encounter, this biophysical neurological process was always what I found as the brain biology of those folks diagnosed mental disorder label descriptor.
In no person I have ever encountered either directly or in the psychology/psychiatry case history literature, is anyone able to have conscious awareness of this thwarted freeze discharge brain state because that brain state is exactly what, while it persists, perfectly blocks conscious awareness of the thwarted freeze discharge condition from conscious awareness.
Your repeated stating that I have not answered your criticisms is possible, given my having offered multiple and diverse biophysical refutations, only as a manifestation of the sort of thwarted freeze discharge condition which I here further amplify in description, I find nearly perfect as a case history illustration of how intense the disconnect of such a thwarted freeze discharge condition can sometimes become. –jbh
I don’t give a damn whether you stop or not.
I choose to substitute for your epithetic word one more gentle in my mind, to wit, “whit.” With that word substitution, I, within myself, give every whit possible about you because I am unable to care about other people and unable to care without regard to any persons actual circumstances or situation. Perhaps this is near the center of our so-called dispute; it is your view, I surmise, that a person who is as I am is, for whatever imagined reason, impossible. If that be the contrast between our sense of reality and nature, the refutation is my mere existence, a fact which your existential model will also deem impossible if your actual existential model is sufficiently similar to my present model of it. If that be true, you will automatically, and unconsciously reject this paragraph in like manner to everything I deem of consequence which I have ever written. –jbh
Because I don’t tire of discrediting trolls.
Your apparent delusion that I am, in any Internet-undesirable sense, a “troll” is a prima facie instance of your methodology of using the fallacy of assuming the consequent. In what may be noteworthy contrast, I don’t tire of learning about child abuse and its consequences, and especially its consequences which take the form of thwarted freeze discharge brain states, and I do not tire because child abuse is the most terrible aspect of the human condition I have ever encountered. –jbh
I find it endlessly amusing. Ask any of the regular contributors. They will confirm this fact.
I find your experiencing what I write and similar aspects of deeply caring human agape love to be of unresolved profound personal tragedy within your life and life experiences. I work to end such tragedies as actually exist in every person capable of ending tragedies through effective resolution of them, and truly effective resolution, in my experience to date, invariably involves total rejection of the Adversarial Process. –jbh
As to your resume? Just more proof you’re not qualified for your “work”. And I don’t give a damn if your brother was a sociologist – that doesn’t make you a sociologist. What you’ve claimed to be is a bioengineer – a field which is neither law nor psychology nor sociology. Here’s a hint, windbag, if you’re going to keep appealing to your own authority? It should be appropriate authority at a bare minimum.
To a true believer, there can never be any evidence which can refute the true believer’s true belief(s); that is the nature and the definition of both “true believer” and “true belief” in the “true believer” sense as may make sense to one who is not, in such sense a “true believer” believing the “true belief.” What distinguishes a “true believer” from other people is the unshakable “true belief” of the “true believer” who, in order to retain the “true belief” needs to maintain that all contrary beliefs are false beliefs in spite so believing to itself be objectively false. Thus, you, to the extent the following conflicts with your “true belief” system, surely will reject the following before it can touch you in any meaningful way whatsoever.
1. As a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, in accord with my professional competence as a Professional Engineer, I understand engineering to be properly and usefully defined as “The solving of practical problems, efficiently, economically, and effectively, using scientific principles.
2. As a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, in accord with my professional competence as a Professional Engineer, I understand bioengineering to be engineering applied to the phenomenon of life.
3. As a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, in accord with my professional competence as a Professional Engineer, I regard the phenomenon of life to be usefully regarded as being comprised of all that usefully deemed alive and its entire substrate.
4. As a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, in accord with my professional competence as a Professional Engineer, I regard the phenomenon of life as deemed alive to be totally inclusive of all that which that deemed alive is and does.
5. As a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, in accord with my professional competence as a Professional Engineer, I find that all living humanity is an aspect of that of the phenomenon of life which I regard as being deemed usefully alive, such that all that humans do, as individuals and as groups of individuals of any size up to and including all living humans, is of that of humanity usefully deemed alive and therefore all that living humans do is properly a field of inquiry for bioengineering research.
6. As a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, in accord with my professional competence as a Professional Engineer, I find that each and every living human brain is a proper subset of all humans and and all humanity, and all of what human brains are and what human brains do is are proper fields of inquiry for bioengineering research.
7. As a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, in accord with my professional competence as a Professional Engineer, I find that Wisconsin law, statutes, and regulations allow valid critiquing of the work of a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer be of and from another Professional Engineer no less competent in the field of engineering of the engineer whose work has come under engineering criticism. Furthermore, as a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, in accord with my professional competence as a Professional Engineer, I find it improper for you, BiL to critique my bioengineering work except as you can demonstrate your actual standing as a Professional Engineer no less competent in bioengineering than am I.
