Journal of Ayn Rand Studies V18 N1 (July 2018)

[merjet]

16 hours ago, Jonathan said:

So, instead of offering a situation in which the small circumference is in contact with a surface, you suggest that readers should test a situation in which it is not in contact with a surface? Heh. So, you're saying that avoiding the conditions of the original scenario is required to arrive at your retarded conclusion? In order to not hear, feel, see and smell the friction and its resulting characteristics, you have to make the inner circumference not have contact with the plane (the upper line in the original "paradox" description)? Hahaha!

There is no mention of any surface or plane tangent to the bottom of the smaller circle in the Wikipedia article that I referenced to start the Aristotle's wheel paradox thread, idiot. You are fabricating again, as usual, for the  purpose of playing your stupid con game.

[merjet]

13 hours ago, Max said:

Even if you have difficulty visualizing the slipping of the (in this example) smaller wheel, against its support, a mathematical analysis makes it crystal clear that it is in fact slipping if the larger wheel is rotating without slipping against its own support.

There is no mention of any support tangent to the bottom of the smaller circle in the Wikipedia article that I referenced to start the Aristotle's wheel paradox thread. Your assuming there is one is totally gratuitous. The essentials of the paradox -- how far the smaller circle is moved translation-wise -- with one rotation compared to its circumference -- do not at all depend upon there being some support or surface tangent to the bottom of the smaller circle. 

Max: "So the notion of slipping is essential to the solution of the paradox."

I disagree. I gave a simple, elegant solution in the Aristotle's wheel paradox thread. It said nothing whatever about slipping.

[Jonathan]

27 minutes ago, merjet said:

There is no mention of any support tangent to the bottom of the smaller circle in the Wikipedia article that I referenced to start the Aristotle's wheel paradox thread.

Here's the relevant text from the Wikipedia article that Merlin had referenced at the beginning of that thread:

"There are two wheels, one within the other, whose rims take the shape of two circles with different diameters. The wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution. The paths traced by the bottoms of the wheels are straight lines, which are apparently the wheels' circumferences. But the two lines have the same length, so the wheels must have the same circumference, contradicting the assumption that they have different sizes: a paradox." [bolding and increased font size mine]

Heh. What a childish twat.

J

[KorbenDallas]

11 hours ago, Jonathan said:

No, actually it was a set of questions. You didn't answer them.

I don't have to answer them.  I addressed their underlying fundament.

11 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Identify what is acceptable to make fun of, and what is not, and by what means. With the entire context of the wheel "paradox" thread in mind, explain why you believe that it is unsettling for me to make fun of stubborn stupidity.

Why do you feel that you are the one to make fun?

 

P.S.  This is my last response to you, I actually do have a lot more important things to do.

[Max]

1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

Here's the relevant text from the Wikipedia article that Merlin had referenced at the beginning of that thread:

"There are two wheels, one within the other, whose rims take the shape of two circles with different diameters. The wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution. The paths traced by the bottoms of the wheels are straight lines, which are apparently the wheels' circumferences. But the two lines have the same length, so the wheels must have the same circumference, contradicting the assumption that they have different sizes: a paradox." [bolding and increased font size mine]

Heh. What a childish twat.

J

I've added another emphasis: the wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution.The non-slipping is mentioned for both wheels, which makes only sense when each wheel has its own support (tangent). And that premise is also the source of the paradox: the wheels cannot both simultaneously roll without slipping: when the instantaneous bottom point of the larger wheel has a translation speed = 0 (no slipping), the instantaneous bottom point of the smaller wheel necessarily has a translation speed > 0, in other words, it is slipping.  And that is all there is to Aristotle's paradox.

[Jonathan]

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

I don't have to answer them.  I addressed their underlying fundament.

Why do you feel that you are the one to make fun?

 

P.S.  This is my last response to you, I actually do have a lot more important things to do.

M-kay. Buh-bye!

J

[Jonathan]

39 minutes ago, Max said:

I've added another emphasis: the wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution.The non-slipping is mentioned for both wheels, which makes only sense when each wheel has its own support (tangent). And that premise is also the source of the paradox: the wheels cannot both simultaneously roll without slipping: when the instantaneous bottom point of the larger wheel has a translation speed = 0 (no slipping), the instantaneous bottom point of the smaller wheel necessarily has a translation speed > 0, in other words, it is slipping.  And that is all there is to Aristotle's paradox.

