« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2024, 11:08:38 AM »
Quote from: D-y on 27 August @ 14:30
What is the purpose of learning the tax laws?
Quote from: D-y on 27 August @ 18:42
So, what is the purpose of learning these laws?
Quote from: D-y on 27 August @ 21:02
Sure, that's what the question is meant to address. The purpose behind learning the laws.
I apologize for insulting you. Please forgive my insult. You must be a government school graduate.
Quote from: D-y on 27 August @ 21:02
Rather than assume, would prefer to hear the intended purpose stated clearly, concisely, and completely.
Are you claiming this answer is not "stated clearly, concisely, and completely. "?
Quote from: YDOM on 27 August @ 16:40
If you have no knowledge of the tax laws, how would you know when the IRS lies to you?
Its just a basic clarification.
The claim is that everyone should learn the tax laws so that they will know the IRS lies to them, correct?
Is there any more to it than that? Is that the only intention present?
I find it important to both know and have available certain definitions that they don't like, such as "to exploit" is to make use of a thing. When you exploit a resource, you are for example cutting down a tree or removing coal from the ground… An unexploited resource is useless. An unexploited human resource is unemployed.
So who harms a human more? The person who exploits him in exchange for money? Or the person who refuses to hire him?
3:17 PM
Exploit's common use has a negative connotation that you're taking advantage of something in an unfair or harmful way though.
Seems like that is likely to lead to unnecessary semantics arguments and confusion about what is being communicated making the discussion dysfunctional without much to gain for it.
Well the outcome is the benefit.
Their method is ambiguation, the intended outcome is to obfuscate their goals - so we can't fight back.
In order to think clearly and so act decisively and effectively, we want disambiguation aka clarity.
In large part, that means we need to know definitions so we can know what people are saying and what they aren't saying, and so we can say what we mean and understand how it will be distorted, and account for that when possible.
Their ambiguation is very intentional and effective, especially when we don't know that's the fight we're in.
Forgive my run on sentences. I don't have enough time for revisions at the moment.
Agreement, and both can be done.
So the notion is to avoid the semantics argument that will come from using terms where both parties aren't in agreement on what the terms mean, by first clarifying the terms or using other terms where there is agreement on their meaning? Sure, that'll work.
The concern was that it might be likely to befuddle communication if one party is using a term to its literal definition, while the other is using the common meaning of it. Lots of good discussions get stuck in a fight/semantics argument over what each individual thinks the term's definition should be, instead of moving inexorably towards the truth and finding a way to talk clearly about the matter at hand.
Right. When they "takeover" a word they are taking linguistic and so mental territory.
Anyone who thinks of their definitions in place of correct definitions is captured.
And that's arguably the most important territory.
So ok, now just having a conversation with someone who is ideologically captured is way more difficult.
They reinforce their ideology, and by engaging poorly, our own thoughts are easily ambiguated.
Con - together
Versare - turn about (change)
To change together.
But instead of a conversation, it turns into a verbal fight. You're fighting their specter; they're fighting your specter.
How do you disentangle this clusterfuck?
My first thought is not to define every single term in every single conversation.
It's to prioritize.
As soon as you identify a critical term, reinforce your accurate understanding of it.
Read the dictionary definition and importantly the etymology.
Then in conversation, whenever those critical terms come up, ask the other party to define that term. Don't say what you think their definition is. Ask them to open that kimono.
Be ready to give your definition and receipts for why it is the correct one.
Give receipts for why their usage is incorrect.
Whatever the broader topic is becomes secondary because you can't discuss it with confused language.
They captured those terms in order to stop people from coming to opposing conclusions.
If you disarm that term by breaking their occupation of it, then people can come to opposing conclusions.
An example of an incorrectly used term
Gender.
The correct usage of the word gender just means "of a certain class, type, or category"
It can be applied to biological sex.
It can also be applied to types of emotions, like if you want to engender a feeling of comradery.
Now when it is applied to biological sex, it is being applied to biological sex.
