I listened. What about it? - I did notice the piece is edited in places where i would have liked to have heard more; e.g., about 18:00 to 18:30, when we don't hear what the first thing he had to do was. More to the point, why do you not succinctly reprise whatever his argument is?

If I may be permitted a metaphor: much so-called intellectual effort feeds on itself, in the way that art critics might discuss and criticize paintings and more significantly each other and their own criticisms. But what is the concern here is not the paint, but the canvas itself and it's material and structure, which for my metaphor stand for the underlying reality, truth, and facts of the matter, and those as prior to interpretation of them.

I have a challenge for you that of course you're free to disqualify. I think if you consider your own cultural experiences and identity, you may find some points of identity with the Jew/Israeli Palestinian circumstance. (Are you familiar with the Brouwer's fixed point theorem - the idea here being that fixed points of reference between things otherwise different is not in itself an outrageous or unreasonable idea.) And the idea being not to warm to any particular of current events, rather the challenge to dig as deep as possible to find the ground, sub-stratum, ultimate cause of all the strife. Not subsequent causes, as in chains of cause and effect, but the start of the thing.

As a clue to my thinking, it may be that a person will be attracted to notions of freedom; and why not, it's a powerful and attractive idea. But the question of freedom usually arises in substantive form when and where there is a lack of it - fair enough. But what underlies that? Why, or what, accounts for that lack of freedom in the first place? To me this is a foundational question, meaning that anything built on the subject without addressing it is very likely built to fail, as being built on a faulty foundation.

In this, one can see that Oct 7th is an immense distraction, and yet one that cannot be ignored as a distraction. And I ask your view as to what it is a distraction from, and why, for what purpose, and for whose benefit. That is, what monstrous thing is concealed in the shadows beyond this raging bonfire?

Willful ignorance ...or craven deceit. — 180 Proof

So you cannot tell the difference between persons ripped out of Israel by Hamas as hostages and persons detained by Israel. Perhaps you're one with those who call the Jan. 6 rioters, those convicted and jailed, "hostages." I suggest you take a quick Google look at the word and remind yourself what it means.

What I am on about is that one group of people is bearing the weight of a war against presumably a fanatical minority of themselves who have so burrowed into the civilian infrastructure for concealment and protection that the civilian population is necessarily subject to the blows of that war, a war directly caused by that minority, and which minority possesses at least a few keys to bringing about an end to that war, which they to date refuse to use. To my way of thinking the Palestinians are victims of many things, chief among those things themselves, their choices, their beliefs. The genius of Hamas is to get the Israelis to be the agents of the death and destruction. And given the provocation, for at least the time while the hostages are still held and until some accountability adjudicated, I do not entirely fault the Israelis.

to the relevant historical and critical information provided most recently by ↪180 Proof and others. — 180 Proof

Ah, yes, the relevant history. You're not that stupid, 180, what are you doing talking about relevant history? Or if it's relevant history you want, how about the hostages from 7 Oct.? That's about as relevant and current as you can get. Further, these are bona fide hostages. I am unaware of any hostages held by the Israelis. Or can't you tell the difference between the two?

Amen, mostly.

Palestine free of Israeli occupation & oppression. — 180 Proof

Are you representing that the Palestinians would accept a peace with Israel? Their rhetoric and actions have been clear that they would not, and I'm afraid Oct. 7 and other events have got some Israelis singing the same tune.

Btw, here is the first of an undergraduate course of lectures on the Bible and incidentally on Middle Eastern history. Interesting stuff. Offered here because at the outset of her introductory remarks the lecturer places the Israelites in Canaan - pretty much modern Israel - 3000+ years ago, not that that is news.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo-YL-lv3RY&list=PLh9mgdi4rNeyuvTEbD-Ei0JdMUujXfyWi
The lectures themselves being an education for any who care to receive it.

1) What do you say should be done now about the hostages? Something? Anything? Nothing? If something, what, exactly?

2) You added to the video you reference above, "Free Palestine!" What exactly do you mean by that?

