Irreni Introduction: The Information Rule
Hi! Zappy Friday!
Let's get zapping!
So yesterday was the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing regarding unsubstantiated sexual harassment charges.
I followed on Twitter as well as watching live and came to the conclusion that this would make a good teaching moment about Irreni, good Irreni introduction.
So welcome to YAII! Yet another Irreni introduction.
Irreni is based upon a fundamental principle of massive moral relativism that springs from the information rule.
I saw quite a bit of golden rule behavior exercised yesterday in the Kavanaugh hearings that are illustrative of why the golden rule is so pernicious and evil.
I'm a student of history, mostly the American revolution. Mud raking or mud slinging of making false public claims for political advantage has been around as long as politics has been around. Mud raking and mud slinging are guaranteed. If you are a public figure in politics the you will have false claims impugning your character full stop. Kings who had the arbitrary power of life and death over people could not stop those people from making the worst kinds of public slandering.
When Brett Kavanaugh made his claim about his name being dragged through the mud and his life ruined in the Trump era just seemed...odd. Trump, of course, is the quintessential proof that in fact one can be falsely accused of having parties where sex with children took place and yet he's President. Trump claims "grab them by the pussy" is just locker room talk and he is innocent of having ever done it. This is a case of Trump falsely, publicly accusing himself with his own words yet his political life was not been ruined.
So it was just bizarre. And for Lindsey Graham to state that the Kavanaugh charges set some kind record for mud raking is exemplary of "my experience is everyone's experience". Hillary Clinton has been publicly accused of murdering Vince Foster, American soldiers, and Seth Rich. The irony is that Brett Kavanaugh cleared Hillary's name in the Vince Foster, false public murder charges . Republicans spent four years investigating Benghazi. Fox News has spent years on air accusing Hillary of killing American soldiers deliberately. Kavanaugh has been accused, what, for two weeks? Four years and no evidence for Hillary. All the murder charges against Hillary have been found to be false.
And yet.
And yet, Hillary Clinton ran for President and won the popular vote. So, in fact, false public claims of wrong doing are not the end of one's career. So Trump and Hillary are both case in points of two people who have had the worst kinds of salacious, false public claims made against them and yet both have been successful in public life.
It just seemed weird in the era of Trump that someone would believe that false, salacious public claims of sexual harassment must ruin reputations. The entire history of the Unites States is nothing but mud raking, especially claiming men have had affairs.
Trump has upwards of sixteen women publicly on record accusing him of sexual harassment and yet the Evangelicals claim Trump is an instrument of God, chosen by God, to do God's bidding. To a Christian there is no higher public reputation than claiming and believing someone is chosen by God to do God's work. Trump has that public reputation. Ben Kavanaugh has to be aware of this, come on. Kavanaugh may vary well be vaulted to the next Godly chosen one in the very near future due to Roe v. Wade.
It just sounded so bizarre to me in the Trump era for a man to say that false claims of sexual harassment would sink his political career. How many Whitewater false public claims did Bill Clinton have lobbied against while in office for years before one finally stuck? How many years? Brett Kavanaugh investigated how many of Clinton's, false public accusations, only to find them false, until one finally culminated as true.
The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.
No sir, Welcome to America.
Treating people as you would want them to treat you does not allow for any differences in physiology or experience. It is evil to suggest that someone who is not homosexual can empathize as if they are homosexuals, as if a heterosexual is homosexual, and hence can feel as a homosexual feels. Under this false empathy of the golden rule then heterosexuals can find homosexuality a disgusting choice made due to evil choices and not the natural love homosexuals see for themselves. The golden rule has to go.
The information rule calls for everyone to treat someone else as they are, not as you are. This requires information. One is obligated to discover the information as to the other person's experience and act on that rather than rely on one's personal intuition and empathy about differences in other humans.
When I read the Bible I also concluded the commandment to not steal was one of the most vile, wicked, despicable, disgusting, wretched, filthy morals imaginable. It is immoral that the rule for stealing be divine, but rules of possession be human. This is obvious as all hell. The commandment not to steal is nothing more than the veiled golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. He who has the gold determines ownership. Humans get to determine the rules of possession all the while the penalty for breaking those human possession rules is eternal torture in hell. That's just evil full stop. The Christian Bible is evil.
This is relevant because of how the Bible commands one to determine ownership: the smell test. A person innately knows when they own something. This is just a different take on the golden rule, do unto others, where if I truly believe I own something then in fact I do own it. I cannot steal something I believe I own.
