#law logic

[maths-screaming]

In Which I Lawyer a Bit

A couple times now, I've talked about "check your work." Specifically, I've talked about meaningful or material work checking.

What I'm trying to find words for is "a way to check the work that demonstrates that the answer reached is in fact correct, per the basics of how numbers work." *

This is why I was dissatisfied earlier with "10 - 6 = 4" as a "check" of "10 - 4 = 6" - those feel more like saying the same thing twice than like counterbalancing facts. "6 + 4 = 10" makes more sense to me as a check there because it does the opposite operation but expresses the same relationship among the three numbers. Counting "9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4" and noting there are six digits makes more sense to me to, as it relies on the basic relationship among digits to get from 10 to 4.

I grabbed "material" out of the vocab bin because it's a term lawyers throw around a lot, and I used to be one. Lawyer Brain does not find "I said the same sentence but the other way around" to be material evidence that a statement is true. "She and I made a contract on Wednesday" does not prove that "on Wednesday, she and I made a contract" is true.

"On Wednesday, she and I agreed that she would pay me $5,000 and I would deliver to her 5,000 widgets" gets us closer. This statement reveals that at least a few basic contract elements (offer, acceptance, consideration) occurred. This is a more meaningful or material proof: it proceeds toward the conclusion "between us, she and I met all the elements of a contract on Wednesday" and thus "she and I made a contract on Wednesday."

I have had Lawyer Brain long enough to be extremely skeptical of anything that can't show its own work.

My standards for "show your work" are higher as well. My math teachers wanted to see the numbers we carried when doing addition or the borrowing we did in subtraction, for instance. Writing 10s or 9s above the zeroes was what they meant by "show your work."

I don't trust the absolute walnut who crosses out zeroes and puts 10s or 9s in my arithmetic problems. I know that walnut. That walnut is terrible at arithmetic.

I do trust methods that demonstrate to me that the answer I reached inexorably has to be reached because that is how numbers number. Like counting on. Or rearranging piles of beans. 8x4 definitely is the same as 4x8 because I need the same total number of beans to make both four piles of eight beans each and eight piles of four beans each.

One thing that has frustrated me for decades is that we weren't taught material ways to check our own work. We really were just expected to look at an answer and go "wait, that can't have three digits in it."

Which is not something a walnut with the number sense of a peanut can do.

---

*I can't remember the math-world definition of "proof," so I'm avoiding that word. But based on my vague memory of high school geometry, that might be what I mean: a step by step approach from first principles (or basic agreed-upon principles) that reveals how the result is the result.

[inkskinned]

the thing about art is that it was always supposed to be about us, about the human-ness of us, the impossible and beautiful reality that we (for centuries) have stood still, transfixed by music. that we can close our eyes and cry about the same book passage; the events of which aren't real and never happened. theatre in shakespeare's time was as real as it is now; we all laugh at the same cue (pursued by bear), separated hundreds of years apart.

three years ago my housemates were jamming outdoors, just messing around with their instruments, mostly just making noise. our neighbors - shy, cautious, a little sheepish - sat down and started playing. i don't really know how it happened; i was somehow in charge of dancing, barefoot and laughing - but i looked up, and our yard was full of people. kids stacked on the shoulders of parents. old couples holding hands. someone had brought sidewalk chalk; our front walk became a riot of color. someone ran in with a flute and played the most astounding solo i've ever heard in my life, upright and wiggling, skipping as she did so. she only paused because the violin player was kicking his heels up and she was laughing too hard to continue.

two weeks ago my friend and i met in the basement of her apartment complex so she could work out a piece of choreography. we have a language barrier - i'm not as good at ASL as i'd like to be (i'm still learning!) so we communicate mostly through the notes app and this strange secret language of dancers - we have the same movement vocabulary. the two of us cracking jokes at each other, giggling. there were kids in the basement too, who had been playing soccer until we took up the far corner of the room. one by one they made their slow way over like feral cats - they laid down, belly-flat against the floor, just watching. my friend and i were not in tutus - we were in slouchy shirts and leggings and socks. nothing fancy. but when i asked the kids would you like to dance too? they were immediately on their feet and spinning. i love when people dance with abandon, the wild and leggy fervor of childhood. i think it is gorgeous.