Yup, it's elementary-school-level simple. There's no paradox, but only a mistaken premise based on certain individuals' visuospatial/mechanical severe retardation.

J

[Jon Letendre]

1 hour ago, Max said:

I've added another emphasis: the wheels roll without slipping for a full revolution.The non-slipping is mentioned for both wheels, which makes only sense when each wheel has its own support (tangent). And that premise is also the source of the paradox: the wheels cannot both simultaneously roll without slipping: when the instantaneous bottom point of the larger wheel has a translation speed = 0 (no slipping), the instantaneous bottom point of the smaller wheel necessarily has a translation speed > 0, in other words, it is slipping.  And that is all there is to Aristotle's paradox.

Thank you, Max. Your grasp of the situation is complete.

I enjoy your cognition.

[merjet]

Jonathan, Max, and Jon each replied to my previous posts. All ignored my main point -- that the horizontal line tangent to the smaller wheel is not a support or surface or plane. The Wikipedia article does not say it is, yet Jonathan, Jon, and Max gratuitously assert it is.

What is the purpose of that horizontal line in the Wikipedia article? It doesn't say, but simply to show that the two horizonal lines are equal in length is enough of an explanation. The Wolfram page about the paradox (link) suggests that is the purpose. It does not claim the line represents a support or surface or plane.

Jonathan's reply was 100% ad hominem -- very common for him -- and I understand why he tries to make said gratuitous, arbitrary assertion -- w/o it his stupid con game would crumble. Heh. What a childish twat.

Jon's reply, and his colored arcs drawings, go to show that his grasp of the situation is far from complete. 

[Jonathan]

2 hours ago, merjet said:

Jonathan, Max, and Jon each replied to my previous posts. All ignored my main point -- that the horizontal line tangent to the smaller wheel is not a support or surface or plane. The Wikipedia article does not say it is, yet Jonathan, Jon, and Max gratuitously assert it is.

What is the purpose of that horizontal line in the Wikipedia article? It doesn't say, but simply to show that the two horizonal lines are equal in length is enough of an explanation. The Wolfram page about the paradox (link) suggests that is the purpose. It does not claim the line represents a support or surface or plane.

Jonathan's reply was 100% ad hominem -- very common for him -- and I understand why he tries to make said gratuitous, arbitrary assertion -- w/o it his stupid con game would crumble. Heh. What a childish twat.

Jon's reply, and his colored arcs drawings, go to show that his grasp of the situation is far from complete. 

Idiot.

J

[william.scherk]

Epistemology-a-go-go.

26 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

3 hours ago, merjet said:

What a childish twat.

Idiot.

 

[Jonathan]

3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Epistemology-a-go-go.

 

Yeah, there's really no sense in my (or anyone else's) responding to Merlin yet again with even more substance. Several of us have explained it to him multiple times already in multiple ways. He doesn't get it. He doesn't have the capacity to get it. On this issue, trying to convince Merlin of simple, observable reality that everyone else understands easily, is like trying to convince a monkey or a dog. On this issue, Merlin truly is an idiot. My saying so is not an insult, but a fact of reality. It is not ad hominem, but a valid conclusion after presenting evidence in numerous ways and destroying the substance of his position.

Here's the thread for reference:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/topic/16583-aristotles-wheel-paradox/?tab=comments#comment-271611

Read it and understand it before offering opinions on how naughty Otherses and Thems are being.

J

[Max]

6 hours ago, merjet said:

Jonathan, Max, and Jon each replied to my previous posts. All ignored my main point -- that the horizontal line tangent to the smaller wheel is not a support or surface or plane. The Wikipedia article does not say it is, yet Jonathan, Jon, and Max gratuitously assert it is.

 

The Wikipedia article states "The wheels roll without slipping". What does this "slipping" then refer to? Slipping with regard to what? The term "slipping" implies the interaction between two different surfaces, in general a wheel and its support, such as a road or a rail. Without implied supports for both wheels, the Wikipedia statement would make no sense. If the article doesn't explicitly mention the terms support or surface, it certainly implies them with the abovementioned statement.