The smell test problem doesn't just apply to questions of ownership, but also consent. Can a drunk person give consent? Can a minor under the age of eighteen give consent? Can a person change their mind about consent? Is the trauma after giving full consent sexual harassment? How does the golden rule provide moral objectivity for these questions?
Another failure aspect of the golden rule is false morality based upon denial. Bill Clinton denied having sex based upon what the definition of is, is. Some men do not believe that oral sex is "sex", that sexual harassment as perceived by women is harassment. What's most teachable in the #MeToo movement is the notion of consent. I was struck by the unwritten golden rule behavior at how women being drunk was a golden rule license for committing rape, boys will by boys. I was also struck by how being drunk was a golden rule license to condemn women as sluts who got drunk but not the men as being sexual predators. All of these problematic moral observations stem form the inherent projection of the golden rule. Western culture has long held that promiscuous men are acceptable and that women who are promiscuous are slutty whores who deserve our every condemnation. This attitude is a direct result of the golden rule of men oppressing women because men have historically held power and excused themselves. Men can condemn women under the golden rule because men are not women and can never suffer that judgment. Men judge women by different standards based on what's good for men. That is the golden rule.
The golden rule has to go. Treat people as they are based on direct information about them. This means full stop one cannot make a moral judgment until information is discovered about all individuals concerned.
Rage is not normal. Most people do no have anger management issues the kind we saw on display with Kavanaugh yesterday. I would never fly off like that due to false public claims of gang rape simply because I do not have rage issues. I do not display rage and anger in that manner because it is not in my personality.
Yet, the public yesterday was treated with the old saw, "Everyone would express Brett Kavanaugh's behavior if we were publicly, falsely accused of gang rape." Nope, not even close. The golden rule has to go in the public square. Someone should ask Dr. Ford if Kavanaugh's rage is normal behavior. Rage is not normal. However, the golden rule gives cover when we hear someone say rage abnormal behavior is normal behavior. All humans are the same, right? That does not mean it is true.
Everyone having the same behavior is really disappointing to hear from a judge. If there is ever someone who has observed first hand just how wide ranging human behavior can be it is a judge. This is because judges mostly see the extreme ends of human behavior, behavior of the kind that rises to the level of being in court in the first place.
What's the difference between art and pornography? I know it when I see it.
Kavanaugh claimed that since he had a visibly well documented record of treating women with respect then he was incapable of disrespecting women. You know it when you see it and what you see is only respect. Since you didn't see the sexual harassment then any non-visible behavior is discounted. This is not an argument to say directly dismiss guilt. This is an appeal to you know it when you see it, an appeal to the golden rule. The golden rule is inherently biased to treat others based on personal observations. Upstanding citizens don't commonly commit crimes is a golden rule defense, I know it when I see it. I see someone every day who is straight and moral, that is their apparent character. Hey, I'm a Christian.
How many wife-beater men beat their wives in public? How long are we going to accept Catholic priests molesting children because of this?
The golden rule is and always has been a colossal failure. The golden rule is our worst, first attempt at understanding human nature by using our own human nature to judge others. We do use to the golden rule to empathize that since we are flawed we can forgive other people's flaws. But, it is also just as easy to use the golden rule to persecute and prosecute anyone not us, like homosexuals.
The information rule resolves these moral dilemmas by calling for each person to be morally accounted for based upon the information about that person. This is the basis for Irreni, a governing system based upon massive moral relativity. The starting place for judging people is not how we judge ourselves, but reserving judging people on the information they provide of who they are and their experiences.
Can a drunk person give consent? Can a minor under the age of eighteen give consent? Can a person change their mind about consent? Is the trauma even after giving consent sexual harassment? The reason these moral questions are impossible using the golden rule is that the right moral answer must be taken on a case by case basis given the individual.
James Madison wrote that good government is the best outcome of a governed people. This is because there is always a loser in every lawsuit and that loser is not going to be happy with the government for losing outcome. The best government hope though is that everyone can see the overall good because everyone comes out on top most of the time.
