FLASHBACK to 11/30/22: Elonathan Greenmusk plays word game

I hope Musk does well by the world’s people by truly allowing free speech on Twitter. If he means the above, he won’t. Freedom of speech without freedom of reach is not free speech, it is censorship. It’s a word game that conceals a vile intent. ABN (first posted )

UPDATE: At best Musk’s free-speech absolutism is true but also impossible (for him) due to the economics of Twitter and all social media, including Big Media/MSM. At worst, it was never true and/or he fears for his life and welfare if he defies his control masters. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle and our nation (and all of the West) is trapped in a circle of money-lies-bribes-blackmail-taxes-corruption-election theft-censorship-propaganda-more lies-money-blackmail-etc. At bottom this circle is ruled by money-blackmail-and lies, especially lies. Notice that covid and covid vaxxes would have gone nowhere without the lies. Ditto Ukraine War, election theft, climate change, and so on. I think we can have some compassion for Musk as the pressure must be enormous. Everyone else has folded. Truth today is like cracks of light you can find only in obscure corners of the Internet or with a select few amazing & wonderful people. ABN

It Was Always Only About Power With the Left

Why do so many liberal climate-activist grandees fly on private jets? Or why do those who profited from Black Lives Matter have a propensity for estate living? Or why do the community-activist Obamas prefer to live in not one, but three mansions?

The answer is that calls for radical equity, “power for the people,” and mandated equality are usually mostly sloganeering for those who enjoy power and the lucre it brings, and their wish is to augment both for themselves. The result is that the issue du jour of mandated equality often becomes secondary if not irrelevant. There is neither fear of inconstancy nor hypocrisy, given the central theme that governs a leftist party line is political utility—or the ends of power always more than justify the hypocritical means used to obtain it.


Department of Education Investigates Schools for Not Sexualizing Kids

Coordinated lawsuits are targeting schools and parents across the country

Biden launched his 2024 presidential campaign with an ad attacking Republicans for keeping a book featuring a 10-year-old performing sex acts out of schools.

“’Lawn Boy‘, one of the books shown in the Biden ad, includes lines like, “I was ten years old, but it’s true. I put Doug Goble’s d___ in my mouth.”

According to Biden, whose administration had previously colluded to investigate parents rallying against sexualizing schoolchildren with graphic materials like these as domestic terrorists, anyone opposed to having ‘Lawn Boy’ in schools is a “MAGA extremist”. While that assault on parents was stifled, under Biden, the Department of Education is launching a new attack.


Canada’s euthanasia free-for-all gets wilder: A quarter of people now back lethal injections for the POOR and homeless — critic slams ‘shameful’ attitude in world’s most permissive program

Canada is under fire once again as host of the world’s most permissive assisted suicide program, where millions of people now say the homeless and poor should be eligible for state-sanctioned deaths.

survey released this month found that more than a quarter of Canadians say being impoverished or unhoused is a good enough reason for a doctor to inject somebody with a deadly cocktail of drugs.

Even larger numbers of respondents said assisted suicide — or Medical Aid in Dying (MAID), as it is known — should be available to those with disabilities, mental illnesses or who cannot receive medical treatment.


What is the Buddhist position on suicide?

Continue reading “Canada’s euthanasia free-for-all gets wilder: A quarter of people now back lethal injections for the POOR and homeless — critic slams ‘shameful’ attitude in world’s most permissive program”

Adam Schiff ‘abused trust’ of USA and should b expelled from House of Representatives

California Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff is facing more allegations after the release of Special Counsel John Durham’s final report.

Florida Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna introduced a measure to expel Schiff from the House after Durham’s report revealed the Democrat lawmaker repeatedly lied about “collusion” between Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia.

For years, Schiff repeatedly lied to the country claiming he had “evidence” of said collusion while also launching needless “investigations” into the allegation.

