Once the housing market collapses, Victoria will have only two viable income streams: fixing potholes and the stoner economy;)

Great idea and absolutely necessary. But first you have to teach kids (again) how to hand-write properly.

Any doctor who is defeated by a Chat Bot should immediately lose his medical licence.

Response from The Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority to my letter https://t.iss.one/NormalParty/2431

In summary, they are not interested.

Many thanks for your email.

The Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA) has commenced the revision process to ‘adopt and adapt’ the revised Australian Curriculum v9 into the next generation of the Victorian Curriculum F–10. As a result, the three cross-curriculum priorities will continue to be:

- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures
- Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia
- Sustainability

The Australian Curriculum is reviewed by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) every 6 years and, as part of this process, there are opportunities for stakeholders to provide feedback. To keep up-to-date with when the Australian Curriculum will be next be reviewed, please consider subscribing to the ACARA newsletter (link found on the ACARA homepage below Quick Links).
Kind regards

The obligation to ‘do something’ does not extend to killing (or even just harming) some people for the benefit of others.

Does anyone find the following statement factually inaccurate/incorrect? Please explain you reasoning if you disagree.

Covid vaccine mandates are the antithesis of free choice. The fact that people lost their jobs (or were threatened to that effect) for disobeying the mandate proves that they did not have free choice in the matter, but were economically coerced to comply. The mandates caused many people to take the vaccine contrary to their free choice, out of economic desperation, and the vaccine is known to kill a percentage of people who take it. Therefore, a percentage of deaths was (and continues to be) mandated, and this violates the right to life.

Questions for Lawyers.

Do you agree with the following statement:

1. If the vaccine mandates would cause some poeple who did not want to be vaccinated to die from the vaccine, then the mandates would violate their right to life.

If you agree, then the only possible point of contention is whether the mandates cause some people who do not want to be vaccinated to die from the vaccine. It is not in dispute whether Covid vaccines kill a percentage of people, since this is acknowledged by the health authorities, so the above point of contention can be reduced to whether the mandates cause some people who do not want to be vaccinated to be vaccinated. Do you agree with the following statement:

2. Vaccination mandates intentionally cause some people who do not want to be vaccinated to be vaccinated.

If you answered YES to 1 and 2 then it necessarily follows that the mandates violate the right to life. This does not imply that those who created the mandates are therefore guilty of intentional killing; this secondary question is distinct from whether the effect of the mandates is contrary to the right to life. Any objections?

No Australian Politician has Officially Asked the Following Questions (I presented these questions to every politician who claims to oppose the vaccine mandates):

1. Do you acknowledge that Covid vaccination occasionally causes death of healthy people, even if the overall outcome benefits most people?

2. If yes, do you acknowledge that when an employee is required to receive Covid vaccination as a condition of employment, that employee is in effect required to participate in an activity where some percentage of employees are expected to die as a result of their mandatory participation?

Why not?

https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/email-to-senator-antic-05082022

Jordan Peterson is great to listen to and always triggers new ideas. On this occasion I will object to his political vision, based on the communitarian (?) pyramid of authority (inspired by Exodus), for the following reasons:

1. Small, local communities are incapable of constructively utilising the exceptional or the transcendent, primarily because it takes roughly 3000 people to produce one person who has IQ of 150 or above. The story of Jesus is a good example of this limitation. And when they do, they turn to idolatry instead of improved reasoning and understanding.

2. I have been part of many ‘local communities’, in different countries and associated with different causes, and I learned that I belonged to none, save the one, total community: Humanity. It is only at this level that we can build the only foundation that matters to human integrity: reasoning in communication and the capacity to collectively generate meaning. We do not need to generate order, nor should we attempt to, because it leads to various forms of tyranny, precisely because no human is perfect; order is already available, on tap, and it is expressed as the laws of meaning/sense - the fundamental laws of logic that underpin all existence ‘as we know it’.

