Mar 20, 2020, 1:04 PM
By John Mark
—“So moral-reasoning in P is not hard. But what about the Grammars, Testimonial Truth, Operational Language, Strictly Constructed Laws, and the Abrahamic Method of Deceit?”– CD
What can the avg person grasp, and/or what do we need to give them a glimpse of out of necessity?
Strictly Constructed Laws – even if they don’t understand the details, this can be sold as solution to activist judges and undermining of the constitution. (You did a great job explaining it on most recent P-constitition video interview.)
Abrahamic Method – the term itself triggers Christians, but the basic concept of “don’t say anything that excuses a violation of reciprocity” is understandable by the avg person.
Testimonial Truth – details a bit much for avg person, but concept that there’s a checklist courts use to figure out whether a public figure is lying, I think is understandable, and may be necessary to “sell” free truthful speech vs free speech.
And the avg person may be able to understand certain aspects of it, such as the concept of lying by omission or lying by mixing 2 concepts/definitions together.