“Adam Schiff lied to the American people,” Luna said. “He used his position on House Intelligence to push a lie that cost American taxpayers millions of dollars and abused the trust placed in him as Chairman. He is a dishonor to the House of Representatives. The Durham Report makes clear that the Russian Collusion was a lie from day one and Schiff knowingly used his position in an attempt to divide our country.”


Pastor makes a good apology for being wrong about covid vaxxes

He explains why he did it without using that as an excuse. He accepts full responsibility and by making this apology public he makes amends for his mistake. A full Buddhist apology would also include a vow to never be so lax and gullible again, but maybe that’s implied. What astonishes me is it is taking so long for some obviously good and well-meaning people to come to grips with vax malfeasance. ABN

Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch issues excoriating review of COVID lockdown policies including business closures and vaccine mandates and calls them ‘among the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the history of the nation’

  • Justice Neil Gorsuch labeled the avalanche of lockdown measures imposed during the pandemic as among ‘the greatest intrusions on civil liberties’
  • He said leaders at state and federal level issued emergency decrees ‘on a breathtaking scale’
  • Congress and state legislatures ‘too often fell silent’ as strict rules were laid down, he added

Yes, and SCOTUS ‘fell silent’ on election fraud, which has allowed ‘the greatest intrusions on civil liberties’ to continue while also being arguable the most egregious intrusion of all. ABN

Canadian academics write paper arguing that poverty should not disqualify people from euthanasia

A new paper by two bioethicists at the University of Toronto makes the case that euthanizing the poor should be socially acceptable. Kayla Wiebe, a PhD candidate in philosophy, and bioethicist Amy Mullin, a philosophy professor, wrote in the Journal of Medical Ethics that:  

To force people who are already in unjust social circumstances to have to wait until those social circumstances improve, or for the possibility of public charity but unreliably occurs when particularly distressing cases become public, is unacceptable. A harm reduction approach acknowledges that the recommended solution is necessarily an imperfect one: a ‘lesser evil’ between two or more less than ideal options.

The horror stories of Canadians seeking assisted suicide because they cannot get the social assistance they need are “worst-case scenarios,” the bioethicists write. “One way of responding to these cases is, ‘Well, clearly then, medical aid in dying should not be available to them,’” Mullin said in an interview. “We just don’t think the fact that social conditions are contributing to make their lives intolerable means that they don’t have the wherewithal to make that choice. People can make their own determination about whether their lives are worth living, and we should respect that.” 

Wiebe and Mullin reject the idea that the circumstances driving Canadians to suicide are coercive, and that refusing to kill them upon request “amounts to perpetuating their suffering, hoping that this will ultimately lead to a better, more ‘just’ world.” In their view, the best “harm reduction approach” would mean that “the least harmful way forward is to allow MAiD to be available.” 


This is disappointing but Kennedy probably has to say it no matter what he plans to do. He may change his mind because a ticket with him and Trump would do more to resurrect USA than any other conceivable ticket. Four more years of President Trump with VP Kennedy followed by eight years of President Kennedy would do so much good, I hope both men will consider it seriously. Even if one or both of them sees it as a sacrifice of deeply felt principles, this is a sacrifice worth making. Filing this one under ‘morality ethics’ because this would be an ethical decision of enormous greatness, one that towers over individual pride. ABN

Ethics, morality

If we consider our minds to be networks of signals, then we can say that it is better that the signals be more efficient and contain fewer errors.

This might be a good definition of a sound ethical position—to reduce signal error and increase signal efficiency.

In many ways, the two are the same. When we reduce signal error, we increase the efficiency of the entire system.

Thus, for any one system, such that there is a such a thing, the best ethical position would be to reduce signal error while increasing signal efficiency. That one system might stand for one human being.

But what if there are two or more systems that interact with each other?

In one sense we might say they are the “same” system, especially if interaction is imperative. In another sense, we can treat them as different systems.

If they are seen as the “same,” then reducing error and increasing efficiency will benefit the whole system (of two or more).

If they are seen as separate and not the same, there are two possibilities. Separate systems within the whole may decide to lie or cheat or they may decide not to lie or cheat.