If it were being applied to social sexual gender roles, it would be applied to that, not some ethereal non-sexual "gender".
You can't have a type of nothing. You can only have a type of a thing.
Gender, when applied to biological sex has always been about biological sex.
So then the idiot will say "yeah but language evolves bro."
Except this term didn't evolve that way.
It was intentionally captured and then enforced by ideologues in the 70s.
I can't find the name of the professor who wrote that nonsense in right now, no time.
But it would be good to have that info if having this debate with a lefty for example.
at 5:41 PM
"The modern academic sense of the word... was popularized and developed by the feminist movement from the 1970s onwards, which theorizes that human nature is essentially epicene and social distinctions based on sex are arbitrarily constructed. In this context, matters pertaining to this theoretical process of social construction were labelled matters of gender."
So, literally made up by marxist ideologues espousing the long debunked tabula rasa theory.
Their technique was very effective.
As long as you identify as literally any "identity" other than your nationality, then you can't beat communism the way it was beat last time.
And look where we are now.
Ah, If the target is to confront others about the definitions of words, then the suggestion is instead to create culture. It is one of the most powerful methods of moving language.
While the grammarians nit pick each other over millimeters in specifics, the public use of things moves miles. Reminded of Bugs Bunny essentially changing the meaning of the word Nimrod, because the public misunderstood the joke in the cartoon.
So then the idiot will say "yeah but language evolves bro."
Gender's new use has been meticulously changed by the cultist culture of the Gay Race Communists being supported by the system. They indoctrinated the children with it with cartoons and teachers, and for the college students its their professors, the doctors are now instructed to use it, its enforced in the office place with HR. Its everywhere in programming licenses for free and paid programs/code now too!
IF enough people are using their power to encourage it's use(that of the classical definition of gender) then something might change over time. But culture that can get people to do that should be what is produced; A one on one with someone over the definition of something isn't going to get very far, unless they're a celebrity and the discussion changes their use of the word, and its in such a way that their fans will also do the same. Something like that might work. Or meme culture that hits many people could. Lots of options to look at.
Of note, there's a bunch of legal terms that have different meanings like "Understand" that were captured by the system as well.
The legal system managed to keep and still use latin terms for many things that have been around for centuries. Perhaps if the essence of that is figured out, it might help with efforts to preserve definitions.
Ah, just thought of other examples that might be helpful. Elon changed twitter's name to X. That created a culture-vs-counterculture movement of people calling it different things.
Now whether somebody calls it twitter, twatter, or X, it conveys more information about what they think of the site.
A similar thing happened with Kiev or Kyiv(that the media pushes).
These are key examples of culture and terms being changed.
The liberty movement has terms like voluntarist and modern day abolitionist that are so powerful. They need culture to promote them for them to become used by the public though.
7:43 PM
well there's no instant solution.
if people in your town are asshole drivers,
they won't instantly all be courteous drivers just because you let someone get over one time.
we should make a habit of doing things the way we think they should be done.
each time we do, it will influence someone for better or worse.
make a habit of making it for the better.
Then when you come across a bigger influencer, you can do that with them.
and you can work to become one yourself.
But none of this is an overnight fix.
We're off by at least one generation, more likely two.
But as the african proverb goes:
"How do you eat an elephant?
One bite at a time."
So, we'd better get started, and keep right on.
Mostly agree!
It's important to lead by example.
Be the change you want to see in the world.
There's so many fakers, that when someone is the real deal people are actually surprised.
The term "influencer" has become so yucky! 🤢 lol
Another overused term by the trendies that is fighting its old definition.
Being a good influence on those around you still works thankfully. There's also giving someone the facts, both for and against, and letting them decide for themselves. A reputation is needed for that one to have any pull though.
Really its only such a battle because nearly all of the institutions of learning and media are so blatantly captured by bad actors.
Occupying logistical linguistic ground is what allowed Newspeak to take root in 1984
« Last Edit: August 30, 2024, 06:29:04 AM by Dale Eastman »
Natural Law Matters
