Success Warrior: The Blog That Embraces ADHD

Are We Flogging a Red Herring?

So,

I was recently watching a video by The Last American Vagabond where one of the discussion points was the cycle thresholds being used when processing PCRs.  At one point, Ryan points out that he might be flogging a dead horse given how much time he was spending on the topic.  For those of us that have been researching this stuff since the spring of 2020, the answer would be yes.  However, more people are having their eyes opened each week and he is getting new subscribers and for those people, the answer might be no.  It's a difficult line to walk, trying not to bore long time listeners/independent researchers while trying to play catch up with new listeners.  The answer is relative to the listener and doesn't have a one size fits all answer.  The point is (look, now Ryan has me saying "the point is...") that he was spending a lot of time on the topic, he noticed it, and when he wondered if he was flogging a dead horse, I said "yep" and switched to listening to music while I did something else.

Later, I was listening to something on a different topic.  I can't remember who it was so I'm sorry to that person that I can't link to them.  There was a statement made that went something like this.  Arguing that torture is wrong because it doesn't result in getting accurate information is completely missing the point.  Torture is wrong because it's immoral, regardless of the validity of the information gained.  It's wrong because it's just wrong, period.  This wasn't new to me but hearing it at that moment, with Ryan's PCR discussion fresh on my mind, made me think back to my initial research into PCRs and wonder if we haven't gone off track a bit.

When the COVID-19 hoax was amping up, there was a lot of focus on "cases".  Not as much as there would be later in the year when the case-demic broke out (because there were no deaths to focus on) but enough to make me wonder, is PCR a valid COVID-19 test.  Here's how I saw it before I knew anything about cycle thresholds.

Is PCR a valid COVID-19 test?  

Is PCR a test?  No.  It's a process that makes copies of viral RNA.  This is telling, however, they have obviously adapted it so that it can give positive/negative results so I kept asking questions.

What does PCR replicate/amplify?  Viral RNA, debris left behind by viruses and bacterias.  Is COVID-19 a virus or bacteria?  No, it's a disease.  Therefore, it's factually impossible to use PCR as a COVID-19 test.

Maybe they are actually testing for the SARS-CoV-2 virus and have misnamed it as a COVID-19 test.  Does PCR identify which virus or bacteria left the viral RNA?  No, a different technique has to be applied to the amplified sample to identify it.  Has the SARS-CoV-2 protein been sequenced (aka identified)?  No.  So, even if PCR had the capability of identifying the responsible virus or bacteria, it wouldn't find SARS-CoV-2.  So, PCR is not a misnamed SARS-CoV-2 test.

It turns out that PCR is simply "a method widely used to rapidly make millions to billions of copies of a specific DNA sample, allowing scientists to take a very small sample of DNA and amplify it to a large enough amount to study in detail." (Wikipedia) and not a test or a COVID-19 test or a SARS-CoV-2 test.

This made me wonder if arguing that PCR was invalid as a COVID-19 test because they are using high cycle thresholds which are guaranteed to return extremely high numbers of false positives is completely missing the point.  Maybe PCR is invalid as a COVID-19 test because it doesn't actually test for COVID-19, regardless of cycle threshold.  Maybe using PCR as a "COVID-19" test is wrong because it's just the wrong tool, period.  Even if you lowered the cycle threshold down to 24 where a positive result would indicate that the person has a disease and is contagious, you'd have to do other tests to find out what disease the person actually had.

Historically, we see PCR being used as a "whooping cough test" that upended lives for 8 months.  When they used an actual whooping cough test, they found zero cases.  PCR was used as a "swine flu test" to fuel a fake pandemic where it turned out that there was, what, one confirmed case?  PCR amplifies viral RNA, which humans have in their bodies even when they are healthy.  Magnifying that RNA to a point where it can be detected and then claiming that it can only come from the disease flavor of the month is beyond disingenuous.  PCR does not do what officials are claiming that it does.  It's just the wrong tool.  You might as well stick a microscope up everyone's nose and if it comes out with snot on it, declare the person tested positive for COVID-19.  I'll leave it up to you to decide the intent and morality of knowingly using an incorrect medical tool to pronounce a diagnosis.

Rather than flogging a dead horse with our (because I've done it too) long discussions about cycle thresholds, maybe we are instead flogging a red herring.

The Logic Behind a Second Lockdown

So,

The second lockdown has commenced in Utah with the restriction that only people who live in your house are allowed in your house.  Your reaction to this over-reach that goes way beyond what we could have ever imagine happening in the United States is probably similar to what mine was.  This isn't the USSR, after all, but before you run off to post your rant on LieToYourFacebook which will just get censored anyway, hear me out.  I have been doing some research on the logic behind the lockdown and I've had a change of heart.  Let me share my findings with you to see if you too will come around to the right way of thinking.  For some people, the thought of going through logic may sound tedious so I'll use an analogy as I go to help clear up the logic while hopefully making it less boring.

The quick and dirty of the lockdown logic comes down to this: the number of dangerously contagious people in society is skyrocketing and therefore, we need to separate everyone from everyone.  It does impose on those that aren't a risk and those not at risk but the the virus is so deadly that it justifies the oppressive measure.  Until the United States becomes a truly 1984 police state where people wear or are implanted with biometric devices that signal when they are sick and surveillance is so complete that we know everyone that sick person has come in contact with, we have to use this less precise approach.  Luckily, the goal is to have the better solution in place by 2030 so it won't be long before mass lockdowns are a thing of the barbaric past that we'll be able to laugh at.