Perhaps you don't like the physical description. Then you can translate the problem into mathematical terms: wheels become circles, supports become lines. etc. But there is a one-to-one correspondence between both descriptions. In previous posts I've also shown how the physical process of slipping between wheel and support can be translated into mathematical terms, so I won't repeat that here.

 

[Jonathan]

16 minutes ago, Max said:

The Wikipedia article states "The wheels roll without slipping". What does this "slipping" then refer to? Slipping with regard to what? The term "slipping" implies the interaction between two different surfaces, in general a wheel and its support, such as a road or a rail. Without implied supports for both wheels, the Wikipedia statement would make no sense. If the article doesn't explicitly mention the terms support or surface, it certainly implies them with the abovementioned statement.

Perhaps you don't like the physical description. Then you can translate the problem into mathematical terms: wheels become circles, supports become lines. etc. But there is a one-to-one correspondence between both descriptions. In previous posts I've also shown how the physical process of slipping between wheel and support can be translated into mathematical terms, so I won't repeat that here.

You're wasting your time. Merlin doesn't understand, and can't understand. He doesn't possess the brainpower to grasp it.

J

[Peter]

From the movie, “Big,” starring Tom Hanks.

Josh: [playing racquetball] That was under the line.

Paul: What?

Josh: That was under the line. You said it had to be over the line on a serve.

Paul: No, I didn't.

Josh: Yeah you did. You said it had to be over the line on a serve.

Paul: No I did not, now give me the goddamn ball!

Josh: Well that's cheating.

Paul: Give me the Goddamn ball, will you?

Josh: No.

Paul: Give me the ball, you little shit.

Josh: It's my serve.

Paul: Give me the ball! GIVE ME THE GODDAMN BALL! I never said that!

Josh: Yes you did.

Paul: Give me the...

[Josh starts to run, Paul gives chase]

Paul: Give me the... Give me the ball. Give me the ball! 

[Jonathan]

Peter,

We could do the same thing with any argument that you've ever been in.

Anyway, here's the relevant thread for reference:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/topic/16583-aristotles-wheel-paradox/?tab=comments#comment-271611

Read it. Notice all of the grownup substance contained in the thread? Are you capable of understanding the scenario, and of recognizing that it's not actually a paradox? Do you have any substance to contribute?

J

[Peter]

Who knew, you knew, satire? I remember looking at a similar paradox years ago, and I changed my mind about it every other time that I saw it. I hear thunder. the gods must be angry. Peter

The Problem of Induction (1953, 1974) by Popper.

. . . . Take as an example classical Newtonian mechanics. There never was a more successful theory. If repeated observational success could establish a theory, it would have established Newton's theory. Yet Newton's theory was superseded in the field of astronomy by Einstein's theory, and in the atomic field by quantum theory. And almost all physicists think now that Newtonian classical mechanics is no more than a marvelous conjecture, a strangely successful hypothesis, and a staggeringly good approximation to the truth.

I can now formulate my central thesis, which is this. Once we fully realize the implications of the conjectural character of human knowledge, then the problem of induction changes its character completely: there is no need any longer to be disturbed by Hume's negative results, since there is no need any longer to ascribe to human knowledge a validity derived from repeated observations. Human knowledge possesses no such validity. On the other hand, we can explain all our achievements in terms of the method of trial and the elimination of error. To put it in a nutshell, our conjectures are our trial balloons, and we test them by criticizing them and by trying to replace them - by trying to show that there can be better or worse conjectures, and that they can be improved upon. The place of the problem of induction is usurped by the problem of the comparative goodness or badness of the rival conjectures or theories that have been proposed.

The main barrier to accepting the conjectural character of human knowledge, and to accepting that it contains the solution of the problem of induction, is a doctrine which may be called the commonsense theory of human knowledge or the bucket theory of the human mind.

I think very highly of common sense. In fact, I think that all philosophy must start from commonsense views and from their critical examination . . . .

[Jonathan]

24 minutes ago, Peter said:

Who knew, you knew, satire? I remember looking at a similar paradox years ago, and I changed my mind about it every other time that I saw it. I hear thunder. the gods must be angry. Peter

Are you saying that you can't determine which side is right and which is wrong in the Aristotle's Wheel "Paradox" disagreement? If so, that's interesting. I'm think that I'm liking the potential of using it as a cognitive test more and more. It may be much more efficient than standard visuospatial/mechanical reasoning tests.