...., tim wood..., zionfascist apologist — 180 Proof

You flatter me; I don't know enough to be a zionfascist apologist. But there does appear to be here a consistent representation that Gazans are simply innocent victims and responsibility-free. And if that be true, then who has been attacking Israel and Jews by thought, word, and deed for most of a century and more? The current situation is admittedly intolerable; no sensible person denies it. But that claim alone gets everyone nowhere, because the intolerable is happening and has been happening, and depending upon your sensibilities, has been happening for a long time.

Against my claim that these matters, at least in terms of history, are not-so-simple, the counter-claim is that they are exactly simple. And apparently in the mind of that claimant, to be "oppressed" is a carte-blanche for any action the "oppressed" should care to take. So let's assay some simplicity and see where it gets us. If anything is intolerable at the moment, it must be the current Israeli violence against Gaza. But what started that? In a word, 7 Oct. And what about Oct. 7 is still current and not merely part of the ugly history of the region? The hostages and accountability for Oct. 7.

If Hamas be in any way justified in their actions of 7 Oct., then certainly the Israelis are similarly justified in their own reply. But this logic breaks because the Israelis neither need nor are justified by anything in this argument. They are justified entirely by the simple fact that they were invaded and some 1200+ of their own were murdered/raped/abused/kidnapped, the kidnapped still held, and accountability yet to be attained. And yet in terms of current intolerability what could be a simpler step than to immediately return the hostages, account for the missing, and adjudicate accountability? And since that does not happen, I conclude that the present intolerable is indeed not only tolerable, but created, desired, and maintained by at least some Palestinians, which I suppose to be Hamas, and that I further suppose are supported by "allies," and neither those "allies nor Hamas caring a whit for the lives of Gazans, those lives being for them mere fodder.

And so the simple question, if the Gazans have been so oppressed for so long, and they think that atrocity is the way out, how's that working for them?

Palestinian kills Jew = Resistance. Jew kills Palestinian = war crime.
— BitconnectCarlos

That's how it works when one party is oppressed and the other is oppressed. That has nothing to do with identity. — Benkei

Well, hasn't that been the Palestinian/neighbor's strategy since pretty much day one? We're oppressed so we can invade, annihilate, murder/rape/kidnap our way to whatever we want? - And how's that been working for them? - The history, past and recent, is not-so-simple, and 7 Oct. (imo) set it to a violent boil, where (imo) it will remain until the hostages are returned/accounted for, and accountability imposed/acknowledged.

That is, to my way of thinking, the Israeli-Palestinian situation is and will remain a hostage situation until that is resolved, and while there are no doubt at least some behind-the-scenes discussions, I believe it is correct for the Israeli's to keep them at the top of their agenda.

Once Israel starts making the concessions...., those hostages can likely be released as part of negotiations. — Tzeentch

Hostages' release as part of the negotiation? Are you mad?

make sure to compare the deaths of maybe 8 or 9000 civilians to the 11 million killed in the holocaust
— BitconnectCarlos

:lol: — Mikie

It's not often you get to know a poster by his emoji of choice, but as a reply in context\ that is one disgusting emoji.

You can't use hostage-taking as an excuse to carry on apartheid. — Tzeentch

The question was, what would you do? The background being the question of the significance of the difference between things that happened and things that were/are happening. And you blew right by that. Let me then be specific. To my understanding, the hostages and accountability for 7 Oct. are open, current now issues. In your peacemaking, how do they fit in, and at what point in the process?

but not all by himself: he has to earn the trust and loyalty of his generals and troops; he has to treat people fairly and stay in favour with his gods and bring prosperity. — Vera Mont

Just like Agamemnon. By no means do I disagree with you; indeed I suspect much Greek virtue did not originate with them. That is, it is not that simple - and never was. But the plain fact is that there is an evolution of ethics/morality - evolution not quite the right word - and it is no small mistake to suppose that they then felt, thought, and reasoned as we now, especially if we make the related error of thinking that we sit at the apex of ethical/moral development that pointed at us all along. Evidence of these conclusions abounding in ancient literature, and still present in literature not-so-ancient. What do you imagine "miss-the-mark" means?