The problem we are trying to deal with is that people with C1984 are dangerous to everyone else in the population and should be isolated from everyone else.  By doing this, we can stop this cold virus from killing every human being on the planet.   For our analogy, we'll say that people who have accidents on the freeway where the speed limit is typically 75 mph (121 kph) or 80 mph (129 kph) on more remote stretches of road are dangerous to everyone else on the freeway.  The high speed on these roadways means that accidents are much more likely to result in serious injury and death than on roads where cars are traveling much slower.  Obviously, steps should be taken to remove these dangerous drivers from the freeway before they have an accident.  To help get funding and public support for increased safety measures, we need to demonstrate just how dangerous the situation is by reporting the extraordinarily high numbers of accidents that are occurring at the present.  How can we do this?

The key to knowing how bad things are and what actions are required is to identify the dangerous people.  With drivers, we enforce various traffic laws to keep cars in their respective lanes and at a safe speed.  Those that continue to violate these laws are deemed dangerous and their driver license is suspended with the intent of keeping them off the roads, hopefully preventing accidents that they would have caused.  With C1984, the common approach to identifying dangerous people is PCR testing.

Lots and lots of PCR testing.  Testing has skyrocketed around the world.  In Utah, the number of tests being done now is about 500% more than it was in April.  In the UK, I've heard the difference is about 20,000%.  You might think that by doing that much more testing, it might be natural to see a correlation in the number of "cases".  You're on the right track.  If you look at the number of accidents on the freeways now compared to 50 years ago, you would expect there to be more accidents now based on the number of additional cars on the road.  You might ask, "but is this justification to completely outlaw driving or lock everyone in their houses?"  Maybe not but it's a good way to ensure that the number of cases does go up somewhat dramatically and is a good first step toward that justification.  

What if there was a way to magnify the "cases" beyond what people might expect?  If you tested 5 times as many people and rather than getting somewhere around 5 times as many cases, you got 23 times as many cases using April 1 and Nov 1 in Utah as an example.  Now, we're definitely talking justification for removal of all human rights from the populace.  The virus has come back with a vengeance.  The people should feel lucky that we allow them out to get groceries.  We could have the national guard deliver meals on wheels and put everyone on house arrest (without the actual arrest, house detention).  

To accomplish this, we test as many people as possible as outlined above using PCR tests and call any positive results "cases."  There are several reasons why the use of PCR tests is vital for this logical lockdown.

First, and possibly most importantly, PCR tests do not test specifically for C1984.  They are testing for viral RNA, any viral RNA.  If you have a cold, a coronavirus, that isn't C1984, it will still return a positive result.  In our crash analogy, it means that we can count people who back up into a light pole in the grocery store as a freeway accident.  This doesn't carry the same risks as crashing at 80 mph but you have to remember that we aren't looking for truth or reality, we are looking for justification to lock people in their houses, keep them from associating with each other, destroy the economy, and make them more willing to accept the 1984 solutions presented when their lives are in complete ruins.

The viral RNA doesn't even have to be a close cousin to C1984.  According to the CDD and FDA, PCR tests will test positive for bacterial pathogens.  That means that in addition to adding people who run into light poles in a parking lot to our count of freeway crashes (cases), we can add people who ride their bicycle into a mailbox as well.

It gets even better though.  We can manipulate PCR tests so that they detect viral RNA that is long dead and inactive.  This is done by adding cycles to the test.  Basically, that means that we look for finer and finer tiny bits of viral RNA.  RNA that is no longer alive and no longer contagious.  We can get a positive result by testing someone who had a cold 6 months ago.  We can test asymptomatic people who are asymptomatic because they don't have C1984 and never have had it and get a positive result.  So, now in our count of freeway accidents, we can add to today's number anyone who has crashed (car or bike, freeway or parking lot or mailbox) in the past.  Dr. Falsey says that cycles should be limited to 35 or less to reduce the chance of picking up traces of dead RNA.  Other doctors say that it should be 33 cycles or less.  If you are actually looking for contagious RNA, it should be 24 cycles or less.  Companies are testing using 37 cycles, 40 cycles, and there is one using 45 cycles.  By doing this, we make it almost a sure thing that the test comes back positive and gets added to the number of "cases."  I'm sure you can see how useful this is in justifying a lockdown. 

It should be pointed out that the FDA recommends that PCR tests not be used for diagnosis because they don't point to a definitive disease.  We will need to ignore that and pretend like these tests were created for detecting C1984.  I'm sure you understand that this is something that must be done in order to justify lockdowns.

Here's the frosting on the cake.  PCR tests return positive results if the person has the antibodies that makes them immune to C1984.  I mean, it doesn't get much cooler than that.  We can add to our freeway crash numbers people who live in places where there are no freeways, where it is physically impossible for them to be in an accident on a freeway.  Seriously, this one doesn't score us as many positives as the healthy people who were sick with some kind of disease at some point in their lives but there is just something very empowering about telling someone that can't contract the disease that they have it.  In your face!