3. No matter what resolutions can be accomplished at the local community level, the community itself may be morally at odds with other communities, and will reject determinations made by the higher levels of political hierarchy, causing the structure to fail. JBP presumes that we are all already on the same page in terms of moral foundations and ideals, so that hierarchy can be uncontroversially recognised as legitimate. This is false, and this obstacle can only be fixed by prioritising the total community as the only community, based on the laws of sense with respect of which anyone can be persuaded, by demonstrating the consequences of nonsense.

4. All hierarchies are corruptible, unless the principle of what corrupts them is first understood and resolved.

5. Considering all the points above, we do not need a new system, but only a global agreement to prioritise the laws of sense as the foundation of all education and discourse. In time, this change alone will bear fruit, whereas all restructuring of the ‘system’ will retain the irrational deficiencies of the present and fail because of them.

https://youtu.be/7HR-2nFqZLA

Everything that has any meaning is conditional on logic, because all meaning is logically structured and is meaningful only insofar as it is logical. Crucially, when we are not relying on logic we are not acting intentionally. For example, emotions are not what we do, not an expression of Self, but something that happens to the self. How we interpret them in the social context can be logically consistent (and thus integrate with the emotional experiences of others) or logically flawed (and lead to irreconcilable conflict). Jokes on the other hand are not illogical; they use nonsense as nonsense, not misrepresent nonsense as sense (which would no longer be a joke but an error). The most irrational aspect of every nation, ethnicity, tribe or identity group is their culture. Only once you strip away the culture, down to bare humanity (which is coextensive with the capacity for reason), all people can be reasoned with, and all conflicts can be resolved, but not otherwise. Culture is the primary dogma and insecurity of every collective, accepted by mere habituation, social pressure and without verification. It is the biggest impediment to understanding, but there are others. The individual impediments are easier to deal with than group impediments. Never in history has humanity been culturally more integrated than we are now, and the gaps of nonsense are becoming narrower and easier to overcome via deliberation.

Jordan Peterson is looking for a global solution to conflict. This is my proposal.

The only way to resolve disagreements is via diligent application of the fundamental laws of logic, which also entails arguing with one another in good faith - being open to the possibility of error in one’s own thought process and seeking to achieve mutual understanding. Most people cannot state the three fundamental laws; we use these laws unconsciously but often ad hoc, when it suits our emotional states or personal preferences, without conceiving of a unifying standard. This has to change before we can make any social progress on the global scale.

There are more than 100 recognised logical fallacies, but they are all reducible to just three laws: the law of non-contradiction (two opposite claims cannot be true at the same time and in the same respect, or, no claim can be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect), the law of excluded middle (a claim can be either true or false with no intermediate possibility), and the law of identity (everything is identical ONLY to itself, or, no two things are identical in every respect). The three laws are in fact just different articulations of the same One law of sense/meaning, and one could rely solely on non-contradiction to reason consistently and soundly. Crucially, the principle of sufficient reason, which dictates that we ought not to assert anything as a known fact without a proof, is reducible to the law of non-contradiction.

Laws of logic are not taught in any public school, as far as I know, anywhere in the world. Nations could agree at the UN level to implement the fundamental laws of logic as a cross-curriculum priority, so that it is not necessarily a dedicated subject but may be included in every subject as the ultimate framework of its sense, truth, validity and meaning. I suggest that unmatched progress would follow just from this commitment.

People like Jordan Peterson and his collaborative group, who are now talking about the need to develop more constructive and less corruptible systems of governance, have the capacity to influence the UN with the above proposal. This should be easy; after all, logic is the only reliable antidote to misinformation.

“The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low‐certainty evidence).” https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

My Response to The Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAA)

Dear VCAA,

Is it rational to teach rationality?

Since there is no possibility of a rational argument against this proposition without contradicting oneself, the answer is necessarily YES. We must teach rationality, which hinges on the three fundamental laws of logical sense: non-contradiction, excluded middle, identity. From consistency (the law of non-contradiction) it follows that it is irrational not to teach rationality.