This is a moral relativity statement. Irreni takes that observation to an entire new level. The ultimate moral laws are a set of laws tailored to each individual. That's not feasible. Therefore we will make laws that generalize about human behavior as a best approximation. This is akin to a golden rule application of government where everyone must legally abide the same set of laws, despite our differences. So, just like today, an alcoholic in the Irreni world tomorrow that commits rape and murder while under the influence of alcohol must be punished the same as non-alcohol influenced rape and murder. However, we can improve upon society with Irreni by changing the penalty to the individual. For example, we may force an alcoholic to take some future pill that makes a person wretchedly ill upon even just a taste of alcohol. Other people may benefit from other changes to their life so as to not repeat crimes of alcohol. Irreni makes tailoring the penalty the norm where today everyone is just thrown in jail.
Irreni improves upon gross laws tied to gross penalties by relying on a group of thirty people, the MGO, as the fundamental governing power. The MGO law is the supreme law for each person. This means that penalty for breaking public laws can be custom tailored based upon the information rule, the first-hand knowledge of the thirty people in the MGO of the criminal.
I was personally disappointed in the religious exchange between Kennedy and Kavanaugh. When Kennedy asked Kavanaugh if he believed in God then the only acceptable answer is to decline to answer. The U.S. Constitution forbids a religious test for holding government office. Answering the question promotes future religious test questions of judicial candidates. This exchange undermines the rule of law even if the answer to the question is known apriori. Kavanaugh is a disappointment. We should expect more in a Supreme Court Justice candidate.
Freethinkers unite!
Freedom!
Party On!
Let's get cracking!
Voluntarily Reject Demagoguery!
Politics as Science!
Demand Irreni World Scale!
Anti-theism is feminism!
Think disruption!
Empathy for all!
Moral relativity: think it, breath it!
Prove it or lose it!
Conversations equal consensus!
Welcome to the 21st century!
Scale your empathy, scale the world!
Find your tribe!
Be sexy people!
The future is coming!
Innovate at a rapid pace!
Slow speed ahead!
Well come! and well met!
Let's get zapping!
So yesterday was the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing regarding unsubstantiated sexual harassment charges.
I followed on Twitter as well as watching live and came to the conclusion that this would make a good teaching moment about Irreni, good Irreni introduction.
So welcome to YAII! Yet another Irreni introduction.
Irreni is based upon a fundamental principle of massive moral relativism that springs from the information rule.
- Information rule: treat people as they are, not as you are.
- Golden rule: treat people as you are.
I saw quite a bit of golden rule behavior exercised yesterday in the Kavanaugh hearings that are illustrative of why the golden rule is so pernicious and evil.
Golden Rule Corollaries
- Since you are not X then X can be unnatural and morally reprehensible.
- Everyone's behavior is my behavior.
- My experience is everyone's experience.
- I know it when I see it.
Random Observations
I'm a student of history, mostly the American revolution. Mud raking or mud slinging of making false public claims for political advantage has been around as long as politics has been around. Mud raking and mud slinging are guaranteed. If you are a public figure in politics the you will have false claims impugning your character full stop. Kings who had the arbitrary power of life and death over people could not stop those people from making the worst kinds of public slandering.
When Brett Kavanaugh made his claim about his name being dragged through the mud and his life ruined in the Trump era just seemed...odd. Trump, of course, is the quintessential proof that in fact one can be falsely accused of having parties where sex with children took place and yet he's President. Trump claims "grab them by the pussy" is just locker room talk and he is innocent of having ever done it. This is a case of Trump falsely, publicly accusing himself with his own words yet his political life was not been ruined.
So it was just bizarre. And for Lindsey Graham to state that the Kavanaugh charges set some kind record for mud raking is exemplary of "my experience is everyone's experience". Hillary Clinton has been publicly accused of murdering Vince Foster, American soldiers, and Seth Rich. The irony is that Brett Kavanaugh cleared Hillary's name in the Vince Foster, false public murder charges . Republicans spent four years investigating Benghazi. Fox News has spent years on air accusing Hillary of killing American soldiers deliberately. Kavanaugh has been accused, what, for two weeks? Four years and no evidence for Hillary. All the murder charges against Hillary have been found to be false.
And yet.
And yet, Hillary Clinton ran for President and won the popular vote. So, in fact, false public claims of wrong doing are not the end of one's career. So Trump and Hillary are both case in points of two people who have had the worst kinds of salacious, false public claims made against them and yet both have been successful in public life.
It just seemed weird in the era of Trump that someone would believe that false, salacious public claims of sexual harassment must ruin reputations. The entire history of the Unites States is nothing but mud raking, especially claiming men have had affairs.