As you can see, by increasing the number of people being tested and increasing the number of "cases" of this deadly virus exponentially, we have justified any and all unconstitutional or inhumane solutions, including lockdowns.  Easy, peasy, lemon, squeezey.

And that's where you must stop the logic.  If you take the next logical step, you completely undermine all of the work that has been done to this point so we won't do that.  For those of you that are happy that lockdowns have been justified and reinstated on the populace, stop reading here.  For those of you who are curious about the next logical step, read on but remember that this is something that will not be implemented because it completely derails the agenda.

In our car analogy, if you were told that freeway car crashes had increased by 23 times over a time period, you would have some expectations.  BTW, for those that are curious, the number of crashes in the United States has been essentially flat when factoring in the increased number of cars.  If there are 5 times more cars, there are about 5 times more accidents, as you might suspect.  Those of you who came to this conclusion earlier in regards to the number of tests being given really were on the right track.  Anyway, if instead of a direct correlation (5 times), you instead had 23 times more accidents reported by the media, you might expect to see:

• Crashed cars all the time on the side of the freeway
• News stories about how tow truck companies can't keep up with demand
• News stories about the trillions of dollars insurance companies are paying out
• Friends and family members who had been involved in some of these accidents
• Maybe even someone in your own household involved in at least one of these accidents

In short, you would rightfully expect to see a reflection in the real world of what was being reported by the government and propaganda sources.

This extremely deadly virus (which is still much less deadly than the boring old flu) has seen "cases" go through the roof, 23 times more now than in April for Utah.  We should be seeing the number of deaths going up in a similar manner.  You would think they would go up somewhere between 5 to 23 times as much, if this virus is so deadly and so many people have it.  Sadly, for our justification, the number of deaths is completely typical for this time of year.  We aren't seeing any correlation at all between "cases" and death.  This is why it is vitally important that we keep hammering away with "cases, cases, cases" and steer clear of any mention of the deaths or the dreadful lack thereof.  If we point this out, it would show that either the virus isn't that deadly or that there really aren't that many people who have it (kind of ruining the whole "pandemic" angle we're going for).  Just between you and me, it's both and this is something that we can't talk about at all or it will completely destroy the logic justifying mandatory masks and lockdowns.  Remember, the mantra for today is "cases, cases, cases" and let's see if we can get even more people tested with these completely unreliable, easily manipulated PCR tests.

We just need this to last a little bit longer.  We are working on our next scam, COVID-21.  We know that COVID-19 basically died off around June and we're asking you to really flog a dead horse by going along with this paper-thin justification but there is a light at the end of the tunnel.  Soon, we'll hit them with the new and improved (meaning more deadly or, at least, scarier sounding) scam pandemic and we can let go of 19.

For any of you that skipped the section on what to avoid and are looking for some kind of conclusion paragraph, I'll say this.  I think it has been clearly and logically demonstrated that lockdowns are completely justified and we are taking steps to make sure that they remain completely justified for the foreseeable future.  Spread the good news to everyone, especially those who have been wearing masks for so long that the reduced oxygen intake and increased CO2 intake has impaired their critical thinking ability.  

Cuz I Said So

 

 

So,

The US government has shut down.

Really?

No, he’s teasing.

I’ve paid as little attention as possible to this story because:

1. It’s not true.

2. It’s political drama in an effort to get the Republican minions and Democratic cult members to fight against each other after coming together in opposition to attacking Syria.  Unity cannot be allowed because it challenges the one-party system.

3. I was trying to finish up a research paper.

Today, with college finally over, I decided to take a peek into the political headlines to see what nonsense was being put out as “news.”  Here’s some great stuff from an article written by Mark Felsenthal for Reuters, “Obama pulls out stops in warning on debt default.”

“A decision to actually go through with it, to actually permit default – according to many CEOs and economists – would be, and I’m quoting here, ‘Insane, catastrophic, chaos.’  These are some of the more polite words.” – Obama

Funny, those are the same words I would use to describe voting Obama in for a second term.

Except you didn’t use the more polite words.

“Warren Buffet likened default to a nuclear bomb, a weapon too horrible to use.” – Obama

It's worth noting that the nuclear bomb was used twice after the Japanese surrendered and now uranium depleted shells used in the Middle East have created a radioactive situation worse than those two atomic bombs.  If this debt default is like a nuclear bomb and nuclear bombs are too horrible to use and the United States government uses them to murder innocent people, does that mean that Obama is arguing FOR debt default?

“This is not just for me.  It’s also for my successors in office, whatever party they’re from.  They shouldn’t have to pay a ransom either for Congress doing its basic job.  We gotta put a stop to it.” – Obama.

Apparently, when making financial decisions for a country, dictators should not need permission from the people who hold the specific duty of controlling the purse strings.

That seems true enough.

Congress should just be renamed as “Rubber Stamp.”

“’This is the creditworthiness of the United States that we’re talking about,’ [Obama] said.  ‘This is our word.  This is our good name.  This is real.’”

He makes it sound like the world will look down on the United States government if it defaults.  The only people who think the United States government has a good name are ‘Merkins who live in Pretendland.

Then, apparently, The Great and Powerful Oz turned toward the usual tactic of describing end-of-the-world scenarios that will occur if people don’t do what He says.  I don’t have my finger on the pulse of what constitutes popular thinking (using the term oh-so-loosely) but I have to wonder if His threats carry the power they once did.  How many times can people hear these threats before the empty threats lose their oomph?  How many times can Chicken Little cry wolf before doubt about His credibility occurs, even in the minds(?) of the spoon-fed zombies?

