[FRIAM] What makes Jalepanos and Green chili awful first from pain...but-

[Gillian Densmore]

Then after eating them so many times. Jalapenos at any rate the heat. And
feeling like you dipped your tongue in molten lava goes away. Eventually.
And their dirt, earthy flavor is left.
Is that because your not getting effected by caspien making your brain and
mouth go completely nuts?

I ask because recently I've been into Jalapeños. I think because I had a
cold a few weeks ago, and sometimes I crave spice then. So probably on kind
of a spice kick. But are still curious why they  suck to eat the first so
many times before tasting good.

Also is there a reason I might crave greenchilli stew when I get flue or
cold?

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] corruption and impartiality

[uǝlƃ ☤ $]

But your use of "should" implies aligned values. I suppose it's reasonable to 
criticize my artificial distinction between engineering and natural science. 
Victor Orbán (and apparently many of our Republican friends who fawn over him) 
is engineering his piece of society according to different values than we are 
(or you might feel we *should* be) engineering our piece. So, maybe I should 
have used a hedge prefix like "meta-engineering" or somesuch. But the issue 
remains that we do NOT share values.

Completely reasonable people can make the case for the death penalty, which may 
not *seem* like violent confrontation. But tight control of "violence" is 
different from non-violent. Other, seemingly reasonable people, can make the 
case for spanking their children, or industrial meat, ... or paying $50 to see 
2 people beat the snot out of each other. Many of us (less reasonable) people 
feel that a punishment should fit the crime, eye for an eye and whatnot, 
leading to things like chopped off hands or violent indoctrination in a prison 
for years as a result of selling some arbitrary recreational chemical.

The law *should* push some of us into violent confrontation, apparently [⺈]. 
Which people and which types of confrontation depends wholly on the values we 
choose as our engineered requirements.


[⺈] Hume's guillotine is either just plain false or limited to ideal deduction. 
I can't remember if I posted my arguments against it, here, or not.


On 11/23/21 9:09 AM, thompnicks...@gmail.com wrote:
> I hope I only said that the law should be designed not to push us into 
> violent confrontation.  Delete that paragraph when you send it to the Times. 

> On 11/23/21 8:46 AM, uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote:
>> The question raised by the IDEA report is one of engineering vs natural 
>> science and shared values. So, this is our justice system, where evil-doers 
>> like Rittenhouse and Reinoehl simply reap the persnickety, artifactual, 
>> consequences of the way it's semi-structured. Do we let it stand? Or do we 
>> reform it? What shared value(s) would we target as engineers? And if we 
>> choose reformation, is it a nudge approach? Overhaul approach? Etc.

-- 
"Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
☤>$ uǝlƃ


.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] corruption and impartiality

[thompnickson2]

With about ten minutes of editing, Steve, this essay should go directly to the 
Times (and anywhere else you can think of) as an op-ed.  The way you keep 
pounding in the nail is rhetorically superb.  

 

Well, except perhaps your summary of my position.  Good lord!  I hope I only 
said that the law should be designed not to push us into violent confrontation. 
 Delete that paragraph when you send it to the Times.  

 

Nick Thompson

thompnicks...@gmail.com

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

-Original Message-
From: Friam  On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2021 8:13 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] corruption and impartiality

 

 

uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote

 

> ...

> The Lerner posts seemed to echo a bit of Jon's and your objection to 
> bureaucracy, but also evoke a larger argument I've had with several people 
> about institutional/systemic knowledge. And Jon mentioned "jury 
> nullification" awhile back, which is a similar subject. *Where* is "the law"? 
> Not only where is it defined, but also where is it executed/computed? This 
> strikes me as an unsettled question ... even a couple hundred years on in 
> this experiment.

 

It seems trite but I'd say the law was *everywhere* and *nowhere* at the same 
time.   Jacob Blake was killed *by the law* because he was presumed to be afoul 
of "the law", but many felt that the "lawmen" who killed him were operating 
outside or above "the law".   When "the law" couldn't hold them accountable for 
this presumed "unlawful" action, a large portion of the citizenry decided to 
*push the law* by expressing their *lawful right* to demonstrate but then with 
some of them stepping over some lines of *the law* with various acts of 
property violence (and perhaps violence against police in a few cases?)   When 
Rittenhouse obtained a semi-automatic assault rifle he did so *outside the law* 
and then when he showed up on the street claiming (in his mind and after the 
fact to the jury) to be there to *enforce the law*, it seems that he is at 
least *pushing* the law as hard as the protestors on the street

*threatening* violence with their mere presence/posture.  Carrying a (n

apparently) loaded weapon in public (especially during civil unrest) is nothing 
less than a *threat* of violence and a strong risk of breaking *the law*. 
"Don't take your guns to town" as Glen has invoked before.