8. As a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, in accord with my professional competence as a Professional Engineer, I find that, as an activity of humanity and as an activity of human brains, the entire realm of human-made law is totally and absolutely within the lawful, legal, and scientifically appropriate realm and purview of bioengineering as a Professional Engineering Discipline, whereas the entire realm of human made law within the framework of the Adversarial Principle is all but virtually excluded from the entire realm and purview of professional bioengineering; and is so merely for being a plausibly minuscule aspect of the entire realm and purview of bioengineering as a field of scientific inquiry.
9. As a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, in accord with my professional competence as a Professional Engineer, I find that the definition of bioengineering here contained in these twelve enumerated and grouped “paragraphs” is inextricably circular because all definitions are inextricably circular when constrained to the realm of connotation; every word in every dictionary which defines all the words in the dictionary is inescapably a work of circular self-reference.
10. As a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, in accord with my professional competence as a Professional Engineer, I find that there appears to me to be not one widely accepted law dictionary in which all the words used are defined within the law dictionary; in this regard, all the law dictionaries of recent publication I have found are not proper dictionaries in any valid linguistic sense which I have yet been able to identify, for, in using many words without clearly stated legal definitions, the “correct” interpretation of legal words is impossible of attainment, resulting in the practice of adversarial law, based on law dictionaries now recent and extant, appears to me to be an exercise of serious deceptive subterfuge.
11. As a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, in accord with my professional competence as a Professional Engineer, I find that there already is a practical and pragmatic alternative to the Adversarial Principle, and it is well known to those whose field is scientific psychology. That practical and pragmatic alternative is the Affirmational Principle, which is more commonly known within the concept of Authoritative Reciprocity; whereas the Adversarial Principle tends to generate Authoritarian Passive-Aggressive social structures. Thus, what I suggest as a wisely chosen replacement for the Adversarial Principle is already well known and understood outside the field of the biologically-obsolete Adversarial System of Adversarial-System-Purported Jurisprudence.
12. Being both a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer and a member of the ordained clergy (my dad and his mom and dad were all ordained clergy members), the Wisconsin implementation of the legal principle of the Tarasoff Decision mandates that I report child sexual abuse, and clergy groups have recommended that clergy report all child abuse. In my pastoral counseling work, done in full accord with each other within the common boundaries of professional engineering and pastoral counseling, I have done pastoral counseling with diverse people, including one or more adults who were sexually abused as children and who have, as adults, spoken openly in formal public presentations, including one or more held under the auspices of the Door County chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (formerly the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, founded in Madison, Wisconsin). I reported to the Madison, Wisconsin Police Department my understanding of child abuse and have records from the Madison Police Department of my so reporting my understanding. I was allowed to make my report without being charged with obstructing an officer. That is a curious thing indeed, for, had the Madison Police Department, to whom I showed my P.E. Credential Certificate, regarded me as providing false information to them, they were bound by law to charge me with obstruction. Now, to continue with this definition of my work after the end of this sentence, please go to paragraph 1. so that this definition of my work will properly qualify as a valid dictionary definition in the sense that there are no words here used not to be found on one or another dictionaries which define all the words therein. –jbh(/i>
Plus, you’ve gotten all the sympathy out of playing the autism card you’re going to get, sport. Quite frankly, I think you’re a borrowed identity and not autistic in the slightest. You’re a bullshit artist, but there is nothing wrong with your language skills. Other than the foul antisocial, anti-legalism, anti-Constitutional, pro-tyranny use you choose to them to propagate.
I seek no sympathy for myself, I have neither need nor use for sympathy. Empathy, on the other hand, may be of some use. You are entitled to your beliefs as opinions without limitation on my part, but only to such extent as you impose them on yourself alone. I impose no beliefs on anyone, I merely describe, as my use of words allows, some of what I find I have learned while living my life, and leave it to whoever comes upon anything I do, in writing or else, to decide in accord with conscience of what use, if any, what I have done and shared may have.
I find great merit in having and granting empathy for and to abused children, as for and to abused children who have become of adult age.
I have searched for an opportunity to report to society my finding as to what is the real cause of child sexual abuse, and you, BiL, appear to have finally helped provide this critically necessary opportunity, though I regard the main credit as being properly accorded to Professor Jonathan Turley by his allowing me to share my concerns as a Registered Professional Engineer through his legal theory blawg.
If not rejected through pure prima facie prejudice, as I find you, BiL are incessantly doing, my work hangs together quite flawlessly with everyone with whom I have been permitted to share it in adequate detail.
I duly note that, among the professions licensed in Wisconsin, I have thus far found but two licensed professions which are bereft of significant external statutory oversight, one being that of lawyers and the other being clergy.
By being both of clergy and Professional Engineering and by doing the clergy work only within the boundaries of Professional Engineering, I have brought my work as an ordained member of the clergy within the boundaries of state-licensed-and-regulated professionals.