You aren’t including his Keynesian Klown cult members are you?

It doesn’t look like it or there wouldn’t have been a question mark behind the word “minds” and there wouldn’t have been the word “minds.”

Either you’re with him or you’re with the terrorists.

Wrong president.

Same logical fallacy, though.

Apparently, the puppets are easily interchangeable.

 

Related articles

Guns and Control (Part 2)

Guns and Control (Part 1)

Obama pulls out stops in warning on debt default

Guns and Control Redux (Part 3)

So,

In addition, can you think of any challenges you might have in successfully convincing someone
else that the technique you chose demonstrates what you now know that it demonstrates?

The main challenge in successfully convincing someone else that the technique I chose demonstrates what I now know that it demonstrates would be in trying to get them to break from indoctrinated thought processes or personal biases, an incredibly difficult challenge. 

People have been indoctrinated to reify “government.”  They actually believe and talk as if there is such a thing as a “government.”  The premise that “All government employees are people,” and its ramifications on the argument will likely catch them by surprise because they think in terms of “government” doing things and are mostly unconscious to the fact that “government” is just a whole bunch of people.  Reminiscent of The Matrix, many people aren’t aware of the reality in which they live and this kind of argument can cause a lot of internal, emotional turmoil that they would rather not deal with because it’s uncomfortable.  It challenges the foundation of many of their beliefs and that is, understandably, a very scary thing.

The problem of personal bias is two-fold: it’s personal and, as such, there may be an emotional attachment to the position.  This bias may come from personal experience (a family member feloniously killed by a person with a gun) or from media-hyped incidents, falling victim in both cases to the fallacy of misleading vividness.  The emotion could be loyalty to a political party, demanding that the party position be defended at all costs (critical thinking be damned!).  It could be any number of reasons.  Being personal, it may not be immediately apparent what the person’s motivation may be in defending the invalid argument.  The emotional attachment to the position may make it feel to that person that “attacking” their opinion is an attack on them.  This may cause them to entrench mentally, which in turn may cause them to argue with even less regard to rationality, resort to ad hominem attacks, or storm off so that don’t have to face reality.

One thing that will likely be similar in both cases is using the appeal to special pleading, arguing that government employees are not “regular” people.  It will be argued that government employees, although taken from a general cross-section of people, somehow possess a particular trait or superpower that exempts them from the rule that “People having guns creates an unsafe situation.”  People who have had the government gene spliced into their DNA can be trusted to have guns but “regular” people can’t.  Not only is this fallacious but since government employees hurt and kill far more innocent people with guns than non-government employees, a fortiori government employees should be banned from possessing guns under the gun control argument.

A couple of other fallacies are likely to make an appearance.  There are good odds that an argument from effect will be presented (“If we don’t ban guns, there will be a mass murder every week.”) or a straw man (“So, you’re okay with someone walking into a school and shooting little kids?”).  There are better odds that the fallacy of pious fraud will show up (the old work horse of weak political arguments, the “necessary evil”).  If the debate continues, don’t be surprised to see ad hominem, a red herring or two, an appeal to force, or the fallacy of the kitchen sink (where every fallacy is thrown in, including the kitchen sink - I made that one up).

Overcoming these challenges with someone who is deeply staid in reification or personal bias is nearly impossible (trust me) but their irrationality doesn’t diminish the counter argument and shouldn’t discourage pointing out the invalidity of the gun control argument.

Guns and Control Redux (Part 2)

So,

Explain why the technique you selected would be useful. 

I think this substitution works on several levels.  It points out that the argument is invalid because it’s self-defeating.  It provides an opportunity to disassociate from indoctrinated thought patterns and existing, potentially emotionally charged, biases.  The idea of banning all dogs from biting is likely to be quickly dismissed as absurd, meeting this requirement of reductio ad absurdum.  It also uses analogy to point to something that never seems to get discussed.

Arguments against gun control laws tend to come in three flavors:

• Challenging the premise that people who have guns are dangerous (grasping by the horn)
• Substituting situations that are more dangerous into the logic (reductio ad absurdum)
• Appeal to the Constitution (using the 2nd Amendment - a fallacious argument with a plethora of suspects – appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, begging the question, amphiboly, and probably many more)

The first two are done to demonstrate that the argument is weak and the third is a misguided attempt at asserting a person's rights.  In the first, stories and stats are presented to show that far more guns are kept or used in ways that do not harm innocent people and that the media-hyped incidents (appeal to misleading vividness) account for a miniscule portion of the people who have guns.  The second substitutes more dangerous situations that people don’t want banned into the argument.  For instance, many more people are killed by mistakes and diseases they contract in hospitals than by felonious gun use, therefore people should be banned from going to hospitals, in order to protect them from an unsafe situation (you can substitute showers, smoking, Coke and McDonald’s, and a whole host of causes of death and injury far more dangerous than people with guns).  While both do a good job of showing that the gun control argument is weak, the dog/pit bull substitution goes one step farther, showing that the argument is worse than weak, it’s not even valid.  Strength and weakness don’t even need to be considered because it is essentially a self-defeating, non-argument.

