Farman [any]

To play devils advocate one could argue that the theory of relativity stated as a matematical metaphor is already the information as processed by humans. And that such a descriptive statment about the world implies a belef in consistent natural laws.

I also dont see how that description about religion is useful. Dont worry abou being sleepy. Rest comarade. Somtimes i have migranes and take days to reply

Good response. Agree. In general. I specially agree with the last paragraph.

But it is also the case that diferent owner clases beneffit from diferent laws and ideology. The common example is the american civil war were feudal aristocrats favored low tariffs while industrial capital prefered protectionist tarifs and wage labor, and a strong state that invested in infraestructure like railroads. Views on ussury in feudal vs trade vs mixed societies is another example.

Similarly labor relations as determined by the means of production influence the ideological positions of a society towards labor.

No society has a single means of production, there is usually an amalgam of economic interests each of this benefits from a different law, ideology or coustom. My line of questioning was in this sense, wether diferent material basis of siciety for example pastoralists vs agriculturalists lead to different ideological spaces, and how much of that is pure idealism and how much correlates to differences in the mode of prodiction.

Good response. Agree. In general. I specially agree with the last paragraph.

But it is also the case that diferent owner clases beneffit from diferent laws and ideology. The common example is the american civil war were feudal aristocrats favored low tariffs while industrial capital prefered protectionist tarifs and wage labor, and a strong state that invested in infraestructure like railroads. Views on ussury in feudal vs trade vs mixed societies is another example.

Similarly labor relations as determined by the means of production influence the ideological positions of a society towards labor.

No society has a single means of production, there is usually an amalgam of economic interests each of this benefits from a different law, ideology or coustom. My line of questioning was in this sense, wether diferent material basis of siciety for example pastoralists vs agriculturalists lead to different ideological spaces, and how much of that is pure idealism and how much correlates to differences in the mode of prodiction.

Does anybody have jerry pournelles phd thesis? I have not been able to find it. But its related to this type of horoscope.

Now idealy each question should be its own axis of variation. And then you would do a pca or similar to define your political space with that basis. That method would be more objective.

And could lead to interesting questions, how do these arrangments vary culturally. Both the spaces and their dimentionality. Maybe in some cultures the first “n” axes are all really similar while in others one axis sufices to represent most of the variation? How does these variations relate to social economic and other struvctural forces? Do diferent compositions and or historical pathways to capital produce diferent ideological relations in semengly unrelated isues? Etc.

Or you could run all sorts of analysis to create your ideological space not just pca but network embeding or some of the fancy new shit.

But in this case the space is asumed a priori wich is shit. I dont know if dr pournelle also pulls the space out of his ass or if he does some statistical justification. The psichological tests that look for protestant virtues like agreeablnes, concienciousnes etc serm to operate under a similar system are those categories aslo bullshit or is there a correlation analysis used to define them?

Superhuman order not necessarily supernatural. Unless you hold the philosophical position in wich reality is a product of human subjective experience. No i have not read the book but it says rigth there in the screenshot.

Its certainly a wierd taxonomy and i have no idea of what uses it may have. But there are sets that can be defined in such a way.

With covid around you shuldnt go to a movie teather.

Disney cape shit sucks i agree. But be responsible and dont go to enclosed crowded places when there is an airborn plague.

The gordon dickson book?

Small comunities is probably limited to pashtun villages with a few dozen freeholders. Anything at the size or larger than the free population of classical athens seems too big.

Putin is rasputin confirmed again.

A titanic figure after all.

If he was human sized then how come he could wield a spoon big enough to fit all the grain in ukraine?

What if covid was a terrorist atack on china and iran by obama loyalists? With the aded benefit ithat it put them back in power.

deleted by creator

There is no ssuch thing as absolute rule by a single figure. Unles they are are some sort of wizard with unfathomable abilities. In reality these figures are representatives of class interests.

Of it drags long enough european heavy industry would become non viable economically. That means nato is efectivley done for. No industrial base no war making capacity.

Coward.

I responded that because we were talking abaut protection of ethnic cleansing as justification for a state. And if that is the justification for israel do not necessarily disagree. I do not think the jews should be ethnically clensed and if they need their own state to prevent it im fine with that. I do strongly object to it being in the middle east.

And im aware that the zionist movment started much before ww2 and that nazis edit: (sorry for the incomplete post) were suporting it. And this makes the argument that israel is neccesary to protect the jews a lot weaker. But its ultimatley irrelevant to the abstract idea that a good justification for the state is as a means to prevent ethnic cleasning.

Can-ada does this shit all the time (harboring criminals while kidnaping inocent people) but everyone has been too cowardly to respond, the iranians, the chinese, all cowards. Its about time somebody did something about can-ada.

So yhea mody may be an asshole but at least he is a verebrate asshole. So that puts him in the top 10 world leaders in my book.

Well ultimatley legitimacy is subjective. So i dont feel particularly strongly for any critera. But “we drew this lines less than 40 Years ago and now they are sacred” seems insane. Similarly “we have the suport of the international comunity” also seems dumb. Compared to those the one i proposed does not sound as derranged.

What decides the objective control of territory is force of arms. But is that the source of legitimacy?

As for israel. I have said before that i do not necessarily object to them having their own country. I object to it being in the middle east. I think we can all agree that some things happened last century and maybe germany can give them some land as compensation.