Because I am a mandatory reporter, by law, of child sexual abuse, and because I observed the mechanism which drives child sexual abuse while working in Pediatric Cardiology at Cook County Children’s Hospital for something like 25 years, and because, until now, my being autistic as I am precluded my finding words to share my understanding of the social mechanism which demonstrably drives child sexual abuse, I am reporting the abuse mechanism at the earliest time I find myself plausibly capable of reporting it.
In the peer-patients with whom I lived during 1986 – 1991, as reported in my doctoral dissertation, I observed the effects of the coercive indoctrination of the Adversarial Principle in children, when a child was particularly resistant to the indoctrination, finally took the form of sexual abuse because nothing less was sufficiently catastrophically terrorizingly shattering as to complete the indoctrination process.
Therefore, as a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, in accord with my professional competence as a Professional Engineer, I herewith report my finding to the effect that the root cause of child abuse and particularly sexual child abuse is none but the Adversarial Principle and what it takes to inculcate it in a child whose resolve is to avoid, for as long as possible, the brain shattering abuse of internalizing the Adversarial Process.
I am a whistle blower, and I AM HEREWITH BLOWING THE WHISTLE ON THE ADVERSARIAL PRINCIPLE. i AM HEREWITH BLIWING THE WHISTLE ON THE ROOT CAUSE OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE. GIVEN THE WORLDWIDE REACH OF THE INTERNET, IT IS MY EXPECTATION THAT MY WHISTLE-BLOWING MAY BE HEARD ROUND THE WORLD AND PERHAPS BEYOND!
The attorney mentioned in an earlier comment of mine who I asked, “How many laws are there?” and who answered, “I don’t know.” and who I subsequently asked, “What is the law?” and who answered, “I don’t know,” is Mark A. Jinkins of the Pinkert Law Firm, LLC, in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. His State Bar of Wisconsin Member ID is 1010893.
The State Bar of Wisconsin information about Mark A. Jinkins was, a few minutes go, found at:
http://www.wisbar.org/am/template.cfm?section=lawyer_directory&template=/customSource/lawyerdirectory/newresdetails.cfm&id=1010893
BiL, you ask for proof, so I herewith begin to name names, doing so in the interest of public safety and particularly in the interest of doing my part to bring to an end the horrifying terrors of child sexual abuse by telling of what is its real cause as fact of science.
Mark A Jinkins is the attorney my wife and I consulted to put together our wills and family trust arrangement, the better to protect our daughter from further ravages of the Adversarial System of Jurisprudence. Mark A. Jinkins and I are both members of Hope United Church of Christ, Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. His wife, Ann Jinkins, has served in the office of the Moderator of Hope Church.
I find absolutely no fault with Mark A. Jinkins in any way whatsoever, I find him totally, absolutely, and perfectly innocent of any wrongdoing, and I regard him as among the most beautifully honest people I have yet known. Nonetheless, the Adversarial Principle so so subtle and deceptive as to be able to capture and captivate even the very finest and most worthy of people.
In the same manner and for the same reason and purpose, I find no fault with you, BiL, whoever you may be.
Of course, there is the concern that Mark A. Jinkins may find my writing as I have here done actionable. I take that risk, for the sake of the children of the world. –jbh
If you make an assertion in this forum, you should be prepared to back it up substantively. Why? Because assertions will be challenged here whether you like it or not. People interested in facts and logic as well as law tend to do that sort of thing. Again, if you don’t like being challenged, go to a Koch Bros. run forum. I’m sure they’ll welcome your tyranny inducing nonsense there.
<b?My being so prepared being now demonstrated –jbh
Disprove the following or you’re simply going to remain a troll standing on a base of nonsense and lies:
Disputes arise as a normal course of action in the interaction between humans and with their environment.
The options for dispute resolution are 1) self-help – which can and often does result in violence or 2) a process by where rules and laws are applied to reach an equitable and just solution. Because disputes by their very nature are adversarial – with one party taking one position and the second another position – the process of dispute resolution must reflect that reality or the result is tyranny by fiat. Due process is the process due to citizens by the system in following rules meant to protect them from either individual or state sponsored tyranny. Procedural due process in the adversarial mode is a necessary component of good and just government.
Options for dispute resolution now also includes recognizing that the apparent presence of a dispute was a delusion. –jbh
Dispute resolution has been a key function of government since the invention of government because it prevents the anarchy of self-help.
Anarchy is antisocial and anti-civilization because it is inherently unstable and civilizations require stability for contiguous existence.
Primitive Anarchy, which may be the only form of anarchy of which you are yet aware surely is as you describe. There is another form of anarchy which is entirely the opposite of what you describe and it is the anarchy of an informed person who lives fully in accord with an undamaged, uncorrupted conscience. –jbh
A stance that undermines due process in the adversarial mode is a stance that invites the anarchy of self-help and the tyranny of the strong over the weak.