Framing the argument around dogs helps put some distance between the argument and indoctrinated thought patterns and closely-held biases.  People have some very illogical ideas when discussing gun control (which will be discussed in the answer to the next question) and making dogs the center of attention may help them to think more rationally about the argument.

Arguing that dogs should be banned from biting is laughably dismissed.  Most dogs bite naturally out of fear for their own safety or in protection of their owners/property.  No one faults a dog that bites out of self-defense or that bites an intruder that enters a house.  When dogs do bite, the blame usually goes to the owner of the dog who either failed to maintain control of the dog, or worse, trained the dog to be vicious.  When someone hurts someone with a gun, no one looks intently at the parents, teachers, social workers, social system, clergy, or others who played a role in training the person to be vicious.  The gun becomes a scapegoat, either to avoid being tasked with solving the real and much more difficult problem, or to disarm the subjects of a country to make them easier to control, or some other motive not actually related to the "danger" of people having guns.

The analogy (which would probably be missed by most people) specifically using pit bulls as a substitution uses another indoctrination theme played out by the corporate media.  When you say “dogs,” the image of your own dog comes to mind or the thought of them as “man’s best friend.”  When you say, “pit bull,” thanks to media-hyped incidents (appeal to misleading vividness – are you sensing a theme?), people think of vicious, snarling beasts that rip children to shreds.  However, in this case, the pit bulls’ masters are scrutinized and many times, it is found that they trained the pit bulls to attack.  This creates the impression that pit bulls are inherently dangerous and that their masters are idiots and/or cruel, inhumane bastards who knowingly created a potential menace to society.  If you were to compare the number of innocent people killed and injured with a gun by people who are not government employees with those who are killed and injured by government employees, not surprisingly, you would find that government employees are by far the greater threat.  The nature of their training, environment, mindset, and weaponry makes them inherently more dangerous (I was a cop for 12 years and killed someone in the line of duty) and there is no doubt that their masters are idiots and/or cruel, inhumane bastards who knowingly create a potential menace to society. 

To be continued . . .

Related articles

Guns and Control Redux (Part 1)

Guns and Control Redux (Part 1)

So,

I am on another school break so that means that I have a chance to update my blog again.

And we care because . . .

I don't think he cares if you care.

I had a Logic class this go 'round and received quite a few kudos from the instructor for my ability to analyze concepts and put that analyzation into words.  In fact, she is going to be using one of my papers as a resource for future classes (hat tip to CV Rick for his comments on taxation providing beautiful support for my position).

You're not going to tell him the paper was on irrationality and self-deception, are you?

I wouldn't.

Anywhoooo, a different assignment required that we take an argument from our environment and do the following with the argument:

• Create a counter-argument using one of the techniques studied in the course
• Transcribe the argument/counter-argument
• Explain why the counter-argument was chosen
• Explain likely obstacles to the acceptance of the counter-argument

Doing this assignment gave me a bit more insight into the argument and counter-argument so I'm adding it to my blog (Guns and Control v2.0, if you will).  This post will cover the first two bullet points with subsequent posts covering the second two bullet points.  This first two are short and kind of boring . . .

He's making the assumption that his other blog posts aren't boring

Indeed he is.

. . . but I am including them because they set up the the remaining two points and they also show where I made some assumptions in the first three Guns and Control posts.  In working through the assignment, I realized that I had made some jumps over information relevant to the argument.  The end result is the same and much of the information presented is the same as the information contained in the first three Guns and Control posts although written more formally and without comments from the voices in my head.

No wonder it's boring.

I concur.

Creating the counter-argument using reductio ad absurdum and answering the follow up questions that were posed does add a different perspective than previously presented.  The combination of a more thorough examination of the underlying logic of the gun control argument and the new angle of approach prompted me to add these posts to the original Guns and Control trilogy.

This is why we are supposed to care?

I still don't think he cares if you care.

Think of a specific instance – real or hypothetical – in your own profession or daily environment in which using either (a) the method of counter-example or reductio ad absurdum to  demonstrate an argument’s invalidity, or else (b) one of the techniques for escaping from a logical dilemma would be useful.  Detail the instance.

If dogs (D) that bite (B) are an unsafe situation (~S) and unsafe situations should be avoided, then dogs or the act of biting or both dogs and the act of biting should be eliminated.
Dogs should not be eliminated so biting should be banned.
To ensure compliance with the ban, pit bulls (P) will be trained to bite.
All pit bulls are dogs.
Therefore, to prevent the unsafe situation of dogs that bite, dogs will be trained to bite to prevent dogs from biting.

(((D ^ B) --> (~S)) ^ (~ (~S)) --> ~ (D ^ B)
 ~~D ^ ~B
~ (D ^ B) --> (P ^ B)
P --> D
(~ (~S)) --> ((D ^ B) ^ ~ (D ^ B))

((D ^ B) ^ ~ (D ^ B)) violates the law of non-contradiction (P ^ ~P) and is always false.  In a conditional statement, a true antecedent that leads to a false consequent is a false statement.  The combination makes this a self-defeating and false argument.