their adults showed up eventually, and a few of them said hey, let's not bother the nice ladies. but they weren't bothering us, they were just having fun - so. a few of the adults started dancing awkwardly along, and then most of the adults. someone brought down a better sound system. someone opened a watermelon and started handing out slices. it was 8 PM on a tuesday and nothing about that day was particularly special; we might as well party.

one time i hosted a free "paint along party" and about 20 adults worked quietly while i taught them how to paint nessie. one time i taught community dance classes and so many people showed up we had to move the whole thing outside. we used chairs and coatracks to balance. one time i showed up to a random band playing in a random location, and the whole thing got packed so quickly we had to open every door and window in the place.

i don't think i can tell you how much people want to be making art and engaging with art. they want to, desperately. so many people would be stunning artists, but they are lied to and told from a very young age that art only matters if it is planned, purposeful, beautiful. that if you have an idea, you need to be able to express it perfectly. this is not true. you don't get only 1 chance to communicate. you can spend a lifetime trying to display exactly 1 thing you can never quite language. you can just express the "!!??!!!"-ing-ness of being alive; that is something none of us really have a full grasp on creating. and even when we can't make what we want - god, it feels fucking good to try. and even just enjoying other artists - art inherently rewards the act of participating.

i wasn't raised wealthy. whenever i make a post about art, someone inevitably says something along the lines of well some of us aren't that lucky. i am not lucky; i am dedicated. i have a chronic condition, my hands are constantly in pain. i am not neurotypical, nor was i raised safe. i worked 5-7 jobs while some of these memories happened. i chose art because it mattered to me more than anything on this fucking planet - i would work 80 hours a week just so i could afford to write in 3 of them.

and i am still telling you - if you are called to make art, you are called to the part of you that is human. you do not have to be good at it. you do not have to have enormous amounts of privilege. you can just... give yourself permission. you can just say i'm going to make something now and then - go out and make it. raquel it won't be good though that is okay, i don't make good things every time either. besides. who decides what good even is?

you weren't called to make something because you wanted it to be good, you were called to make something because it is a basic instinct. you were taught to judge its worth and over-value perfection. you are doing something impossible. a god's ability: from nothing springs creation.

a few months ago i found a piece of sidewalk chalk and started drawing. within an hour i had somehow collected a small classroom of young children. their adults often brought their own chalk. i looked up and about fifteen families had joined me from around the block. we drew scrangly unicorns and messed up flowers and one girl asked me to draw charizard. i am not good at drawing. i basically drew an orb with wings. you would have thought i drew her the mona lisa. she dragged her mother over and pointed and said look! look what she drew for me and, in the moment, i admit i flinched (sorry, i don't -). but the mother just grinned at me. he's beautiful. and then she sat down and started drawing.

someone took a picture of it. it was in the local newspaper. the summary underneath said joyful and spontaneous artwork from local artists springs up in public gallery. in the picture, a little girl covered in chalk dust has her head thrown back, delighted. laughing.

[heavenangelly]

You don’t need logic in the law of assumption. If you want 15 beach houses all across the world and to own 5 private airlines to get there, you literally can. If you want to be a famous celebrity, you can. If you want to wake up in an nyc penthouse with you s/o and 14 billion in the bank, YOU CAN.

Nothing is impossible. It doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks, if you want it, you can have it.

However, for the people that think you need to be materialistic bc everyone else is, you definitely don’t need to. If you just want a quiet life in the woods with deers liking your company and a job that satisfies you and pays you enough money to be comfortable but not overly rich and you just minding your own business, you can.

This is your life and it’s your rules. Don’t let someone else’s limits or desires become your own. Nothing is too illogical or boring to manifest. You can do whatever you want and manifest anything your heart desires.