A stance which replaces the horror of the root cause of child sexual abuse with intact, uncorrupted conscience is the antithesis of the tyranny of the strong over the weak, a tyranny which I find you have fabulously exemplified through your comments regarding my bioengineering research and research findings –jbh
Since anarchy and tyranny are both antisocial behaviors, they are inherently bad for society and civilization.
Since your “work” centers on undermining due process in the adversarial mode, it invites the anarchy of self-help and the tyranny of the strong over the weak.
Ergo, your “work” is inherently antisocial, anti-civilization and anti-legalism.
It is my observation that my work is pro-social beyond your yet attained power of imagination. –jbh
Not only is your “work” antisocial, anti-civilization and anti-legalism, you attempt to cloth it in a veneer of science – poorly – as your arguments rely upon circular logic, made up definitions and ultimately appeals to religion instead of what good science requires – which is observation, sound reasoning, verifiable and testable hypotheses and facts being given precedence over beliefs.
It is perfectly reasonable to attribute the motive of seeking lawless and tyranny to your “work” as manifested by your words. This, consequently and accurately, shows your “work” in its proper light. Namely as inherently antisocial, anti-civilization and anti-legalism drivel.
This raises the question of why someone would want to undermine one of the cornerstones of civilization.
One reason for wanting to undermine one of the obsolete cornerstones of civilization is its being purely antithetical even to civilization itself. Another is the prevention of child sexual abuse through recognizing its real cause. Another is the ending of war-mongering through recognizing its real cause.–jbh
The answer is they have a vested interest in seeing lawlessness and tyranny.
I have a vested interest in ending child sexual abuse by bringing its root cause to public awareness, and my vested interest is the actual safety of children. -jbh
Which makes you a propagandist for the enemies of law and justice.
OR NOT! jbh
When taken as a whole, your “work” is logically insufficient garbage as science with a clear agenda that is inherently antisocial, anti-civilization and anti-legalism. Since egalitarianism – so embedded in our Constitution from the words “We the People” forward – requires liberty and justice for all and your agenda and “work” is squarely against both liberty and justice, your work is also anti-Constitutional.
You, Brian, are an antisocial, anti-civilization, anti-legalism and anti-Constitutional propaganda troll with an interest in undermining the rule of law, equity and justice.
I find you do self-imago projection with stunning effect. -jbh
Which brings us back to motive.
Why would someone lie and obfuscate to undermining the rule of law, equity and justice?
It’s because they have a vested interest in doing so.
My vested interest, already given, is child safety. –jbh
They have a word, actually a couple of words, for people who “work” towards those ends of undermining the rule of law, equity and justice.
Criminals.
Anarchists.
Propagandists.
Tyrants (or would-be tyrants).
Thanks for your further imago projection. -jbh
The reasonable and logical conclusion about you and your “work” is that you are a propaganda troll working against the best interests of your fellow citizens.
Refute this if you can without appealing to Jesus, circular logic or your own misapplied credentials.
Already accomplished, though perhaps the accomplishment is beyond your pay grade. –jbh
Or you can talk about me some more or about how your “qualified” to do “work” you are clearly not qualified to do. Which is what you’ll do – AGAIN – because you can’t refute that your “work” is exactly as I’ve described it.
I won’t get tired of exposing your antisocial agenda.
You’re an enemy of the Constitution and society in general.
I begin to consider whether to start to wonder whether you are the ultimate self-imago projector of all time. -jbh
Thank you. -jbh
“Other than the foul antisocial, anti-legalism, anti-Constitutional, pro-tyranny use you choose to use them to propagate.”
I’m not trying to sell you anything, troll boy. Only to discredit your nonsense. Which I’ve done without any substantive challenge from you. You’ve been presented – repeatedly – with logical and factual flaws to your “work” which you have failed to address. Evasion . . . that old troll standard.
I don’t give a damn whether you stop or not.
Because I don’t tire of discrediting trolls.
I find it endlessly amusing. Ask any of the regular contributors. They will confirm this fact.
As to your resume? Just more proof you’re not qualified for your “work”. And I don’t give a damn if your brother was a sociologist – that doesn’t make you a sociologist. What you’ve claimed to be is a bioengineer – a field which is neither law nor psychology nor sociology. Here’s a hint, windbag, if you’re going to keep appealing to your own authority? It should be appropriate authority at a bare minimum.
Plus, you’ve gotten all the sympathy out of playing the autism card you’re going to get, sport. Quite frankly, I think you’re a borrowed identity and not autistic in the slightest. You’re a bullshit artist, but there is nothing wrong with your language skills. Other than the foul antisocial, anti-legalism, anti-Constitutional, pro-tyranny use you choose to them to propagate.
If you make an assertion in this forum, you should be prepared to back it up substantively. Why? Because assertions will be challenged here whether you like it or not. People interested in facts and logic as well as law tend to do that sort of thing. Again, if you don’t like being challenged, go to a Koch Bros. run forum. I’m sure they’ll welcome your tyranny inducing nonsense there.