No. The good king was the king who defeated the enemy and protected his own, and so forth. Failure in these meant he was a bad king. The good and attaining virtue having nothing to do with it.

It should start by ceasing the apartheid regime. — Tzeentch

Sorry tp be long in replying. My point was that there is an immediacy and currency to the hostages and accountability for 7 Oct. Do you expect anyone to simply forget them? Would you?

Maybe not relevant. In the Greek Christian bible the usual words for sin are ἁμαρτάνω - amartano. Usually defined as I miss the mark or more generally fail in some way. The noun being ἁματία - amartia - missing the mark, or failing. This consistent with the ancient notion that success was the measure of the man.

Cannot all of this be said more simply? It seems to me that whatever anything is, it is by reference to other things, whatever they may be. Thus whatever morality is, it is, ultimately, by agreement. Can agreement be compelled? Again, by what criteria?

The conclusion, inescapable, is that there is no such thing as morality-in-itself-as-it-is-in-itself. Is morality still a meaningful notion? Of course it is, but to be found not, so to speak, in nature, but in the kinds of agreements that constitute it, ground it, and underlie it. So I agree with this:

A moral act is an act that involves a moral judgment, or an act that is susceptible to moral judgment. — Leontiskos

And in flavors of all kinds, sweet, to sour, to bitter. What flavors? For primitives probably the example of nature. Socrates, truth. For Plato, finding nature imperfect, the prefect forms. Aristotle, the telos. Christians, God. Kant, the logic of the thing. Mill, utility. And so forth, with many variations on these themes and more.

Finally, that leaves my-morals and your-morals, where they conflict, and how those conflicts are resolved. Resolutions being variously appeals to emotion, logic, and ad baculum.

These, it seems to me, the facts of the matter. The virtues of which resolved in moral discussion.

A proposition / logic sentence is defined to always be a {truth-bearer}. This means that it is either true or its negation is true. — PL Olcott

The sentences in question say one way or another - and the article makes clear that exactly how they speak can be important - that they are not true, or not provable. And the analysis shows that whatever else might be true, it is self-evident and provable that they are true. Which is to say that they are, according to your exact definition, truth-bearers, which in turn makes all of your claims absurd.

Edit. Examples: "This sentence is not provable/ is not true." Or Godel's sentence G, or the liar. Or read the article! Or the introductory informal proof at the start of Godel's 1931 paper.

You get right to the point so will I. There are a whole lot of so-called
"contradictory" sentences that are true. As described in the Stanford article referenced above and to be sure proved to the satisfaction of all* by Godel, Tarski, and others. And until you can do better on this topic than just your claims and incidental rants; that is,until you make some substantive contribution or argument, this ought to be an end of it.

*One exception noted.

and the ultranationalists' inability to make peace with both its neighbors — Tzeentch

Just for the heck of it, how exactly do you see any Israeli/Jews making peace with its neighbors?

That almost everyone including the greatest experts in the field do not fully understand that self-contradictory expressions are not {truth-bearers} does seem ridiculously stupid to me. — PL Olcott

I think you have said that a truth-bearer is a proposition that is true, or if false then its negation is a truth-bearer. Yes? Or if no, then what, exactly, do you say a truth-bearer is?

At this point it does seem very very stupid that people cannot understand that self-contradictory expressions are not {truth-bearers}. — PL Olcott

I think everyone gets it as something that is defined in a particular way. But having defined it, you then misapply it where it doesn't apply, leading you to make foolish claims.

I submit to you - to anyone - that if your claims lead to your calling some of humanity's better thinkers stupid, ridiculous, foolish, totally incompetent, then a decent respect even for yourself should require you to do more than just rant. And again, you might try reading the article.

