All I Needed to Know about People - I Learnt in Kindergarten

There's this really funny - or just downright offensive, uneducated, ill-informed, malicious - view some people have:

• that those of their contacts who are happy and willing to pass judgement on other humans and human collectives - companies, political parties, associations, nation-states - 
• in conventional moralistic terms - that some people and collectives are better morally than others, can be of generally stronger moral fibre, can make better decisions than others judged by some objective and generally accepted moral code - 
• are idiots, naive, need to change their diapers, simply haven't had enough life experience or are behaving irrationally.

It is THOSE really funny, or just downright offensive, uneducated, ill-informed, malicious people to whom this is addressed:

FUCK OFF.  

I am prepared to make tough decisions, difficult judgements.  I have a lifetime of experience and realised VERY long ago that people and collectives are simply DIFFERENT from each other, including not just in terms of their interests and concerns but also their own moral fibre.  There IS such a thing as a universal morality.  Nobody needs to be the joke that is the Lawful Good Paladin in Dungeons & Dragons - we are all sinners is a charge I readily accept - but there are greater and lesser degrees of compliance to this universal code of human morality in different individuals and groups of individuals. Of course everyone and every group can and does change through time, but at any given time, there shall be for example, better nations and naughtier nations, and it is those who REFUSE to judge who are the very epitome of evil.

The reason why is because the evil ones rationalize their evil by claiming that everyone else is like them - that there is no difference between individuals and groups of individuals - that everyone acts to benefit their own selfish individual or collective interests and the ends will always justify the means.

When the evil ones apply this rationalisation, they give themselves a kind of imaginary shield with which to defend their actions. No universal moral code and no need to rank humans and human collectives by reference to such a code - "we are all the same, you and I" - means, no limits on what they can do to get what they want. 

The evil ones use this shield offensively also, of course, to attack those who are brave enough to call a spade a spade, to call them out on their actions against the universal moral code and to state quite explicitly when, where, how and how egregiously they have failed to meet the standards of that code.

To said evil ones: FUCK OFF.

You are the ones who NEED to get a kindergarten education and failing that, to be ELIMINATED if needs be.  But don't worry.  I believe in a universal moral code.  So ELIMINATED simply means that you should go to jail - for life if necessary depending on the seriousness of your wrongdoing - so that you can rot there while learning the hard way - through quiet and rigorously enforced isolation - how the world becomes over time, a much better place without you ruining things.

Russia

Russian values: Never admit or apologise for MH17. Pooh the evidence. Never keep your word eg promise Prigozhin - then kill him. Nuke Litvinenko; poison the Skripals; shoot Nemtsov, poison Navalny’s underwear. Generally just kill anyone who defects or objects no matter how inconsequential. High windows preferred. Deny your own trespass on other countries is encroachment - but call nations running from you into a defensive organization “encroaching” & “aggressive”. Call retreat from Afghanistan anything but a lost war. Be openly Nazi but call your enemies Nazi. Ignore that you invaded Poland in WW2 which makes you the aggressor not victim. Generally just blame The West for everything you do that grabs land & wealth for yourself. Key tropes: “military-industrial complex”; “broken promises”; “proxy war”; “proxy” even when it’s obvious a country made its own decision to fight for its survival and freedom - deny the basic fact that all humans have free will (agency); currently my favourite is “Nazi”. 

Only the bad stuff: a review of the Roborock S7 Max Ultra’s negative aspects

If you wish to find out more about the positives of the Roborock S7, don’t read on.  This review will just focus on the negatives. Here’s the truth:

1. No doubt you’ll read in the positive reviews about the Roborock’s supposedly high tech sensors.  These so-called hi-tech sensors are the fake deal, not the real deal. Why? When you actually observe the Roborock in use, you’ll find that benchmarked against much older vacuums such as the Samsung Powerbot VR9300 (launched at CES way back in 2016) - the Roborock has really not evolved much at all, and may even be worse than Samsungs a whole generation older.  The Roborock relies on bumping in to things to navigate around; so does the Samsung.  The Roborock claims to have a LIDAR to more precisely identify objects - this leads to pretty maps with a lot of apparent detail, but in practice the Roborock just continues to find its way by bumping into things - probably more often than the Samsung, which seems to make more or better use of its built-in camera to avoid obstacles.  As for object identification, it's going to make a lot of silly mistakes, like mis-identifying my arm with "89%" certainty as a piece of fabric.  The maps the Roborock makes look very pretty and detailed with lots of lines and shapes compared to the bare Samsung maps - but the Samsung never needs a new map made every few weeks or months. The Roborock's maps are good to start with but eventually, over a period of weeks or months of everyday use, the Roborock loses its place - it starts to go into places where it is not supposed to, and the cleaning history starts to show that the Roborock needs remapping (recalibration).  In other words, the Roborock starts to wrongly place itself on its own map.  Eventually the Roborock will start to move into no-go zones, past invisible walls marked on the maps it created weeks or months ago.  This happens even if you take good care not to move the docking station, and to clean the sensors regularly.  So you'll find yourself instructing the Roborock to re-map your house and you'll have to reinsert all the no-go zones and invisible walls anew.  A real waste of time.  Roborock is good at advertising fluff, a lot less good at matching that advertising fluff in real operations.