Disprove the following or you’re simply going to remain a troll standing on a base of nonsense and lies:
Disputes arise as a normal course of action in the interaction between humans and with their environment.
The options for dispute resolution are 1) self-help – which can and often does result in violence or 2) a process by where rules and laws are applied to reach an equitable and just solution. Because disputes by their very nature are adversarial – with one party taking one position and the second another position – the process of dispute resolution must reflect that reality or the result is tyranny by fiat. Due process is the process due to citizens by the system in following rules meant to protect them from either individual or state sponsored tyranny. Procedural due process in the adversarial mode is a necessary component of good and just government.
Dispute resolution has been a key function of government since the invention of government because it prevents the anarchy of self-help.
Anarchy is antisocial and anti-civilization because it is inherently unstable and civilizations require stability for contiguous existence.
A stance that undermines due process in the adversarial mode is a stance that invites the anarchy of self-help and the tyranny of the strong over the weak.
Since anarchy and tyranny are both antisocial behaviors, they are inherently bad for society and civilization.
Since your “work” centers on undermining due process in the adversarial mode, it invites the anarchy of self-help and the tyranny of the strong over the weak.
Ergo, your “work” is inherently antisocial, anti-civilization and anti-legalism.
Not only is your “work” antisocial, anti-civilization and anti-legalism, you attempt to cloth it in a veneer of science – poorly – as your arguments rely upon circular logic, made up definitions and ultimately appeals to religion instead of what good science requires – which is observation, sound reasoning, verifiable and testable hypotheses and facts being given precedence over beliefs.
It is perfectly reasonable to attribute the motive of seeking lawless and tyranny to your “work” as manifested by your words. This, consequently and accurately, shows your “work” in its proper light. Namely as inherently antisocial, anti-civilization and anti-legalism drivel.
This raises the question of why someone would want to undermine one of the cornerstones of civilization.
The answer is they have a vested interest in seeing lawlessness and tyranny.
Which makes you a propagandist for the enemies of law and justice.
When taken as a whole, your “work” is logically insufficient garbage as science with a clear agenda that is inherently antisocial, anti-civilization and anti-legalism. Since egalitarianism – so embedded in our Constitution from the words “We the People” forward – requires liberty and justice for all and your agenda and “work” is squarely against both liberty and justice, your work is also anti-Constitutional.
You, Brian, are an antisocial, anti-civilization, anti-legalism and anti-Constitutional propaganda troll with an interest in undermining the rule of law, equity and justice.
Which brings us back to motive.
Why would someone lie and obfuscate to undermining the rule of law, equity and justice?
It’s because they have a vested interest in doing so.
They have a word, actually a couple of words, for people who “work” towards those ends of undermining the rule of law, equity and justice.
Criminals.
Anarchists.
Propagandists.
Tyrants (or would-be tyrants).
The reasonable and logical conclusion about you and your “work” is that you are a propaganda troll working against the best interests of your fellow citizens.
Refute this if you can without appealing to Jesus, circular logic or your own misapplied credentials.
Or you can talk about me some more or about how your “qualified” to do “work” you are clearly not qualified to do. Which is what you’ll do – AGAIN – because you can’t refute that your “work” is exactly as I’ve described it.
I won’t get tired of exposing your antisocial agenda.
You’re an enemy of the Constitution and society in general.
RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 20, 2011 at 12:34 am
Speaking of delusion, how about that cogent defense of your “work” now, sport?
AND
RE: Buddha Is Laughing 1, February 20, 2011 at 12:41 am
By the way, obfuscation only works as a tactic if your opponent doesn’t know it’s in play.
Either you can defend your “work” or you can’t. Being that you keep bringing the topic back to me and away from your “work”? Is a big ol’ red flag that you can’t and are indeed what that “work” leads to as the inevitable conclusion. Namely that you’re simply a propaganda troll for criminals, anarchists and tyrants (or would-be tyrants).
What a person doesn’t say can be as revealing as what they do say.
####################################
I wonder whether you expect people to do as you tell them to do because you are an expert about the law and people came or come to you to be told what to do regarding some legal matter.
If you somehow became accustomed to having people come to you for legal advice, you may have developed a habit of expecting people to seek, accept, and heed advice from you.
I do not come for your time or advice, even though your time and advice may have been, or may be, your stock in trade.
Saw a sign in an attorney’s office, years ago.
“A lawyer’s time and advice are his stock in trade.”
I am not engaged in trade with you.
I did work for a “Fortune 500” company, doing retail selling, and know the basic steps.
1. Greet the customer.
2. Qualify the customer.
3. Trial close.
4. If no objection, go to 7.
5. Overcome objection.
6. Go to 3.
7. Final close.
BiL, you never accomplished step 2, and never overcome any objections. In your effort to do your closing argument, you never qualified me, never overcame any of my objections, and have merely leaped from a possible greeting to the final close, and are stuck as though hopelessly hammering away at a final closing argument effort with no concern, as I find you may have repeatedly stated in not caring about me, about how to qualify me and how to overcome my objections.