The hostages and accountability. These it seems to me are the open, uncured, and festering wounds of the Israelis/Jews. Everything else has already happened, but these two are in the category of always happening. I would like to be able to write here that by far most people just want peace, but I do not know if that is true and suspect that it is not true. First things first: if your thumb is in my eye and my hands around your throat, we're neither likely to be responsive to anything except the demands of immediate necessity. But how to disengage at least this part? A return and accounting of all hostages, and surrender of all Hamas complicit in 7 Oct. In this I assume that the Israeli war against Hamas in Gaza is a result of and intended by Hamas actions on 7 Oct. I think ultimately the Israeli/Jews want a secure peace. I am unaware of any similar desire on the part of Israel's neighbors, except at the expense of the destruction of the Jews and Israel. The only short-term remedy I see is a UN enforced peace with a concerted police action on behalf of the hostages and against the crimes of 7 Oct., and perpetrators and accessories before, during, and after the fact.

If this seems a bit one-sided, it's based on the idea that Hamas started this chapter of the larger struggle and either they will contribute to ending it, or there's a good chance they will be ended by it.

That Tarski and Gödel did not understand something as simple as this makes them totally incompetent. — PL Olcott

From the web
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truthmakers/
"This much is agreed: “x makes it true that p” is a construction that signifies, if it signifies anything at all, a relation borne to a truth-bearer by something else, a truth-maker.But it isn’t generally agreed what that something else might be, or what truth-bearers are, or what the character might be of the relationship that holds, if it does, between them, or even whether such a relationship ever does hold. Indeed sometimes there’s barely enough agreement amongst the parties to the truth-maker dispute for them to be disagreeing about a common subject matter. This makes navigating the literature about truth-makers a treacherous undertaking but a necessary one because of the significance the debate about truth-makers bears for contemporary metaphysics." (Bold, italics added.)

The article is long, comprehensive, and in parts very interesting - I won't pretend to have read it all. But to you, PL, I commend it as necessary for your understanding. As for your quote above, it simply establishes - as a truth-maker - that someone is totally incompetent.

The good people telling the truth don't have the slightest clue of how to effectively deal with this. — PL Olcott

The Germans do, apparently.

The goofy second amendment, which was only re-interpreted to mean what we think it always has in 2008, should be abolished.
— Mikie
"What we think." I invite you to be the very first to build the bridge that connects the 2A with any modern interpretation of it. It's just one sentence, twenty-seven words. Have at it. — tim wood

That's the bridge I meant. I asked because I read you as saying that the 2008 interpretation was finally the correct and original interpretation, which I disagree with.

My invitation to you was for you to make the bridge, not to refer me to a video. I think the 2A is straightforward and simple. I don't know why the USSC decided to rewrite it - at least in terms of its interpretation. But if you can find self-defense in it, please let me know.

The usual cant is against so-called activist judges. But what usually is not credited is that a balanced activism goes with the territory and is necessary. The notion that we should be governed by the words, meanings, sense, purposes of the Constitution as written in 1787 is alien to the expressed understanding of the writers themselves - they understanding that the document would need maintenance and ongoing perfecting, just as a knife in use requires sharpening.

Had Scalia, et al, been, oh I don't know, smarter, certainly wiser, certainly more observant, they could not have failed to notice that modern weaponry bears no relation to muskets and that the reasons for the 2A's existence had long dissolved into the historical mists. Further, that current regulation could not sensibly be a part of Constitutional law, for the simple reason that Wyoming is not New York City: that regulation is reasonable - not in itself un-Constitutional - and that state and local regulation is the proper venue for that regulation.

And original intent is in itself absurd. It's a short argument from original intent to taking away women's right to vote, or re-establishing slavery. Can't be done? Roe v. Wade was pretty good law - recent cases have not made anything better. Original intent is akin to a group of boys on a camping trip at night in a tent playing with a hand-grenade.

You're not correcting anything. But you are making a mistake plain and simple. Let's try a test. I'm a Holocaust denier (not, actually). How does your program handle that?

The mistake lies in an unnatural - and ignorant - restriction and confining of truth, in essence a misunderstanding of what truth is, to whatever you deem true, and then denying as ridiculous, stupid, mistaken anything that does not comport with your program. A very totalitarian scheme. Putin would approve.