 

The police who drove past Rittenhouse, even offered him a bottle of water 
*after* having shot 3 people were "being the law" in some sense (doing their 
job as they understood it?)...  and then when he was collected (on 
his/family/lawyers') terms rather than hunted down (like the Antifa-presumed 
fellow in WA about the same time) and executed in the street (apparently within 
the law because the officers/shooters felt they saw he might have a weapon?)  
The jury trial (starting with charges, continuing with judge assignment and 
jury selection) was all an exercise of *the law*.   The courtroom scene 
unfolded "according to the law" even if some of us might question some of the 
activities/postures the judge adopted, I don't believe he exceeded his 
authority or jurisdiction.   The jury exonerated Rittenhouse on *all counts* 
precisely as the system is designed to work, even if I am personally concerned 
about various implications of that decision.   For the most part, the protests 
in WI and across the country *after* the decision were executed *within the 
law*, but as with the initiating protests, have an overtone of threatening 
violence, threatening to break out of the confines of "the law", as did 
Rittenhouse when he swaggered down the street with a loaded military style 
assault weapon at-ready.

 

So, while I sympathize with Nick's ideation that "well crafted, executed, and 
defended laws" *should* yield a kind/gentle/just/healthy society, I think 
virtually everything we are seeing today indicates that the limits of that have 
been exceeded.   Unfortunately, this circumstance just feeds the authoritarian 
ideation which is that one

*must* clamp down as hard as necessary to obtain compliance with *the law*.  I 
say unfortunately, because history indicates that such exercise of absolute 
power, even within the constraints of well-designed laws, becomes it's own 
problem pretty quickly.

 

Add in the "authority" of God (or similar) and it gets yet-more-squirrely 
because in fact one can justify anything under that kind of absolute authority. 
  At best, it seems we get religious wars as absurd as Swift's 
Big/Little-enders in Lilliput under the edicts of Lunderog and the Blundecral.

 

- Stir

 

 

 

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe  
 
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC  

Re: [FRIAM] corruption and impartiality

[uǝlƃ ☤ $]

Spot on, Steve. I mean, I reject Lerner's suggestion that procedural rights, 
covering abortion to some greater or lesser extent, are somehow less 
fundamental than "substantive" rights. "The law" can only be *complete* if it's 
considered a model of the entire society, which leads to your natural 
conclusion that it's everywhere (and nowhere, if we're careful about that 
word), in both definition and computation.

The question raised by the IDEA report is one of engineering vs natural science 
and shared values. So, this is our justice system, where evil-doers like 
Rittenhouse and Reinoehl simply reap the persnickety, artifactual, consequences 
of the way it's semi-structured. Do we let it stand? Or do we reform it? What 
shared value(s) would we target as engineers? And if we choose reformation, is 
it a nudge approach? Overhaul approach? Etc.

When literally everything from SCOTUS down to the use of leaf blowers is 
suspect, where should our skeptical attentions be applied? I mean, I can 
forgive the right wing morons marching against vaccine mandates because *I* 
don't know where to put my energies, either. We're both confused. We're all 
just a little bit arrogant in thinking our motivated slicing is somehow more 
important than others' motivated slicing.

On 11/23/21 6:12 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> It seems trite but I'd say the law was *everywhere* and *nowhere* at the same 
> time.   Jacob Blake was killed *by the law* because he was presumed to be 
> afoul of "the law", but many felt that the "lawmen" who killed him were 
> operating outside or above "the law".   When "the law" couldn't hold them 
> accountable for this presumed "unlawful" action, a large portion of the 
> citizenry decided to *push the law* by expressing their *lawful right* to 
> demonstrate but then with some of them stepping over some lines of *the law* 
> with various acts of property violence (and perhaps violence against police 
> in a few cases?)   When Rittenhouse obtained a semi-automatic assault rifle 
> he did so *outside the law* and then when he showed up on the street claiming 
> (in his mind and after the fact to the jury) to be there to *enforce the 
> law*, it seems that he is at least *pushing* the law as hard as the 
> protestors on the street *threatening* violence with their mere 
> presence/posture.  Carrying a (n
> apparently) loaded weapon in public (especially during civil unrest) is 
> nothing less than a *threat* of violence and a strong risk of breaking *the 
> law*. "Don't take your guns to town" as Glen has invoked before.
> 
> The police who drove past Rittenhouse, even offered him a bottle of water 
> *after* having shot 3 people were "being the law" in some sense (doing their 
> job as they understood it?)...  and then when he was collected (on 
> his/family/lawyers') terms rather than hunted down (like the Antifa-presumed 
> fellow in WA about the same time) and executed in the street (apparently 
> within the law because the officers/shooters felt they saw he might have a 
> weapon?)  The jury trial (starting with charges, continuing with judge 
> assignment and jury selection) was all an exercise of *the law*.   The 
> courtroom scene unfolded "according to the law" even if some of us might 
> question some of the activities/postures the judge adopted, I don't believe 
> he exceeded his authority or jurisdiction.   The jury exonerated Rittenhouse 
> on *all counts* precisely as the system is designed to work, even if I am 
> personally concerned about various implications of that decision.   For the 
> most part, the protests in WI
> and across the country *after* the decision were executed *within the law*, 
> but as with the initiating protests, have an overtone of threatening 
> violence, threatening to break out of the confines of "the law", as did 
> Rittenhouse when he swaggered down the street with a loaded military style 
> assault weapon at-ready.
> 
> So, while I sympathize with Nick's ideation that "well crafted, executed, and 
> defended laws" *should* yield a kind/gentle/just/healthy society, I think 
> virtually everything we are seeing today indicates that the limits of that 
> have been exceeded.   Unfortunately, this circumstance just feeds the 
> authoritarian ideation which is that one *must* clamp down as hard as 
> necessary to obtain compliance with *the law*.  I say unfortunately, because 
> history indicates that such exercise of absolute power, even within the 
> constraints of well-designed laws, becomes it's own problem pretty quickly.
> 
> Add in the "authority" of God (or similar) and it gets yet-more-squirrely 
> because in fact one can justify anything under that kind of absolute 
> authority.   At best, it seems we get religious wars as absurd as Swift's 
> Big/Little-enders in Lilliput under the edicts of Lunderog and the Blundecral.