J

[Peter]

J wrote: Are you saying that you can't determine which side is right and which is wrong in the Aristotle's Wheel "Paradox" disagreement? If so, that's interesting. I'm think that I'm liking the potential of using it as a cognitive test more and more. It may be much more efficient than standard visuospatial/mechanical reasoning tests. end quote

I mean I did not want to ponder it. If two people who I esteem are arguing I prefer not to take sides. The paradox may be like those pictures inside a picture oddities where you look at it and it is Mickey Mouse and then it morphs into Minnie, or a “pan” mouse or an old lady in an evening gown. Roger Bissell has a few letters or articles about different paradoxes throughout history.

Now here is a paradox to ponder. My Mom told me late in life, that I had an identical twin that died in child birth or was attached to my head, which is why I have a crease in the back of my heard, cleverly hidden by my hair,. or  . . . The story changed as she aged. First I thought “wow,” about my twin but then I was sorry I knew. My sister postulated that the story was some construct of my Mom’s to avoid thinking about a very real abortion she had early in life. And my head crease is no worse than everyone elses' after a haircut.

And who knows what lurks in old drawings? I once had wall paper like that, with hidden pictures throughout it. We had it changed and the lady who was doing the wall paper job VERY CAREFULLY took the spooky wall paper down and reverently took it out to her van.

In the Nature v. nurture science, where does *volition* enter the picture? Should the human life be “nature v. nurture v. volition? Peter

From Smithsonian magazine. A Brief History of Twin Studies . . . As NASA dives into the data from astronaut twins, take a look back at the famous, and infamous, results we’ve seen1130401.1K

Related Content

A New Pregnancy Test Can Predict Twins, Down Syndrome and More

With An Eye To Mars, NASA is Testing its Astronaut Twins

As part of NASA’s “Year in Space” project, Kelly and his Earth-bound identical twin brother, retired astronaut Mark Kelly, provided samples of blood, saliva and urine and underwent a barrage of physical and psychological tests designed to study the effects of long-duration spaceflight on the human body.

Studies of identical and fraternal twins have long been used to untangle the influences of genes and the environment on particular traits. Identical twins share all of their genes, while fraternal twins only share 50 percent. If a trait is more common among identical twins than fraternal twins, it suggests genetic factors are partly responsible.

“Twins studies are the only real way of doing natural experiments in humans,” says Tim Spector, a professor of genetic epidemiology at Kings College, London. “By studying twins, you can learn a great deal about what makes us tick, what makes us different, and particularly the roles of nature versus nature that you just can’t get any other way.”

Spector is director of the TwinsUK Registry, which includes data from 12,000 twins and is used to study the genetic and environmental causes of age-related complex traits and diseases. He estimates that twins research is currently being conducted in more than 100 countries, and that most of those projects draw upon information contained in large databases such as the Twins UK Registry.

While it may be a while before we see results from the astronaut twins, researchers are hopeful that the opportunity will yield some unique insights into human health. Here are some examples of what we’ve learned from past twins studies—both famous and infamous:

The Birth of Eugenics. Victorian scientist Francis Galton, a half-cousin of Charles Darwin, was one of the first people to recognize the value of twins for studying the heritability of traits. In an 1875 paper titled “The History of Twins,” Galton used twins to estimate the relative effects of nature versus nature (a term that Galton himself coined). But his firm belief that human intelligence is largely a matter of nature led him to a darker path: He became a vocal proponent of eugenics (another term that he coined) and the idea that “a highly gifted race of men” could be produced through selective breeding.

Genes and I.Q. In 2003, Eric Turkheimer, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia, took a fresh look at the research on the heritability of I.Q., which relied heavily on twin studies. Turkheimer noticed that most of the studies that found I.Q. is largely due to genetics involved twins from middle-class backgrounds, and he wondered what the pattern was among poorer people. When he looked at twins from poor families, he found that the I.Q.s of identical twins varied just as much as the I.Q.s of fraternal twins. In other words, the impact of growing up poor can overwhelm a child’s natural intellectual gifts.

Genetic Basis for Everyday Diseases . . . . 