2. Accessories like the side-brush are really optional. The Roborock side-brush doesn’t really sweep, try it with-OUT the brush and you’ll see there’s no difference in terms of what actually gets sucked up when the Roborock cleans the room.  I’m not even sure if the main brush makes any difference - ultimately, the mopping function and the suction are what matter to make the vacuumed space clean.  So with the Roborock again, it’s marketing fluff and not a whole lot of substance - they could have just dispensed with  the brushes, the vacuum would work just fine.

3. Cannot manage unevenness like a door-railing set in the floor.  The wheels get stuck. No better than generations of robot vacuums before it. I’m not talking about ledges, which earlier generations of robot vacuums also avoided.  I’m just talking rails set in the floor for sliding doors.

And that’s it! The 3 main negatives with the Roborock S7 Max Ultra.  

Current as at February 2024. 

The Straw Man and the Famous Last Words Response

Straw Man argument: that billions of people celebrate the birth of Christ but don't think Jews lived there before 1948.  Post-er quotes the source as "Evangelical Bible.com". 

Indignant, ignorant, downright insulting response to me simply pointing out that it was a Straw Man argument: Matthew 26:33-35.  Really??!!  It's silly!

How to win debates while preventing solutions to real problems

Some guidance for so-called leaders: in order to defeat an opponent offering an actual solution to a real problem, first:

1. Pretend that you wish to engage him/her in rational debate with a view to improving the quality of the solution. Start slow and easy, polite and "helpful". 

2. Define the problem in such a way that your debating counterpoint becomes the issue to be resolved - not the real problem.  Debaters know this tactic - it is usually the first priority of the first debater on any debating team - define the topic in such a way that your side will win the debate. Never mind the real problem that prompted the debate in the first place, that is not relevant because the aim of the hypocrite is always to win the debate. Fight on the Definition, Never Mind the Solution! 

3. Salami-slice. Once the misleading definition has established the false premise necessary to win the debate, build upon it by slicing the opponent's points of evidence away - bit by bit.  Slice them off by arguing that they are not really evidence of the real problem. For example, argue that the ultimate effect of various multiple actions should be ignored. Ignore the underlying intentions of legislators when they mount multiple indirect attacks on the rights of a particular group, where a direct attack would immediately be seen by other lawmakers, judges adjudicating disputes and the general public audience for what it really is.  Instead, argue that superficial, asserted, stated or claimed, top-line intentions are all that matter.  Ignore underlying motivations or the big picture that ties seemingly disconnected attacks together. Argue that indirect attacks are not attacks at all.  Argue that they are simply irrelevant to the "real" problem - which you yourself had earlier defined such that it is **not** the real problem. By this method, the opponent's evidence - though overwhelming - can be whittled-down bit by bit into a tiny core that you will ultimately invite the audience to dismiss.

4. Mount the in personam attack but call it an attack on the merits.  An in personam ignores the merits of the issue - the real problem - and in this sense builds on the misleading definition of the real problem by adding on a layer, that attacks the personal characteristics of the opponent.  For instance, call him insane, or stupid, or some combination of both.  But say that there is evidence of that insanity or stupidity other than the fact that the opponent dares to challenge your misleading definition of the real problem.  Put up little cherry-picked moments - gaffes - from the opponent's life or career as evidence of an unsound mind, while ignoring the overwhelming mass of those other facts that point to a long, distinguished, and currently still high-achieving and very sane and intelligent life of your opponent.  When it is pointed out that you are engaging in an in personam attack, claim that you are discussing the merits of whether or not your opponent is fit to challenge anything or anyone, based on evidence.  Make it an issue of the current debate although it did not start that way.  Strenuously try to make it seem that there is evidence for rational discussion, as opposed to the naked personal attack that it is. If assertions continue that this is just a personal attack masquerading as a rational discussion of the merits of your opponent's sanity or intelligence, mount a further personal attack: "I cannot believe that a person of your eminence, experience, education and/or intelligence cannot follow my very simple line of reasoning, supported by evidence.  Do you not understand the true meaning of in personam?"  In other words, double-down on the in personam angle of attack.

5. Never, ever, let your opponent have the last word.  Ever.  Always take the last chance at the microphone.  This is critical!  Recency effect means, your audience is more likely to remember the last words they heard compared to the words they heard earlier, all other things being equal. 

6. Invite your audience to join in the ridicule, have a good laugh, and walk away.  Hands down. Always send a message of good cheer - even though winning the debate delays or prevents a real solution from ever being implemented to a real problem, with all the negative consequences for real people who were hoping for more from their leaders.

QED.

What is a good lawyer?

What is a good lawyer?

Is s/he one who:

• never admits that s/he could have made an error
• never admits any prejudice played a role in his/her reasoning
• ends every debate with something along the lines of:

•     you are an idiot
•     why can you not see my simple point
•     I cannot believe how you can be so dense
•     And I thought you were smart.

... and other similar "compliments"?