-- 
"Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
☤>$ uǝlƃ

.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -.

Re: [FRIAM] corruption and impartiality

[Steve Smith]

uǝlƃ ☤>$ wrote


...
The Lerner posts seemed to echo a bit of Jon's and your objection to bureaucracy, but also evoke a 
larger argument I've had with several people about institutional/systemic knowledge. And Jon 
mentioned "jury nullification" awhile back, which is a similar subject. *Where* is 
"the law"? Not only where is it defined, but also where is it executed/computed? This 
strikes me as an unsettled question ... even a couple hundred years on in this experiment.


It seems trite but I'd say the law was *everywhere* and *nowhere* at the 
same time.   Jacob Blake was killed *by the law* because he was presumed 
to be afoul of "the law", but many felt that the "lawmen" who killed him 
were operating outside or above "the law".   When "the law" couldn't 
hold them accountable for this presumed "unlawful" action, a large 
portion of the citizenry decided to *push the law* by expressing their 
*lawful right* to demonstrate but then with some of them stepping over 
some lines of *the law* with various acts of property violence (and 
perhaps violence against police in a few cases?)   When Rittenhouse 
obtained a semi-automatic assault rifle he did so *outside the law* and 
then when he showed up on the street claiming (in his mind and after the 
fact to the jury) to be there to *enforce the law*, it seems that he is 
at least *pushing* the law as hard as the protestors on the street 
*threatening* violence with their mere presence/posture.  Carrying a (n 
apparently) loaded weapon in public (especially during civil unrest) is 
nothing less than a *threat* of violence and a strong risk of breaking 
*the law*. "Don't take your guns to town" as Glen has invoked before.


The police who drove past Rittenhouse, even offered him a bottle of 
water *after* having shot 3 people were "being the law" in some sense 
(doing their job as they understood it?)...  and then when he was 
collected (on his/family/lawyers') terms rather than hunted down (like 
the Antifa-presumed fellow in WA about the same time) and executed in 
the street (apparently within the law because the officers/shooters felt 
they saw he might have a weapon?)  The jury trial (starting with 
charges, continuing with judge assignment and jury selection) was all an 
exercise of *the law*.   The courtroom scene unfolded "according to the 
law" even if some of us might question some of the activities/postures 
the judge adopted, I don't believe he exceeded his authority or 
jurisdiction.   The jury exonerated Rittenhouse on *all counts* 
precisely as the system is designed to work, even if I am personally 
concerned about various implications of that decision.   For the most 
part, the protests in WI and across the country *after* the decision 
were executed *within the law*, but as with the initiating protests, 
have an overtone of threatening violence, threatening to break out of 
the confines of "the law", as did Rittenhouse when he swaggered down the 
street with a loaded military style assault weapon at-ready.


So, while I sympathize with Nick's ideation that "well crafted, 
executed, and defended laws" *should* yield a kind/gentle/just/healthy 
society, I think virtually everything we are seeing today indicates that 
the limits of that have been exceeded.   Unfortunately, this 
circumstance just feeds the authoritarian ideation which is that one 
*must* clamp down as hard as necessary to obtain compliance with *the 
law*.  I say unfortunately, because history indicates that such exercise 
of absolute power, even within the constraints of well-designed laws, 
becomes it's own problem pretty quickly.


Add in the "authority" of God (or similar) and it gets 
yet-more-squirrely because in fact one can justify anything under that 
kind of absolute authority.   At best, it seems we get religious wars as 
absurd as Swift's Big/Little-enders in Lilliput under the edicts of 
Lunderog and the Blundecral.


- Stir



.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:
5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/