[Jonathan]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

I mean I did not want to ponder it. If two people who I esteem are arguing I prefer not to take sides. The paradox may be like those pictures inside a picture oddities where you look at it and it is Mickey Mouse and then it morphs into Minnie, or a “pan” mouse or an old lady in an evening gown.

I get where you're coming from, but the "paradox" is not like that. It's not open to interpretation. It's really just identifying the simple reality of the observable physics of a bike sprocket and the wheel that it's attached to. It's elementary-school-level stuff. Not wanting to investigate so as not to have to take a side is kind of like saying that you don't want to have to choose between George H. Smith's view that gaseous water (steam) is warmer than solid water (ice) and Jeff Riggenbach's view that the opposite is true and that George is running a scam illusion, because you esteem both. Your lack of curiosity is perplexing, and doubled by the fact that you want to scold us. Odd. But, whatevs.

J

[Peter]

I hope no one complains about my jokes on this prestigious thread. From the Web. “Manafort in solitary confinement.” What the heck? Every political hack who ever existed was willing to “pay to play.” His,  are not, “throw away the key” crimes.

J wrote: It's really just identifying the simple reality of the observable physics of a bike sprocket and the wheel that it's attached to. It's elementary-school-level stuff.  end quote

Personally I am not sure the reality of the “elementary” paradox ever existed. Remember the scene in the Jodie Foster movie, “Contact” when she first hears the aliens signaling? Show me the real deal. I must first hear/know/see the place of existence of this mechanical device, since I lack mechanical ability, before I invest my valuable time.

I can’t believe someone on OL read and then wrote the following crap. There are some clues as to its origin, like the name, Jonnie McCaine (John McCain) would place this in the early 21^st Century. And how dare they besmirch the name Jodie Foster? As Daffy Duck said, “Dithpickable!” The save date was 2010 but I did not write it. Where did I get it? Was someone pitting me against the famed Spanish philosopher, Gorgo Humbleton Smyth, a battle I would surely lose?

Peter

The Anarchist best seller: “Nietzschean Anarchist Superman Slays Atlas” by Gordon Humpty Smythe.

Over the Cliff Notes: In an environment of worsening economic conditions, Jodie Fluster, vice president in charge of operations, works to repair Fluster Transcontinental’s crumbling Rio Norte Line to service Colorado, the last booming industrial area in the country. Her efforts are hampered by the fact that many of the country’s most talented entrepreneurs are retiring and disappearing. The railroad’s crisis worsens when the Mexican government nationalizes Fluster’s San Sebastian Line.

Behind the backing of Senator Jonnie McCaine’s of Arizona, a new set of laws is enacted, to bring the Senator’s dream, Cap and Trade to reality. The new set of laws, Directive 10-289, is irrational and repressive. It includes a ruling that requires all patents to be signed over to the government, and all trains must run on wind power. Reverend is blackmailed into signing over his metal to protect Jodie’s reputation.

Jodie quits over the new directive and retreats to a mountain lodge. When she learns of a massive accident at the Fluster Tunnel, she returns to her job. She receives a letter from the scientist she had hired to help rebuild the motor, and fears he will be the next target of the destroyer. In an attempt to stop him from disappearing, she follows him in an airplane and crashes in the mountains. When she wakes up, she finds herself in a remote valley where all the retired industrialists are living. They are on strike, calling it a strike of the mind. There, she meets Gordo Spyte, who turns out to be both the destroyer and the man who built the motor. She falls in love with him, but she cannot give up her railroad, and she leaves the valley. When she returns to work, she finds that the government has nationalized the railroad industry. Government leaders want her to make a speech reassuring the public about the new laws. She refuses until Lowlian comes to blackmail her. On the air, she proudly announces her affair with Reverend and reveals that he has been blackmailed.

She warns the country about its repressive government. With the economy on the verge of collapse, Francoamerican destroys the rest of his holdings and disappears. The politicians no longer even pretend to work for the public good. Their vast network of influence peddling creates worse chaos, as crops rot waiting for freight trains that are diverted for personal favors. In an attempt to gain control of Francoamerican’s mills, the government stages a riot at Reverend Steel. But the steelworkers organize and fight back, led by Francoamerican, who has been working undercover at the mills. Francoamerican saves Reverend’s life, then convinces him to join the strike.