Trump has upwards of sixteen women publicly on record accusing him of sexual harassment and yet the Evangelicals claim Trump is an instrument of God, chosen by God, to do God's bidding. To a Christian there is no higher public reputation than claiming and believing someone is chosen by God to do God's work. Trump has that public reputation. Ben Kavanaugh has to be aware of this, come on. Kavanaugh may vary well be vaulted to the next Godly chosen one in the very near future due to Roe v. Wade.
It just sounded so bizarre to me in the Trump era for a man to say that false claims of sexual harassment would sink his political career. How many Whitewater false public claims did Bill Clinton have lobbied against while in office for years before one finally stuck? How many years? Brett Kavanaugh investigated how many of Clinton's, false public accusations, only to find them false, until one finally culminated as true.
The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.
No sir, Welcome to America.
Golden Rule Corollary Teaching
This is a teaching moment for the information rule and Irreni World Scale. When I read the Bible for the first time I immediately came to the conclusion that Christianity is evil, the Christian god is evil, and more specifically the golden rule is evil.
Treating people as you would want them to treat you does not allow for any differences in physiology or experience. It is evil to suggest that someone who is not homosexual can empathize as if they are homosexuals, as if a heterosexual is homosexual, and hence can feel as a homosexual feels. Under this false empathy of the golden rule then heterosexuals can find homosexuality a disgusting choice made due to evil choices and not the natural love homosexuals see for themselves. The golden rule has to go.
The information rule calls for everyone to treat someone else as they are, not as you are. This requires information. One is obligated to discover the information as to the other person's experience and act on that rather than rely on one's personal intuition and empathy about differences in other humans.
When I read the Bible I also concluded the commandment to not steal was one of the most vile, wicked, despicable, disgusting, wretched, filthy morals imaginable. It is immoral that the rule for stealing be divine, but rules of possession be human. This is obvious as all hell. The commandment not to steal is nothing more than the veiled golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. He who has the gold determines ownership. Humans get to determine the rules of possession all the while the penalty for breaking those human possession rules is eternal torture in hell. That's just evil full stop. The Christian Bible is evil.
This is relevant because of how the Bible commands one to determine ownership: the smell test. A person innately knows when they own something. This is just a different take on the golden rule, do unto others, where if I truly believe I own something then in fact I do own it. I cannot steal something I believe I own.
The smell test problem doesn't just apply to questions of ownership, but also consent. Can a drunk person give consent? Can a minor under the age of eighteen give consent? Can a person change their mind about consent? Is the trauma after giving full consent sexual harassment? How does the golden rule provide moral objectivity for these questions?
Another failure aspect of the golden rule is false morality based upon denial. Bill Clinton denied having sex based upon what the definition of is, is. Some men do not believe that oral sex is "sex", that sexual harassment as perceived by women is harassment. What's most teachable in the #MeToo movement is the notion of consent. I was struck by the unwritten golden rule behavior at how women being drunk was a golden rule license for committing rape, boys will by boys. I was also struck by how being drunk was a golden rule license to condemn women as sluts who got drunk but not the men as being sexual predators. All of these problematic moral observations stem form the inherent projection of the golden rule. Western culture has long held that promiscuous men are acceptable and that women who are promiscuous are slutty whores who deserve our every condemnation. This attitude is a direct result of the golden rule of men oppressing women because men have historically held power and excused themselves. Men can condemn women under the golden rule because men are not women and can never suffer that judgment. Men judge women by different standards based on what's good for men. That is the golden rule.
The golden rule has to go. Treat people as they are based on direct information about them. This means full stop one cannot make a moral judgment until information is discovered about all individuals concerned.
Everyone's behavior is my behavior.
Rage is not normal. Most people do no have anger management issues the kind we saw on display with Kavanaugh yesterday. I would never fly off like that due to false public claims of gang rape simply because I do not have rage issues. I do not display rage and anger in that manner because it is not in my personality.
Yet, the public yesterday was treated with the old saw, "Everyone would express Brett Kavanaugh's behavior if we were publicly, falsely accused of gang rape." Nope, not even close. The golden rule has to go in the public square. Someone should ask Dr. Ford if Kavanaugh's rage is normal behavior. Rage is not normal. However, the golden rule gives cover when we hear someone say rage abnormal behavior is normal behavior. All humans are the same, right? That does not mean it is true.