[bumblingbabooshka]

Thinking about marriage/women's rights on Vulcan Some may think that T'Pring not being allowed to divorce Spock was because he was going through the pon farr but if she were allowed to divorce him at all she probably would have done that a long time ago, confirmed by T'Pol when she's speaking with Koss, who isn't suffering from the pon farr. She says that he can choose another mate (without invoking a fight it seems: note the difference between a 'mate' and a 'challenger') and after he makes it clear that nothing she says will change his mind about marrying her, she finally threatens to declare a kal-if-fee. It's clear that Vulcan women cannot divorce/refuse to marry a man they've been betrothed to under any circumstances if A) He himself doesn't consent to ending their marriage or B) She doesn't have someone else waiting in the wings to be given to in his stead. Though, if the challenger she selects fails to win the fight, she'll have to marry her betrothed anyway unless (again) he decides he doesn't want her after the challenge. That seems like an incredibly unfair system, heavily biased towards men. SNW is an alternate universe in many obvious respects but most egregiously in that T'Pring has a lot of non-canonical agency over her relationship with Spock. It's interesting to me that Vulcan society has women in many positions of power and treats women as equal to men from what I've seen despite these laws. We don't really see Vulcans exhibiting a misogynistic attitude towards women in general but in TOS (perhaps because of its general writing style but it's still interesting to note) both Sarek and Spock take on patriarchal attitudes specifically regarding wives. Amanda says that 'of course' Sarek commands her because "he is a Vulcan and I am his wife." It's worthwhile in my eyes to note that she specifies 'wife' instead of attributing this attitude to women as a whole. Again, with TOS' writing style it wouldn't be out of place for her to say "he is a man and I am a woman." Spock, while in a pon farr induced irritation, states that it's "undignified for a woman to play servant to a man that isn't hers" - again implying that there's something specific about being a Wife in Vulcan society which is different from being a woman in general and demands subservience to a husband. This could perhaps stem from the extreme sense of ownership that Vulcan law has permitted men to have over women. A woman legally cannot point blank refuse marriage. There is no option which guarantees she won't have to marry her betrothed other than death. When T'Pau speaks of T'Pring she refers to her as being 'property' and Stonn, before being interrupted, states he's made 'the ancient claim' - we don't know what this is because he gets cut off but it's obvious they're both using the language of Vulcan law. Men are permitted true freedom to choose. If a woman wants to choose someone else to be with there is no option available to her other than the kal-if-fee which might result in the death of the one she wants to be with. And, if her lover fails, her husband can still just decide he wants to marry her and she'll be forced to. T'Pring gives two scenarios: One where Spock 'frees' her and one where he doesn't - it's still ultimately his decision which is clear when he ends the conversation with "Stonn, she is yours." This again isn't just because of the pon farr as T'Pol also goes through this. Koss can choose another mate and when the option is talked about there's no implication that this would result in any sort of fight (both by the casualness of its mention and by the fact that there's no formal word for it unlike the kal-if-fee.) Also, the fact that Koss does eventually grant T'Pol a divorce and it's all fine means that T'Pol isn't lawfully required to have another man waiting if her HUSBAND doesn't want her. It's ONLY required if SHE doesn't want her husband. Tradition must take precedence over individual desire UNLESS!!! You're a man. Then it's fine. Like, your parents might not be happy but legally you're golden.

[aroaceleovaldez]

we should make Nico more fucked up, actually. enough woobifying him. that boy should be covered in blood and viscera

[flaringgoosebumps]

No one's talking about Joyce swearing that Hopper is still alive, literally doing everything she can to get to him and pairing up with someone she met under weird circumstances in order to do so being a parallel to Mike in season 1 trying to find Will.