Just as the head of state prepares to give a speech on the economic situation, Gordo Spyte takes over the airwaves and delivers a lengthy address to the country, laying out the terms of the strike he has organized. In desperation, the government seeks Spyte to make him their economic dictator. Jodie inadvertently leads them to him, and they take him prisoner. But Spyte refuses to help them, even after he is tortured. Finally, Jodie and the strikers rescue him in an armed confrontation with guards. They return to the valley, where Jodie finally joins the strike. Soon, the country’s collapse is complete and the strikers prepare to return. end quote

Back to me. Anybody care to write a two page, left wing parody of “Atlas Shrugged”? The Progressives hate Trump so much why haven’t they “withdrawn” their brains from society?  

[Peter]

18 hours ago, Jonathan said:

I get where you're coming from, but the "paradox" is not like that. It's not open to interpretation. It's really just identifying the simple reality of the observable physics of a bike sprocket and the wheel that it's attached to. It's elementary-school-level stuff. Not wanting to investigate so as not to have to take a side is kind of like saying that you don't want to have to choose between George H. Smith's view that gaseous water (steam) is warmer than solid water (ice) and Jeff Riggenbach's view that the opposite is true and that George is running a scam illusion, because you esteem both. Your lack of curiosity is perplexing, and doubled by the fact that you want to scold us. Odd. But, whatevs.

J

For the record, I have great respect for Ghs. Who could ever think of writing their initials like that? And I have all his books, right on my shelf. The following is from 2010, again. A banner year? I fixed some misconceptions.

George once wrote: I do like Nietzsche's comment that the State is the "coldest of all cold monsters" that "bites with stolen teeth" -- so if that makes me Nietzschean, so be it . . . Normally, there is duck season and there is rabbit season. But you are truly a man for all seasons. end quote

So, you want to play funny with me huh? Using the Freedom of Information Act I have discovered some horrible Government meddling. Here is the report I found:

The transcript begins: Mr. Hoover? Good morning Sir. Yessir. He checks his phone for bugs daily so I have a transcript from the tap on Smith’s lamp, and I have a transcript from his last stay in a mental institution. Yes sir, I will read the mental hospital transcript first: 

The Kesey Psychiatric Hospital of Los Angeles. OK, ladies and gentlemen, this is a teaching hospital. I teach. You raise your hands if you have a question. Now, this next patient was once a writer, but now he just stares. Good morning, George, how are you feeling today?

I was fine. I think. Now I don’t remember.

I want you all to notice, there is no deception here. He is not pulling our femurs. Have you been doing your numbers George?

Yes. Yes, I can remember up to one thousand now.

Good. The drugs he is taking, are increasing his awareness.

This morning George volunteered as a test subject in our promising new drug, that we half-jokingly call ‘Memorex.’  It has been an hour since you were given Memorex, George. Do you see any difference?

Yes. Yes I do. I remember where I left my car keys, Doctor.

Very good. Why did you commit yourself?

I did? Commit? Oh, I remember. I was going to write a book. I’m poor now. I need to write a book. But I can’t remember what I was going to write. I keep thinking, Fascism wants Baptism coast to coast.

Is that right? What does that mean? Is that the title of your new book?

I don’t know what that means. Wait. Of course, I use reason, Doctor, not superstition. I’m an Atheist.

Well, so am I George. How far back does your memory go?

When I was a boy, I was told that the Lord fashioned us from His own image, that's when I decided to manufacture mirrors.

Very clever. What else George? What is your next memory?

The '60s aren't over, Man; they won't be over until the Fat Lady gets high. Doc? I’m better now. I want to go home. I remember what I was going to write. The core of Childs' argument is captured in the following passage: “There are only two possible kinds of monopolies: a coercive monopoly, which initiates force to keep its monopoly, and a non-coercive monopoly, which is always open to competition. In an Objectivist society, the government is not open to competition, and hence it is a coercive monopoly.”

Are you advocating Anarchism George?

Yes, I am. Either a monopoly is competitive or it is coercive; no third alternative exists. Limited government is not a competitive monopoly. Therefore, limited government is a coercive monopoly.

Is that a good argument, George?  I think Anarchy is crazy talk. Can you see why it isn’t a good argument?