Having been taught retail as though a science, your amateurish efforts at selling to me the idea that I “ought to” make an effort to satisfy you regarding my work as a Ph.D. bioengineer/scientist is sadly pitiful, indeed.
My late brother did research for his Sociology Ph.D. on grass-roots organizations and organizing. He said, before he died from cancer, that I was the only person who understood his research besides him. Having paid union dues to the Teamsters for some years while working at Cook County Chidren’s Hospital, I am a former County employee. AFSCME sought to win the union election which the Teamsters won regarding Medical Lab Technicians and Medical Technologists at Cook County, and I paid fees to the Teamsters.
Alas, I went to work at Cook County Hospital as a biomedical engineer (without an engineering degree) to design and build equipment not commercially made for use in Pediatric Cardiology. Along the way, I was admitted to the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle and earned my B.S. in engineering.
When the Teamsters won the union election, I found that my being a biomedical engineer, though paid as a medical laboratory technician or, later, as a medical technologist meant, within my understanding of the union contract, that, were I to both union dues and be a union member, my work would be outside what the union contract allowed. The rejected AFSCME contract would not have presented that difficulty regarding my work, but my co-workers rejected the AFSCME as their union.
Being autistic, my predicament was finding any other job that would give me health coverage and sufficient income, so I paid fees comparable to union dues but did not join the Teamsters because I wanted to keep my job and health care and wanted to avoid putting the union into a difficult position regarding my work. However, I am as pro-union as I imagine anyone can ever be.
I did not join the union to protect the union from being harmed because of my job mis-classification, so I paid for union benefits I never received because I was not a union member.
Being autistic as I am has led many folks to blunder into treating me as though with derision and contempt. I am used to it, and I totally forgive those who know not what they are doing.
You may play this taunting game until you tire of it. I have a brain that never really tires.
If you need to test this, go ahead.
Meanwhile, to demonstrate my having been a county employee, I have been digging out pay stubs from the 1960s and since. I plan to call the AFSCME office in Madison on Monday to ask them how I can best be of help. Within my late brother’s field research is a way out of a significant problem I observed in Green Bay yesterday (it now being Sunday morning here, and somewhat after my usual bedtime).
Thank you.
(“Thank you.” is something I learned in an InterPlay group, as of http://www.interplay.org for the sufficiently curious. In InterPlay, it may be usual to say, “Thank you,” if inadvertently bumped by another InterPlayer.)
Thank you.
By the way, obfuscation only works as a tactic if your opponent doesn’t know it’s in play.
Either you can defend your “work” or you can’t. Being that you keep bringing the topic back to me and away from your “work”? Is a big ol’ red flag that you can’t and are indeed what that “work” leads to as the inevitable conclusion. Namely that you’re simply a propaganda troll for criminals, anarchists and tyrants (or would-be tyrants).
What a person doesn’t say can be as revealing as what they do say.
Speaking of delusion, how about that cogent defense of your “work” now, sport?
RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 19, 2011 at 11:59 pm
You can keep thinking you’re in control all you like.
It’s simply more delusion on your part.
Speaking of delusion, how about that cogent defense of your “work” now, sport?
###################################
I am absolutely not in control of the control sticks; you keep putting them where I cannot avoid bumping into them without my wanting to do so.
I never attempt to persuade “die-hard true-believers” as persuasion efforts merely reinforce the true believer’s beliefs.
I merely make an effort to understand why the beliefs of typical “true believers” tend to become so destructively untrue when coercively forced upon “real believers.”
You have been doing the most fanciful non sequiturs of the fallacy of assuming the consequent which I have ever stumbled upon. Such are of the most profound classics of skilled adversarial system attorney witness and jury befuddlement tactics.
Perhaps (retired?) Door County attorney James O. Ebbeson could help you improve your skills in the area of your burgeoning expertise.
Though perhaps not. I bested him at his own game, by using simple, direct truthfulness. Of course, he won in the Door County Circuit Court, as he may understand winning. I won by not allowing his actions, which I experienced as very abusive, to lead me toward an adversarial way of dealing with his abusiveness.
Thank you.
You can keep thinking you’re in control all you like.
It’s simply more delusion on your part.
Speaking of delusion, how about that cogent defense of your “work” now, sport?
RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 19, 2011 at 11:15 pm
BiL,
You keep doing just what I want you to do, only I never know that it is what I want you to do until after you have done it.
Real scientific research is like that.
In doing real scientific research, a real scientist never knows what will be found until it has been found.
Methinks Tootie may be a far more skilled and experienced marionette’s puppeteer than I can ever hope to be.
I for-sure do hope so.
Thank you.
And you can remain as delusional about the nature of conflict in nature and not defend your “work” all you like, Brian. You can also keep trying they “I know you are but what am I variations” as a defense/passive attack. It’s really funny that an adult thinks that’s a cogent rebuttal.