The argument above is a substitution for the argument for gun control laws:

If people (P) who have guns (G) are an unsafe situation (~S) and unsafe situations should be avoided, then people or guns or both people and guns should be eliminated.
People should not be eliminated so guns should be banned.
To ensure compliance with the ban, government employees (E) will be given guns.
All government employees are people*.
Therefore, to prevent the unsafe situation of people having guns, people will be given guns to prevent people from having guns.

* You might argue that IRS agents are not human but in the logical sense, they are people.

(((P ^ G) --> (~S)) ^ (~ (~S)) --> ~ (P ^ G)
~~P ^ ~G
~ (P ^ G) --> (E ^ G)
 E --> P
(~ (~S)) --> ((P ^ G) ^ ~ (P ^ G))

To be continued . . .

Guns and Control (Part 3)

So,

One thing that I have learned while standing outside the cage labeled “False Dilemma” watching the unfortunate zoo animals trapped within is that it doesn't take a whole lot of mental acrobatics to dismantle most of their arguments, such as the one for stricter gun control laws. In fact, it takes no effort at all because they will do all of the work for you.

Awfully kind of them.

Isn't it?

The proposed "solution" to the "problem" (maybe the cage should be labeled “Hegelian Dialectic”) of gun ownership follows the same absurd thought process as so many of their arguments:

1. People with guns are dangerous.

2. Dangerous situations should be avoided or prevented.

Therefore, we will issue guns to people to prevent people from having guns.

Ummm, http://youtu.be/j9ndS6yu3Kk

Yes, yes you are.

As is the norm with these Pavlovian creatures and their close cousins, the sociopaths that see the contradiction but propose the “solution” anyway, the proposed “solution” immediately violates the stated goal of the proposed “solution”. As soon as they issue the first gun to a person, they have done the opposite of preventing people from having guns. If they had a solution that didn't involve issuing guns (or other, even more dangerous weapons) to people in an effort to reduce the number of guns owned by people, that would be different.

How about this? After we issue guns to people to disarm people, we issue guns to the disarmed people to take the guns away from the first group that we issued guns to.

I think you are now qualified to vote in the next presidential election.

As you can imagine, going around stealing guns from people carries with it a certain amount of risk.   Even if violence and threats of violence weren't the habitual choice for gun control proponents as an ironic "solution," it's fair to say that arming robbers who have orders to steal guns would be necessary in order to carry out the plan.

The plan of arming people to disarm people?

I can't quite put my finger on it but something doesn't sound right with that plan.

Truthfully, many of the people arguing in favor of this "solution" are ignorant of the absurdity that they are spouting. They have been raised to view USA, Inc. as an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, ethereal entity with superhuman powers, which is free of the ethical bounds of mere mortals. In short, to these people, USA, Inc. is a god.

According to Mittler Romney, corporations aren't gods, just regular people.

Maybe he meant to say, "Corporations are personages, my friend . . . of course, they
are."

I could probably write several posts on the ramifications of this belief and the benefits gained by the rulers and their subjects by participating in this religion but for this post, it's enough to note the existence of the belief. Deifying the rulers' corporation causes a mental disconnect which blinds people from the reality of what they are truly saying. It's what leads to the most clichéd question asked when discussing freedom with a statist.

"Who will build the roads?"

"Well, who's building them now?"

"God."

They have grown so accustomed to referring to this abstract concept of government as an actual physical being with supernatural powers that they have forgotten that it's just a corporation that employs people to accomplish things.

In the name of god.

Amen.

Any "solution" they propose to deal with a "problem" they have with people is going to have those same people utilized as part of the "solution."  This obvious contradiction undermines any argument they may make and makes the rebuttals in Part 1, while still valid, completely unnecessary.  The simple answer to calls for stricter gun control is, "So, let me get this straight, you're going to issue people handguns, assault rifles, sonic weapons, energy-directed weapons (heat rays), armored personnel carriers, tanks, and who-knows-what-else weapons in order to take weapons away from people?" 

Not people, the government.

Who are reptilian aliens?

The argument is ludicrous but these people have apparently made a vow not to ever be outdone as holders of the Guinness Book of Records for Absurdity.  Guess which people they want to give the guns to?  The same type of people who have killed over 10,000,000 people in the last 75 years, employees of the US government.  Now, I don't know about you but if I suddenly became demented and decided to impose my will on over 300 million people, I would still hope that my ideas sounded like they might possibly be in the vicinity of Rationalville.  Employees of USA, Inc. and despots receiving billions of dollars in US tax money each year probably kill more people in one month than nonemployees do in an entire year.  The plan proposed by gun control advocates is actually:

People with guns are dangerous.

Dangerous situations should be avoided or prevented.

Therefore, we are going to say, "Screw that!" and issue guns to those people with a predilection toward violence or who have been so fully indoctrinated into the religion that they will blindly follow orders to commit violence against innocent people . . .

I don't know the rest.  What motivates these people is beyond me.  I'm still guessing that it's because their high priests tell them what to do and what to think.  It's clear that it has nothing to do with rationality, reasoning, logic, or facts.  Perhaps it's the combination of obedience to their religion along with the emotional delivery of the message.  Employees of USA, Inc. killed more children at Waco than were killed in Sandy Hook and they do this all the time all over the planet.  Shouldn't gun control activists be advocating for control of those people? 

It's against their religion.

If they did that, their souls may be condemned to Guantanamo Bay for all eternity.

Or until they starved themselves to death to escape the brutality of people employed by the US government.