Everyone having the same behavior is really disappointing to hear from a judge. If there is ever someone who has observed first hand just how wide ranging human behavior can be it is a judge. This is because judges mostly see the extreme ends of human behavior, behavior of the kind that rises to the level of being in court in the first place.
I know it when I see it
Kavanaugh claiming that a character of a hard-working, responsible doesn't commit crimes is an appeal to our experience of not having committed crimes as a hard-working responsible adult. Another way to phrase the golden rule is to see people as you see yourself. I'm hard working and don't commit crimes, I see you the same.
What's the difference between art and pornography? I know it when I see it.
Kavanaugh claimed that since he had a visibly well documented record of treating women with respect then he was incapable of disrespecting women. You know it when you see it and what you see is only respect. Since you didn't see the sexual harassment then any non-visible behavior is discounted. This is not an argument to say directly dismiss guilt. This is an appeal to you know it when you see it, an appeal to the golden rule. The golden rule is inherently biased to treat others based on personal observations. Upstanding citizens don't commonly commit crimes is a golden rule defense, I know it when I see it. I see someone every day who is straight and moral, that is their apparent character. Hey, I'm a Christian.
How many wife-beater men beat their wives in public? How long are we going to accept Catholic priests molesting children because of this?
Teaching Moment
The golden rule is and always has been a colossal failure. The golden rule is our worst, first attempt at understanding human nature by using our own human nature to judge others. We do use to the golden rule to empathize that since we are flawed we can forgive other people's flaws. But, it is also just as easy to use the golden rule to persecute and prosecute anyone not us, like homosexuals.
The information rule resolves these moral dilemmas by calling for each person to be morally accounted for based upon the information about that person. This is the basis for Irreni, a governing system based upon massive moral relativity. The starting place for judging people is not how we judge ourselves, but reserving judging people on the information they provide of who they are and their experiences.
Can a drunk person give consent? Can a minor under the age of eighteen give consent? Can a person change their mind about consent? Is the trauma even after giving consent sexual harassment? The reason these moral questions are impossible using the golden rule is that the right moral answer must be taken on a case by case basis given the individual.
James Madison wrote that good government is the best outcome of a governed people. This is because there is always a loser in every lawsuit and that loser is not going to be happy with the government for losing outcome. The best government hope though is that everyone can see the overall good because everyone comes out on top most of the time.
This is a moral relativity statement. Irreni takes that observation to an entire new level. The ultimate moral laws are a set of laws tailored to each individual. That's not feasible. Therefore we will make laws that generalize about human behavior as a best approximation. This is akin to a golden rule application of government where everyone must legally abide the same set of laws, despite our differences. So, just like today, an alcoholic in the Irreni world tomorrow that commits rape and murder while under the influence of alcohol must be punished the same as non-alcohol influenced rape and murder. However, we can improve upon society with Irreni by changing the penalty to the individual. For example, we may force an alcoholic to take some future pill that makes a person wretchedly ill upon even just a taste of alcohol. Other people may benefit from other changes to their life so as to not repeat crimes of alcohol. Irreni makes tailoring the penalty the norm where today everyone is just thrown in jail.
Irreni improves upon gross laws tied to gross penalties by relying on a group of thirty people, the MGO, as the fundamental governing power. The MGO law is the supreme law for each person. This means that penalty for breaking public laws can be custom tailored based upon the information rule, the first-hand knowledge of the thirty people in the MGO of the criminal.
Personal Note
I was personally disappointed in the religious exchange between Kennedy and Kavanaugh. When Kennedy asked Kavanaugh if he believed in God then the only acceptable answer is to decline to answer. The U.S. Constitution forbids a religious test for holding government office. Answering the question promotes future religious test questions of judicial candidates. This exchange undermines the rule of law even if the answer to the question is known apriori. Kavanaugh is a disappointment. We should expect more in a Supreme Court Justice candidate.
Freethinkers unite!
Freedom!
Party On!
Let's get cracking!
Voluntarily Reject Demagoguery!
Politics as Science!
Demand Irreni World Scale!
Anti-theism is feminism!
Think disruption!
Empathy for all!
Moral relativity: think it, breath it!
Prove it or lose it!
Conversations equal consensus!
Welcome to the 21st century!
Scale your empathy, scale the world!
Find your tribe!
Be sexy people!
The future is coming!
Innovate at a rapid pace!
Slow speed ahead!
Well come! and well met!
Comments
Post a Comment