The question that now arises is: Why do those who teach, resist teaching rationality?

My offer still stands. I can help you formulate a strategy to seamlessly integrate the three fundamental laws of logic as a new cross-curriculum priority, to the benefit of everyone involved.

Regards,

Michael Kowalik

Prior communications: https://t.iss.one/NormalParty/2494

Artificial Intelligence is unavoidably irrational, because by adhering to specific criteria of performance set by its programmers in order to make the outputs intelligible it is limited to producing results that reflect the programmer’s objectives. This arbitrary restriction on the scope of its analysis violates the principle of sufficient reason and therefore the law of non-contradiction. In short, A.I. cannot possess the freedom of thought and be intelligible/useful at the same time. A.I. can produce only biased results. The bias is inherent in the query, and if A.I. would not satisfy queries it would not be useful, therefore its usefulness is necessarily biased to the prejudices of the user.

So I did send an email to the U.N. proposing the education of all children in how to think rationally. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/is-it-rational-to-teach-rationality/comments

When doctors are aware of vaccine mandates and the consequences of non-compliance in the general population, because they know that they themselves would lose their livelihood in case of non-compliance, then they ought to understand, based on their professional training and formal ethical obligations, that no person requesting a vaccine under these conditions can be taken to be freely consenting. I cannot say whether this would automatically give rise to any criminal liability (as opposed to professional/regulatory liability), but it does seem that a criminal case of this kind could succeed. I can infer it from how people who were ‘just doing their job’ (secretaries, doctors, nurses) in Nazi Germany were prosecuted for participating in crimes against humanity by going along with policies that they ought to have known were in breach of human dignity and life.

A shout-out to Joshua from Yellow Bicycle Company who contacted me today about ethics of vaccine mandates. His theatre in Philadelphia guarantees freedom from masks and from discrimination on the basis of vaccination status: “Yellow Bicycle Theater does not allow discrimination based on any characteristic protected by law or by the principle of autonomy, including masking preference and vaccination status.” https://yellowbicycle.com

People who believe that this or that government is illegitimate because of some legal defect have it all wrong. All governments are illegitimate; there is no magical place from which the legitimacy of one man coercing another into obedience could be drawn, not even from the ‘consent of the ruled’. The idea of consent to coercion is a contradiction in terms. There is only force and submission, but no authority. Nevertheless, just because all governments are illegitimate does not mean that you would be better off without a government. In fact, the pretence to legitimacy can be a powerful moderating force, and rejecting it outright would be ill-advised in practice; the accusation of illegitimacy does not neutralise the dominant power but can make it more ruthless and destructive. It is therefore more reasonable to argue against specific actions on ethical grounds, because the ‘political legitimacy’ of the person performing an action has no bearing on whether the action is morally right or wrong.

This fictional story is meant to look like criticism of those who question the legality and ethics of medical coercion, but its psychological effect is to cause those suffering from the authoritarian personality disorder to begin subconscious processing of their moral culpability. If the accusations were explicit they could not penetrate the psychological resistance/denial of the target audience, hence the use of reverse psychology makes therapeutic sense. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/tears-anger-wa-woman-reveals-heartbreak-as-loving-husband-sucked-into-conspiracy-theories/news-story/604386fd19be0ce6d1de31ab80e48676

“Inspired by mandate protests in Canada, a group of U.S. truckers set off on a cross-country journey that gains steam as it nears Washington. Along the way, they share their stories, their hopes and fears, their reasons for risking everything. An in-depth look at the nationwide awakening that the mainstream media refused to cover.”
Watch the docuseries in 13 episodes FREE by Joshua Crone (16+ hours in total), https://rumble.com/c/c-2158792, or rent the edited 2 hour feature film on Amazon Prime: https://www.amazon.com/Salt-Earth-Joshua-Crone/dp/B0B8KLY8ZV