Related articles

Guns and Control Redux (Part 1)

Guns and Control (Part 2)

So,

In part 1, I discussed two rebuttals by gun owners in response to calls for more gun control laws.  In part 3, I'll point out the inherent absurdity of the proposed gun control "solution" but today, I'm going to discuss the rebuttal from gun owners that I find lacking and the reasons why I find it wanting.  One of my reasons is fairly common sense and the other shows how gun owners are helping to perpetuate a system hell-bent on seizing their guns. 

The 1% have more control than ever and their actions, such as having their butt-puppet, The Great and Powerful Oz, sign NDAA into law demonstrates that they are afraid the people aren't going to take much more.  Much of the hype by corporate media surrounding recent sensationalized incidents of violence in the United States has been fabricated or exaggerated while ongoing, massive violence by employees of the United States government is ignored by the same "concerned" media sources.  The purpose behind the hype is to persuade those who are too stoopid to know better into supporting the 1% in disarming their enemy, the 99%.

They are just concerned about our safety.

Yes, that's obvious.  Disarm the citizens and dissolve entire police departments.  I'm feeling safer already.

Not to worry.  When the police prove to be inadequate, expect to see the military called in to "protect" American citizens.

Who is going to protect the American citizens from the military?

You.  Without.  A.  Gun.

Do you think they would be content with a 2 out of 3 bout of rock, paper, scissors?

Not likely.

However, there is a push by quite a few people to reach out to military and law enforcement officers in an effort to convince them that attacking Americans violates their oath (in addition to being just plain evil).  Speaking of oath, if the two of you are quite finished hogging my blog, it's an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.  The Constitution, or rather the 2^nd Amendment, is the third common argument that I see put forth by gun owners as a rebuttal for stricter gun control and it is by far the weakest of the arguments.  I understand the desire to throw into the mix.  The two, more powerful rebuttals, are rejected so there is this feeling that adding another argument may help.  However, in addition to lacking the strength of the other two arguments and continuing a defeating mindset, it acts as a distraction from the better arguments.  While the two sides bicker about the meaning of the oddly worded amendment and attempt to read the minds of people long since dead, better arguments sit idle.

The common sense problem with using words written on a piece of paper by the rulers of the country is that the rulers can write new words on a piece of paper (or simply just ignore the "god damned piece of paper").  When the rulers do write new words on a piece of paper and your argument was based on the previous words on a piece of paper, your argument is gone.  The possibility that the rulers will write new words on a piece of paper brings up a new argument from gun owners.

Whether or not the new piece of paper is made out of recycled materials.

Or from the skin of someone who stood in the way of ExxonMobil.

Our rulers would never do that, would they?

I'm pretty sure I heard Obama say, "It puts the lotion on its skin," before his last drone attack. 

"This drone attack was brought to you by ExxonMobil.  ExxonMobil, bringing you a brighter tomorrow."

Unless you were the family hit by the drone.

The main thrust of the new argument is on the sacred nature of the Constitution and how changing it would be very, very, very, very wrong.  However, if you bring up changes that abolished slavery or allowed women to vote, the response is, "Well, yeah, those changes were right."  This drops the entire discussion into the realm of the subjective with both sides arguing about the nature of allowable or "right" changes.  Neither side can win this debate because it's a matter of personal opinion.  Easily changed or ignored words on a piece of paper that invokes debates based on a person's point of view completely deballs the Constitutional argument against gun control. 

Yeah, but what if I used the Constitution to make a paper airplane drone?

Then you'd have an argument that was lost in the next gust of wind.

Not only does the 2^nd Amendment rebuttal to gun control score a zero, it has the potential to reaffirm an insidious belief system in those making the argument.  This paradigm is anchored more deeply each time a statement is uttered such as, "The 2^nd Amendment gives me the right to . . ."  This creates or continues the illusion that people have 2^nd Amendment rights.  They don't and it's a very dangerous belief.

WhuchyoutalkinboutWillis?

I hate to say this but I'm with the goofball on this one.

People are constantly discussing their Constitutional rights (in fact, I have done so often in the past) as if they exist.  The danger of this mindset, of believing that the Constitution gives people rights, goes back to the heart of what the Constitution is: words on a piece of paper written by the rulers.  If it were the case that people were given the right by the words on the paper to own a gun, all the rulers would have to do to take away that right is change the words on the paper (or write new words in the form of a "law" that "nullifies" the right).

The truth is that you have human rights based on the fact that you are human.  You might call these inalienable rights.  You have them by the mere fact of being you.  They aren't granted to you by words on a paper.  You have these rights, period, not because they were bestowed upon you by some corporation (even one with an impressive name like The United States of America, Inc.).

Can I buy stock in that corporation?

You are the stock in that corporation.

What people habitually call a "Constitutional Right" is actually a "Constitutional Restriction" on the allowable actions by the rulers.  You don't have a right to own a gun because of the 2^nd Amendment.  You have the right to own a gun because humans have the right to own property.  People do not have the right to take your property without your consent.  Since the rulers exempted themselves from this basic moral principle, they had to put some assurances down in writing (2^nd and 4^th Amendments) for the people that they, the rulers, wouldn't just take stuff from people without a good reason.

But don't the rulers get to decide what amounts to a "good reason?"