If none of the separate systems within the network ever lies or cheats, efficiency will be increased and error will be reduced.

If one or more of the separate systems within the network decides to lie or cheat, efficiency will decrease and errors will multiply.

The separate systems can be understood to be people while the large network can be understood to be human groups. Lying and cheating or refraining from lying or cheating must be conscious acts.

Errors that just happen non-consciously (misspeaking, mishearing, misunderstanding, data mistakes, etc.) are not moral errors unless they could be or could have been avoided by a reliable method.

No network without lying or cheating has ever been achieved by large numbers of human beings. Even very small groups, as few as two people, rarely are able to achieve an ideal ethical state of no lying and no cheating. And even if they do get pretty good at that, it is very difficult for even just two people to remove non-conscious errors from their interactions.

FIML practice can greatly reduce non-conscious error between partners while at the same time providing a robust basis for increased moral awareness and increased understanding that both partners are benefiting greatly from the honesty (or ethical practice) of both of them.

My honesty with you greatly improves my understanding of and honesty within my own network and also gives me much better information about your network. And the same is true for you. Together we form an autocatalytic set that continually upgrades our mutual network and individual systems.

Clarity, honesty, and efficiency in interpersonal communication is satisfying in itself and also it improves efficiency between partners as it upgrades the self-awareness of each.

One partner could lie and cheat while doing FIML practice, but since FIML is fairly involved and somewhat difficult to learn, it is likely that most partners will do their best by each other and that most individuals will come to realize that honesty benefits them much more than lying.

I think it is fair to conclude that the best ethical or moral position to take is one that increases efficiency of signalling (talking, doing, etc.) while also reducing signalling error. The problem with doing that is people can and will lie and cheat and we do not (yet) have a reliable way to tell when they are lying and cheating.

A good way to tell if someone is being honest will be an accurate lie-detector, but even that may not be efficient or work well with the dynamics of real-time human communication.

Thus some other technique is needed. FIML can be that technique and I know of no other one that works as well. Thus a sound ethical position in today’s world would be having the aim of reducing signal error while increasing signal efficiency through the practice of FIML.

Without FIML, interpersonal communications is at least an order of magnitude cruder and thus much less efficient. FIML is not perfect, but it is much better than what we ordinarily do. If you can increase resolution and detail at will within any system, it will improve that system. If you can do that with interpersonal communication, it will improve all aspects of that system.

first posted SEPTEMBER 26, 2014

UPDATE: Notice that the fear people have about AI destroying the world is based on its learning how to deceive us. How to lie to us. When I introduced this idea to my partner this morning, she very convincingly argued that DARPA already has a much more powerful AI that is able to control the GPT programs we are now seeing and that our overlords will use the excuse that AI has gone rogue to further enslave us. That went right onto my Bayesian probability pie-chart as a big slice. ABN

Biden DOJ — Kids have A Constitutional Right To Puberty Blockers

The Biden Administration has a new and unhinged constitutional theory: the 14th Amendment protects the right of a child to take puberty blockers. Bans on hormone treatments for children with gender dysphoria, such as the prescription of testosterone to a transgender 12 year-old, violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

That’s the Administration’s position in LW v. Skrmetti, a lawsuit filed in a Nashville, Tennessee federal court by the families of three transgender children – a fifteen year-old transgender daughter (who thought he was transgender at age 12), a fifteen year-old transgender son, and a twelve year-old transgender son. They’re challenging a new Tennessee law that “establishes prohibitions related to the performance on minors of certain medical procedures related to gender identity, creates private causes of action for violations, and establishes additional penalties for violations.”

The families of these transgender kids allege that the Tennessee law (1) violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause by targeting the transgender; (2) violates the right of parental autonomy guaranteed by the 14th Amendment’s due process clause; and (3) that the law is preempted by the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex.”

All the children are “currently receiving medical care” that would be prohibited by the recent Tennessee legislation.