All facts are historical (facts), and thus matters of agreement, if you will. All true statements are true, in respect of their being true, a priori. You can have your large listing of facts - such things already exist. And we can check them at need. But truth is not quite so simple - not least because being different.

But go ahead, prove the Holocaust - or anything else at your choice - is true. Or for that matter, any denial false.

This is interesting… — Mikie

Yep. Per Chomsky three reasons for the 2A. 1) To serve in lieu of a standing army against the British, 2) to kill Indians, 3) to control slaves. None of these relevant for a long time, and he trashes Scalia in Heller.

He's asked if "the people" shouldn't have guns to protect themselves from the government. And Chomsky notes the lie, in that guns don't do people much good, and certainly not against the army. And I note that in the US of A, the government is the people - "We the people...".

Scalia's reading of the 2A as guaranteeing a right to guns for self-defense is simply a brutal misreading of the plain English of its 27 words - as well as the intentions of the founders. And one wonders why he did it.

Facts are true — PL Olcott

*sigh* Anyone else want to take this on?

And since 2+2=4 models nothing in the world, it's not a fact - what is it then? Ridiculous nonsense? And what does "correctly model" mean?

My point being that there is a whole barge-load of assumptions you're making, apparently without being aware you're making them. The Boston Red Sox won the 2003 World Series: if three out of three agree with that, does that make it a fact?

People without a criminal record should be able to buy a gun. I'm on the fence about mental health issues. — RogueAI

The 2A refers to "the people." You refer to "people." what do you mean? What do you imagine the founders meant?

I agree that you should retreat if you can, unless someone is breaking into your house. — RogueAI

In a Massachusetts' court - or in any other court I know of - your opinion wouldn't matter. And, that is exactly the circumstance in which you're obliged to retreat if you can.

Good heavens! Read your own citation! I quote from it:
"The latest data show that people use guns for self-defense only rarely. According to a Harvard University analysis of figures from the National Crime Victimization Survey, people defended themselves with a gun in nearly 0.9 percent of crimes from 2007 to 2011.

David Hemenway, who led the Harvard research, argues that the risks of owning a gun outweigh the benefits of having one in the rare case where you might need to defend yourself.
"The average person ... has basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a gun in self-defense," he tells Here & Now's Robin Young. "But ... every day, they have a chance to use the gun inappropriately. They have a chance, they get angry. They get scared."

So apparently you assess yourself personally as not so much at risk; yours is a drawer gun. Do you ever practice with it? How do you assess your chances of successfully confronting a house breaker with your gun? That is, your gun by itself could get you or someone else killed who should not be killed if you're not proficient, trained, knowledgeable, and practiced in its use - and never mind what your bullet hits if it misses your target.

Ok. we'll plod. All facts are propositions that are historical in nature. A kind of hearsay, if you will. And this includes just about everything that can be said about the world. And you're right, we all agree on many facts - although sometimes we don't. Can you say election denier? Holocaust denier? Climate change denier? And with these we have to confront exactly what a fact is and is not.

And this opposed to truth. Propositions that are true are not temporal, not historical, not in any way hearsay. 2+2=4 is true and always and necessarily so (except for some engineers who make exception for large values of two). But anyone calling it a fact is simply in error, though a common enough mistake. Usually it's not important. But you, failing to distinguish the two, make outrageous and ridiculous claims about the thinking one of history's better thinkers, with neither evidence nor reason nor justification except for your own carefully applied ignorance. Yes it's granted that in your own limited application you can have what you like, but you've let that apply where it does not and should not, and that mistake makes everything else of yours suspect.

. .

He's law-abiding right up to the exact moment he is no longer law-abiding. The point being that "law-abiding" seems not a very good indicator of who should/should not have a gun.

As I suppose you know very well, state laws differ greatly on whom you can shoot and why, and in many cases are contradictory. E.g., in Maine you can shoot a woman hanging laundry in her own backyard. In Louisiana a boy coming up on your porch - if memory serves he rang the doorbell. In Florida, I gather, anyone who comes towards you whose looks you don't like. In Massachusetts your first duty is to retreat if you can.