In my life, I have met lawyers like those.  They think they are better if they know how to put down their opponent, by any means fair or foul.  They define being good - in effect - as always having the last word in anything like a dispute - whether it is a friendly debate or a more high-stakes contract negotiation or appearance in court.

So! In my by now quite long life, I have even been criticised by opponents as someone who should change his diapers - but they themselves do not seem to realise the stupidity of telling someone to change his diapers, because anyone old enough to change his own diapers has to be smarter than the baby that the opponent telling him to change his diapers wants him to be.

But also in my by now quite long life, I have learnt that there is no need to respond in kind.

A good lawyer - indeed, a good person, whether also a lawyer or not - is one who knows his own worth before God.  I need no mere human - least of all any member of this "2nd oldest profession" - to decide my own worth.  And that goes for various aspects of my own worth, such as my own intellect and sense of values.  When you have been around long enough, achieved enough, helped enough, built enough - you realise that when others mount such attacks upon you, they tell you more about them than about yourself.

And so, a good lawyer is one who is confident enough in himself to simply ignore, for being beneath his dignity to respond, ad hominem attacks mounted by the desperate and the insecure.

In the end, res ipsa loquitur.  My record needs no defence or embellishment; my facts tell their own story.  Let attackers insult; for that is all they know how to do.  That is why, in fact, they insult; they can do no better.

A good lawyer is one who does not behave like many lawyers.  Let them be "lawyers" and use their "lawyerly" (shark-like) debating instincts, their abilities to use words to harm.  Let them believe that words do break bones.  I prefer to use my training and talents for other, higher purposes.  Let the ad hominem wordsmiths gasp for air in the dust storm that life shall leave, especially, for them. 

Stupid Assholes

Enough said.

Mistake in gazette, Christians still can’t use ‘Allah’

KOTA KINABALU: A Feb 16 government gazette lifting a ban on Christian publications to use the word “Allah” will be rescinded.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said a gazette would be issued as early as tomorrow to cancel the earlier gazette.

He told reporters here yesterday that there were mistakes made in the drafting of the Feb 16 gazette which stated that Christian publications could use the word “Allah” provided the words “For Christians” were clearly printed on the front cover.

“The government’s stand on the ban has not changed.

“There is also a judicial review challenging the ban,” Syed Hamid said.

He said the government had no intention of pre-empting any decision of the courts on the judicial review brought by the Malaysian Catholic church publication, the Catholic Herald.

Acknowledging that more care should have been taken, he said since mistakes were made “we will now have to correct them.”

Syed Hamid said a gazette to cancel the Feb 16 gazette is needed to clear any misunderstanding over the matter.

Apart from the word “Allah”, the ban for the Christian publications also covered the words “Kaabah,” “Solat” and “Baitullah”.

The ban on these words are not aimed at preventing other religions from being practised.

It is just that the government wants to avoid any confusion, Syed Hamid added.

Geert Wilder should not have been banned from the UK

Now, this is ridiculous.

Is the UK for "free speech" or not? Exactly what are the boundaries? Looking at my last post, I think it's pretty obvious that there are some pretty woolly thinkers in the powers-that-be that regulate free speech in the UK (yes, oh come on, "free" speech is regulated everywhere).

Wilder's video, as I have said in earlier posts, doesn't actually contain any fabrications or lies.

It contains statements and multimedia equivalents (ie. videoclips) taken out of context. Wilder has not invented statements from the Koran; he's merely extracted them for his own purposes.

Similarly, the videoclips were not staged for Wilder's camera; so, unlike the proverbial fire in the cinema, cited by a "brilliant" minister of Her Majesty's august government (Mr Miliband also said: "We have profound commitment to freedom of speech but there is no freedom to cry 'fire' in a crowded theatre and there is no freedom to stir up hate, religious and racial hatred, according to the laws of the land.") - as an example of a situation where the UK government would not allow the freedom of speech to prevail, there IS repeat IS a fire here - there is no lie in that sense. The statements Wilder actually made in Fitna are "true" - no fabrications.

The only dispute is over what you, the listener, make of that fire - is it the kind of fire that makes you run for the exit, ie. you agree with Wilder, or the kind of fire you will simply stand on to put out, ie. Wilder is exaggerating or otherwise putting the wrong spin on the observable facts.

In other words, the proper response was to allow plenty of equal time for Wilder's opponents to justify their stand.

Banning him shouts one thing loud and clear: there is no effective or proper logical response to Wilder that will appeal to the listener's good sense; Wilder is essentially correct in what he says, and therefore the only way to win the argument with Wilder is to shut him up and deny him the right to put his views across instead of replying him point for point.

Let's put my point another way, linking back to my earlier post: if saying God Doesn't Exist is not a violation of norms where freedom of speech in the UK is concerned, what exactly is wrong with saying that the Muslim God is a God of Violence? I mean, in neither case is anyone saying: Kill All the God-Believers, or, Kill All the Muslims, although that may or may not be an implication from the statement. It is merely another opinion, no? Why allow one and ban the other? Is the lobby group against Wilder more powerful than the lobby group against Atheists, and therefore more successful? Is this the real truth behind the matter, Mr Miliband? Is the deciding factor exactly who and how many you think might be offended by the statement rather than the quality of the statement itself?