It only proves that 1) you are either a troll and/or delusional and 2) that your “work” cannot be cogently and rationally defended without defaulting to circular logic, made up definitions, Biblical/faith based rationales or your own inappropriate credentials.
I don’t give a damn if you find fault with people or not.
That doesn’t change the fact that your “work” is nothing but fault, errors and lies.
BiL,
You can take it to be a fact that an ordinary nominal 120 Volt, 100 Watt incandescent light bulb, operated at 120 Volts and drawing 100 Watts of electrical power requires a current of 0.023 Amperes.
Since, by definition, volts times amperes times power factor equals watts, and, for an ordinary incandescant light bulb at 60 Hertz, the power factor is effectively unity, you can take it in your world that, using ordinary arithmetic,
120 times 0.023 equals 100.
Fine with me if you live in a world that works in such a way.
Just don’t tell me to live in it with you. And don’t tell me that I live in such a world just because you believe you live in it.
As long as you are using that dishonest gambit of what you take about me being anything but a delusion of yours, why not allow yourself a little plausible truthfulness and inform folks that you take it that your view of my work is nonsense. Your view is nonsense is not the same as your view being accurate in any way whatsoever.
While he was working to successfully destroy my wife’s and my relationship with our son’s son, Shawn, Door County Attorney James O. Ebbeson taught me more of the dastardly ways in which a few superbly adversarial lawyers destroy people’s lives in unspeakably awful ways.
I grant to you every delusion or other distortion of objective reality you need to feel good about your life; and I shall concurrently protest the abuse achieved by lawyers whose notion of law is worse than atrociously authoritarian/passive-aggressive.
It takes not that many legislators, governors, attorneys, or judges who act with tyrannically authoritarian passive-aggression toward vulnerable people to generate horrid levels of contempt of law among those such practice of law does not successfully murder.
I, alas, am an incorrigible pacifist, who cannot be coerced into actually retaliating, though someone who can actually take it as you have written is beyond the pale of any world I find can actually exist.
I find no fault with unwittingly sincerely delusional people.
I find no fault with people.
Thank you.
And you may not have noticed that disputes are a fact of life no matter your communication strategy, sport.
Again, disproving your bullshit is not for your benefit, but if you enjoy it? There you have it. Come on now. Either you can refute my analysis of your “work” without appealing to Jesus, circular logic or your own misapplied credentials or you can’t.
Since you haven’t defended your “work”, which you will be required to do if you submit to to peer review like real science or legal research?
I’ll take that as admitting you can’t defend your “work”.
There is an alternative to disputes, there is a book about it.
Marshall B. Rosenberg, Ph.D., “Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life,” Puddle Dancer Press, 2003.
You may not have noticed that the alternative to disputes.
Who knows everything?
There is always more to learn…
RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 19, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Your work does speak for itself, windbag.
It’s crap.
There is no misinterpretation on my part of your “work”, only cogent analysis which you cannot cogently refute.
Here it goes once again because it bears repeating every time you open your troll mouth:
Disputes arise as a normal course of action in the interaction between humans and with their environment.
The options for dispute resolution are 1) self-help – which can and often does result in violence or 2) a process by where rules and laws are applied to reach an equitable and just solution. Because disputes by their very nature are adversarial – with one party taking one position and the second another position – the process of dispute resolution must reflect that reality or the result is tyranny by fiat. Due process is the process due to citizens by the system in following rules meant to protect them from either individual or state sponsored tyranny. Procedural due process in the adversarial mode is a necessary component of good and just government.
Dispute resolution has been a key function of government since the invention of government because it prevents the anarchy of self-help.
Anarchy is antisocial and anti-civilization because it is inherently unstable and civilizations require stability for contiguous existence.
A stance that undermines due process in the adversarial mode is a stance that invites the anarchy of self-help and the tyranny of the strong over the weak.
Since anarchy and tyranny are both antisocial behaviors, they are inherently bad for society and civilization.
Since your “work” centers on undermining due process in the adversarial mode, it invites the anarchy of self-help and the tyranny of the strong over the weak.
Ergo, your “work” is inherently antisocial, anti-civilization and anti-legalism.
Not only is your “work” antisocial, anti-civilization and anti-legalism, you attempt to cloth it in a veneer of science – poorly – as your arguments rely upon circular logic, made up definitions and ultimately appeals to religion instead of what good science requires – which is observation, sound reasoning, verifiable and testable hypotheses and facts being given precedence over beliefs.
It is perfectly reasonable to attribute the motive of seeking lawless and tyranny to your “work” as manifested by your words. This, consequently and accurately, shows your “work” in its proper light. Namely as inherently antisocial, anti-civilization and anti-legalism drivel.
This raises the question of why someone would want to undermine one of the cornerstones of civilization.
The answer is they have a vested interest in seeing lawlessness and tyranny.
Which makes you a propagandist for the enemies of law and justice.