Very good, Grasshopper.

By incessantly arguing about the 2^nd Amendment granting the right of the people to bear arms, the false notion that the government gives people rights is ingrained even deeper.  The truth of the matter is that governments can't grant rights which are inalienable, they can only violate those rights.  In fact, their whole existence depends on violating the rights of people.  If the rulers can somehow get the people to believe and act like their rights are derived from the government, the people can be more easily controlled.  If the people trap themselves in this mindset, the rulers don't have to openly expose the true basis of their control, their willingness to initiate violence against the people.

To be continued . . .

Related articles

Guns and Control Redux (Part 1)

Hammers and Nails

So,

Here I am with a blog post.  Amazing, I know.  College took more than even I expected this last term and the next one, which starts tomorrow, doesn't look like it will be any lighter.  I haven't been able to stay up to date with current events in the depth that I prefer and have been reduced to scanning headlines most of the time.  A recurring theme I have heard is that when your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

I saw a video (posted below) about the Quebec student protests that brought this to mind this morning.  Students in Quebec (and around the world) are upset about the escalating cost of higher education and are letting the government know about it.  Someone with half a brain would think that an appropriate response would be to work on some way to lower the cost of education.  Unfortunately, we are talking about politicians. 

The truth is that the hammer *is* the primary tool in the government workbelt but the reason that it is finally getting so much press is that it's been used more transparently, more often, and predominately against the 99%.  The Internet has been effective enough at reducing the other major tools (propaganda and indoctrination) that the hammer is being used liberally while the 1% tries to find a way to gain control over the world wide web.

Instead of looking at reducing tuition costs for students or even *saying* they will look at reducing tuition costs for students, the rocket surgeons wielding the hammer passed a law making it illegal to protest without permission from the police.  That's like a patient going in to take care of an itchy rash on his right arm and the doctor tying down the patient's left arm to keep him from scratching it.  Actually it's worse than that because, in this case, it brought extra people into the fight on the students' side.

People who were not protesting tuition hikes came out to protest the new anti-protest law.  Shortly after the law was passed, 700 people were arrested for illegally protesting.  This just brought more people out to protest the arrests and the heavy-handed tactics used by the police.  The response to the hammer seems to be such a no-brainer that it leaves me wondering what game the lawmakers are playing.  Have they painted themselves into such a corner that they are powerless to do anything else?  Wouldn't it have been better to do nothing than fan the flames? 

What do you think?  Why are lawmakers around the world making symptoms illegal instead of dealing with the disease?

Impersonating a Police Officer

So,

In my rush to get through the highlights the other day, I skipped over an interesting bill that pertains to the TSA expanding their reach beyond airports, beyond train stations, beyond bus stops, to the point where they will set up check points on US roads to verify that your papers are in order and you aren't helping the French underground smuggle Americans out of occupied territory.  It's called the STRIP Act, which seems very fitting for something dealing with the TSA but if it were to somehow pass (and since about 89% of the people visiting GovTracks support the bill, you know that it won't pass), it would actually strip the TSA of their perceived legitimacy.

People see them as legitimate?

Nah, just a fiery hoop to jump through to get on a plane.

HR 3608, the Stop Tsa's Reach In Policy Act, would make it illegal for TSA personnel to

• refer to themselves as officers
• wear a uniform resembling a police officer's
• wear a badge

Since TSA security guards have pretty much gone crazy with power and seem to do whatever they want, the bill is designed to let Americans know that they are dealing with someone who has no law enforcement powers at all.  One of the egregious acts that helped pushed this bill into existance was a TSA agent who used his badge as part of his plan to commit rape, forcible sodomy, sodomy with an object, and abduction with intent to defile.  All skilz he probably picked up or improved upon in his position with the TSA.

TSA has training courses on these things, right?

Where they diddle each other while looking at downloaded scanner pics?

I haven't checked into the actual existence but I am pretty sure that you could create a daily blog showcasing TSA abuses on a nearly daily basis. 

It really shouldn't be surprising that these things happen, not if you have a shred of common sense.  It's similar to what I've said about politicians except even more apparent because I think that some politicians initially get involved thinking that they can change things.  They start out as good people who get involved because of misguided good intentions.  Once they see the reality, they either get out or start playing the game, thinking that they can still do some good even if they have sell little pieces of their soul to accomplish that good.

What do they sell when they have no soul left?

They just use the souls of the unborn as collateral.

The same can't be true for people applying to the TSA, not after the tonnage of press that they have gotten.  Anyone who applies with the TSA should immediately be added to the state's sex offender list.  These people go into this job knowing that they are going to get to do things like finger fuck Miss USA, grandmas, small children, and anyone that they want to degrade to fill some emotional void in their life.  You don't sign up with the TSA thinking that you're going to do good things.  When stories of rape, battery, theft, robbery, and other sultry activities done by the TSA (with many of them being "legal"), no one is surprised.

People aren't even shocked anymore.

And that is truly sad that this abuse is accepted as the norm.

If there is any silver lining in all of this, it's that those naked scanners they use put off some seriously nasty radiation and while it's obviously terrible to force people to choose between getting their bodies exposed to this nasty radiation or groped by a known sex offfender, it's nice to know that the people who spend the most time absorbing the radiation are the ones standing by the machines 8 hours a day.

Karma is a bitch.