[goddidntdothis]

cause and effect

[szfiction]

This parallel makes me insane actually (and there is something incredibly Lawlu about it to me)

[scatterbrainedbot]

the realization that a 03 leosagi child could be a dragon-bunny hybrid hit me like a derailed freight train a few days ago

i do not know her name or anything else all i know is that her fam is as surprised and awed by her as i am

also that mikey needs a refresher on how biology works

[crowliphale]

watching witchlight while i procrastinate the screenshot drawings but torbek and gricko just high-fived and called each other goblin bros. which is very cute and charming but my frostbek/grimmorning brain just said "hooly shit its two best friends who aren't dating but are unfathomably healthy about their shared girlfriend ohhh my god"

dynamics are shifting a little they just keep getting better and better

[queermikewheelertruther]

people who say byler is incest because nancy and jonathan are dating actually drive me insane like no other

(screenshots to add onto this)

[afterthelambs]

The more i find out about Piltover the more messed up they are, like what do you mean they control whether the undercity gets to breathe or have clean water. Season 1 made it seem like Piltover was just apathetic to Zaun, like they were just wanted nothing to do with the undercity. But this info confirms that they actively and intentionally make Zaun worse.

Not sure if it's deliberate but I see some real world commentary. How first world developed countries remain clean and sanitary by dumping their pollution and waste on the third world (which faces disproportionate environmental consequences considering how miniscule the third world's contributions are). It's a City of Progress that can only progress by stepping on the people beneath them, but the second they get pushback they act like theyre the real victim. Reflects real life pretty well, great worldbuilding.

[gracieblood]

“pre cyclone penny doesn’t exist” “jane was reincarnated not resurrected” there’s only one commandment in the batchelor man bible. don’t be a dick. let me have my silly little penny lamb headcanons.

[discordiansamba]

sokka asks what's so special about zuko's bloodline that fire lord azulon didn't mind grafting him onto the family tree and zuko just shrugs and said his great-grandfather was avatar roku. aang, sokka, and katara all just stare at him for a long moment... then aang just. throws his arms around zuko.

"great-grandson!"

"what?" zuko tries to shove the kid off, but agni he's good at clinging. "stop that. you're not my great-grandfather. you're twelve."

"that's no way to talk to your great-grandfather, zuko," katara scolds him, instantly rolling with this.

"he's not my great-grandfather!" zuko repeats.

"do you hear that?" aang sniffs. "my great-grandson is so cold to me."

"I heard that," Sokka says, "-it's shameful how the fire nation is raising their kids today. no respect for their elders."

"you know," zuko says, "-I'm starting to reconsider not capturing you."

[mask131]

However, about the Neil Gaiman situation, I see something that is really making me very worried. I shouldn't be surprised because the Internet still has this idiotic "lynching mob" mindset, but I still have to point out it.

People have been saying in their posts and disclaimers "Accusation IS evidence!". No it's not.

What you mean is "Accusations are to be taken seriously ; accusations are not to be dismissed ; accusations HAVE to start investigation and doubt and digging up ; accusations have to be shared and known about ; accusations are aggravating ; accusations are serious". Yes, since we are talking about rape victims and sexual crimes, immediately going by "You are a liar, you are making this up, you are saying bullshit" is the most repulsive and inhuman thing to do. Yes, these accusations are to be taken seriously and Neil Gaiman is to be treated under the light of him having done all these things. But don't start saying that an accusation is an EVIDENCE because that's the type of rhetoric and mindset that, for example, Trump supporters and conspiracy theorists use all the time to support their own insanity. "Someone accused them of doing something, so it is". "Trump accused immigrants of eating pets - it is a pretty darn big evidence that they do!". No, that's lynching mob-mindset.

And no, saying accusations are not evidence does not mean these women's words are not worth anything. On the contrary, their testimonies are the most important things and crucial part of the whole scandal. But in a general way, weaponizing such cases to claim that accusations are evidence by default is opening the way for much more awful things to happen, especially in an age when Trump and Musk are spreading their complete madness everywhere. Find another word for it. Aggravating, are solid elements, are crucial, cannot be erased, are convincing, are undoubtable, are eye-opening, are changing everything - whatever you want, but not "evidence".

[badninken]

There are a lot of ways he doesn't want to get talked to or about

but hyena kinda fits his aesthetic