I see now, Doc! The reason for its falsity lies in its major premise, which commits the ‘fallacy of the false alternative,’ by assuming that a monopoly must be either competitive or coercive. In fact, a monopoly can exist that is neither one nor the other. It could just be the best product on the market. Like limited Constitutional Government! It’s not coercive because you can always leave!

What’s the point of your book, George? Do you still advocate Anarchy?

Hell no! Wait. I don’t know! Nurse. Nurse Ratchet. Will you get me something to calm down? No, get me my laptop!

end of tap.

Yes, Mr. Hoover, that’s the first transcript. Yes, sir, those things he was saying sounded like quotes to me too. I looked them up   

“Fascism wants Baptism coast to coast.” That’s Ken Kesey.

“When I was a boy, I was told that the Lord fashioned us from His own image, that's when I decided to manufacture mirrors.” Director, that’s the President talking to Chance the Gardner, in the movie, “Being There.”

“The '60s aren't over, Man; they won't be over until the Fat Lady gets high.” Mr. Hoover, that’s Ken Kesey again. End of first transcript.

Ghs wrote: I know a number of ways to fool a woman into coming . . . You know, Peter, you really make this way too easy for me. end quote

Yeah, but you still have to fool her. What do you do, dress up like Napoleon? And wear one of those sex-shop, tickle mustaches? Remember, using the Freedom of Information Act I discovered two transcripts. Here is the second report I found:

Mr. Hoover? Good morning Sir. Yessir. I have another, more recent transcript from the tap on Smith’s lamp. Yes sir, I will read it to you: 

Ghs: Hon! Pack your bags. We’re going on a trip. Where? You know how you’ve always been spoofing me about not being a serious Anarchist? No. that’s OK. I understand. Will this time I’m serious. I am starting my own Anarchy! What should you bring? Well, you, know . . .  everything. Yes, bring everything. Of course I am serious.

No, we’re never coming back to the land of servitude. We will be free! Tampons? Toilet paper? Well sure, Babe, bring those things, but once my anarcho-capitalism kicks in we will be manufacturing those things. The market rules, Darlin’.

Of course there will be no police. Rape? No one will rape you. I promise. I will protect you. Well yeah, right now it’s just a couple dozen guys. Yes, you will be the only woman, but once other woman see how great you have it, all the guys will get brides.

You betcha, I will bring my stash. And plenty of seeds. Sure I will be contacting my man in the cartel. Remember the market rules. They will be sending us bags of shit in no time. We can drive under the influence all we want! No, no. Carlos from the cartel won’t steal our cash. That one time was a misunderstanding.

Oh, there you go, again. On and on about rape, tampons and toilet paper. I am telling you, we will have a great time. Hello? Hello? We must have been disconnected. end of transcript.

That’s it Mr. Hoover. No it doesn’t sound like our Georgie will be packing his bags soon. Don’t be getting paranoid on me, Sir, but you should check all your lamps too. Pronto!

Peter   

[Jonathan]

3 hours ago, Peter said:

Show me the real deal. I must first hear/know/see the place of existence of this mechanical device, since I lack mechanical ability, before I invest my valuable time.

Showing you the real deal is rather difficult when you refuse to look.

I've been asking you to look. The thread in question contains many videos and illustrations which, if you would only open your eyes and let them in, would fulfill your request to be shown.

Since you can't be bothered to look over the thread, here are a couple of the most relevant videos which show exactly what you're asking to see. Each will only take just a few seconds of you valuable time.

 

Btw, Peter, you've already spent more time explaining that you don't have time and chatting about your speculations about what the "paradox" thread may or may not contain than you would need to understand and come to a conclusion about the "paradox."

J

 

 

[Peter]

Ah so. Circumference determines distance traveled, in the same amount of time. 

[Jon Letendre]

12 minutes ago, Peter said:

Ah so. Circumference determines distance traveled, in the same amount of time. 

Hi Peter. I think it’s great that you are interested in this.

If you care, to, let’s discuss it. My only condition is that stay on topic, wheels, geometry. Mention me and it’s over.

Another condition is that we not respond to others who may post during our discussion. We ignore their posts until you and I are finished. Agreed?

To start, would you please lay out the Paradox in your own words.

My only suggestion to you for this task is this: the paradox alleges an equality - an equality that yet cannot be so, cannot be equal! Don’t neglect to spell out this alleged equality that yet cannot be an equality, because it is the very essence of the paradox.