So if you want to shoot an intruder, you shall have to consider what state to live in. And I'm sure too that you know perfectly well that by far the greater danger to the inhabitants of a house is the gun that is already in the house. So it would appear that justifications are more based in fantasy and wishful thinking than reality, and these fantasies get too many people killed that should not have been killed.

The issue for me, if it makes a difference, is not doing away with guns, although in some places maybe they should be, but simply exercising controls over guns. gun ownership, and gun owners.

(1) Some expressions of language are stipulated to be true thus providing semantic meaning to otherwise totally meaningless finite strings. These expressions are the set of facts. — PL Olcott

Which is to say you simply do not know the difference between the two. Try this, 2+2=4. Repesenting a fact or a truth?

Turns out that "law-abiding" citizens do most of the killing. Btw, you want to "counter the threat." What threat is that, exactly, and how, exactly, do you plan to "counter" it?

The goofy second amendment, which was only re-interpreted to mean what we think it always has in 2008, should be abolished. — Mikie

"What we think." I invite you to be the very first to build the bridge that connects the 2A with any modern interpretation of it. It's just one sentence, twenty-seven words. Have at it.

Given that any evidence of the external world lies beyond the veil of perception, or experience, is the realism regarding the external world a leap of faith? — NOS4A2

There is the distinction between what are facts about the (external) world and what is true about it. My argument here would be that science in consideration of facts about the world can determine - wrt to chosen criteria - what is true about it. Of course criteria are a whole other topic.

That set of facts that comprise the actual model of the real world is the basis. — PL Olcott

Which is exactly not the basis for mathematics. You might care to pause and consider just exactly what a fact is (and isn't). Agreed, if you compile a great list of facts, then you can distinguish between what is included in your list and what is not included, and presumably can test what is not included to see if it should be added or not. But it is a mistake to conclude that what is not a fact must be nonsense or a piece of stupidity; and that mistake arises out of either not understanding what a fact is and is not, or having a term-of-art definition of "fact" which you then misapply.

The distinction here is between what is a fact and what is true. Notwithstanding that the terms are often not distinguished and used interchangeably, they are not the same thing, and you are stumbling badly over that.

The way that all self-contradictory sentences are ruled out is simple. Self-contradictory sentences cannot be proven or refuted from axioms thus are tossed out as non-truth bearers. — PL Olcott

This is helpful. But you have omitted a critical qualification: "[C]annot be proven or refuted" from the axioms of the system. But that the sentence in question is absolutely a truth bearer is established by meta-system argument.

"This sentence is not provable." If provable then not provable, and that's a no-no. Clearly then it cannot be provable. Which means that it certainly does have a truth value, that it is provable that it is not provable. Now, if in a system of yours, you wish to make your own ruling on these, you can. But nowhere in that is Godel demonstrated wrong or foolish, and it is wrong and foolish to claim that he is. Unless you can prove it. Can you?

And Godel defaulted from true to provable because he could find no good - adequate - definition of truth.

Amen. But I like to think that in every debate there is either a right answer or at least the better answer. Although too often at the front lines of debate no one is interested in either, so much as simply overwhelming the opponent.

And of course where there appears not to be either a single right or better answer, maybe there are two or more. Hmm. Can you say aufheben?

In other words you too simply don't understand that epistemological antinomies (AKA self-contradictory expressions) are simply not truth bearers thus have no idea why this statement is pure nonsense:

...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used for a similar undecidability proof...
(Gödel 1931:43-44) — PL Olcott

Godel's paper is surprisingly easy to read, although of course not as easy to understand, and the first section his effort to be easy. I've read it and understood it. On the other hand, you've made a claim and on request for clarification have offered nothing in support of it. It's easy to say someone is wrong, but at the same time that means that someone is wrong.

I'm guessing in your system Godelian self-reference is simply ruled out, which you certainly can do. But that makes Godel neither wrong nor a fool, and to say he is simply means that one of you is both.

Which would mean you have to vote more liberal this time, yes?