When taken as a whole, your “work” is logically insufficient garbage as science with a clear agenda that is inherently antisocial, anti-civilization and anti-legalism. Since egalitarianism – so embedded in our Constitution from the words “We the People” forward – requires liberty and justice for all and your agenda and “work” is squarely against both liberty and justice, your work is also anti-Constitutional.
You, Brian, are an antisocial, anti-civilization, anti-legalism and anti-Constitutional propaganda troll with an interest in undermining the rule of law, equity and justice.
Which brings us back to motive.
Why would someone lie and obfuscate to undermining the rule of law, equity and justice?
It’s because they have a vested interest in doing so.
They have a word, actually a couple of words, for people who “work” towards those ends of undermining the rule of law, equity and justice.
Criminals.
Anarchists.
Propagandists.
Tyrants (or would-be tyrants).
The reasonable and logical conclusion about you and your “work” is that you are a propaganda troll working against the best interests of your fellow citizens.
Refute this if you can without appealing to Jesus, circular logic or your own misapplied credentials.
Until you can cogently defend your “work”?
You’re just a sqweakin’, mouse boy!
########################################
BiL,
You are the best research assistant I ever have had.
I never had a research assistant before.
Thank you.
Your work does speak for itself, windbag.
It’s crap.
There is no misinterpretation on my part of your “work”, only cogent analysis which you cannot cogently refute.
Here it goes once again because it bears repeating every time you open your troll mouth:
Disputes arise as a normal course of action in the interaction between humans and with their environment.
The options for dispute resolution are 1) self-help – which can and often does result in violence or 2) a process by where rules and laws are applied to reach an equitable and just solution. Because disputes by their very nature are adversarial – with one party taking one position and the second another position – the process of dispute resolution must reflect that reality or the result is tyranny by fiat. Due process is the process due to citizens by the system in following rules meant to protect them from either individual or state sponsored tyranny. Procedural due process in the adversarial mode is a necessary component of good and just government.
Dispute resolution has been a key function of government since the invention of government because it prevents the anarchy of self-help.
Anarchy is antisocial and anti-civilization because it is inherently unstable and civilizations require stability for contiguous existence.
A stance that undermines due process in the adversarial mode is a stance that invites the anarchy of self-help and the tyranny of the strong over the weak.
Since anarchy and tyranny are both antisocial behaviors, they are inherently bad for society and civilization.
Since your “work” centers on undermining due process in the adversarial mode, it invites the anarchy of self-help and the tyranny of the strong over the weak.
Ergo, your “work” is inherently antisocial, anti-civilization and anti-legalism.
Not only is your “work” antisocial, anti-civilization and anti-legalism, you attempt to cloth it in a veneer of science – poorly – as your arguments rely upon circular logic, made up definitions and ultimately appeals to religion instead of what good science requires – which is observation, sound reasoning, verifiable and testable hypotheses and facts being given precedence over beliefs.
It is perfectly reasonable to attribute the motive of seeking lawless and tyranny to your “work” as manifested by your words. This, consequently and accurately, shows your “work” in its proper light. Namely as inherently antisocial, anti-civilization and anti-legalism drivel.
This raises the question of why someone would want to undermine one of the cornerstones of civilization.
The answer is they have a vested interest in seeing lawlessness and tyranny.
Which makes you a propagandist for the enemies of law and justice.
When taken as a whole, your “work” is logically insufficient garbage as science with a clear agenda that is inherently antisocial, anti-civilization and anti-legalism. Since egalitarianism – so embedded in our Constitution from the words “We the People” forward – requires liberty and justice for all and your agenda and “work” is squarely against both liberty and justice, your work is also anti-Constitutional.
You, Brian, are an antisocial, anti-civilization, anti-legalism and anti-Constitutional propaganda troll with an interest in undermining the rule of law, equity and justice.
Which brings us back to motive.
Why would someone lie and obfuscate to undermining the rule of law, equity and justice?
It’s because they have a vested interest in doing so.
They have a word, actually a couple of words, for people who “work” towards those ends of undermining the rule of law, equity and justice.
Criminals.
Anarchists.
Propagandists.
Tyrants (or would-be tyrants).
The reasonable and logical conclusion about you and your “work” is that you are a propaganda troll working against the best interests of your fellow citizens.
Refute this if you can without appealing to Jesus, circular logic or your own misapplied credentials.
Until you can cogently defend your “work”?
You’re just a sqweakin’, mouse boy!
More mistakes. No mistake ever made either could or should have been avoided. Some mistakes can be repaired, others not.
If I am gyneandrous and if I am neither chicken nor mouse, what may I yet be able to do?
Time tells all?
What is time except that which orders in existence the existence of existence evolving its own creation?
Every dogma and every doctrine is obsolete as soon it becomes dogma or doctrine. Every human law becomes obsolete as soon as it becomes law. What becomes not obsolete except the laws of nature except as nature itself evolves?
Lawrd, help us.