proven contradiction removal method

The latest link

I consider this as an original philosophical contribution and promise to link all comments.

A proven contradiction removal method in compatible interests is what this note is about. Compatible will eliminate insincere interests, any moron that attempts to cause a failure can and will be eliminated as incompatible (and insincere) interests. At this point, it deals with converting relation with stepson who just emerged from teen years (wanted to be an Egyptologist in teen years, Indian Army also) and ready to face the world on his own respect for me as opposed to real mother.

It is a necessary step to decide on the claimed reasons of the interest. A jury can be given a range of their result, threshold communicated and decision is by median. All values cause the highest and lowest jurists to be permanently replaced from the pool. If the median is under threshold then the party is declared incompatible. Majority matters. Jury pool is always dynamic to exclude extreme opinions.

The basic tool for removal of genuine contradictions in interest is scheduling them linearly in part fulfillment order overseen by a trusted reliable judge whose word is kept regardless. Part fulfillment only ensures required CBM (conflict building measures) in all other groups. The duration of each slice depends on the case, but all interest are broken into 2 or more steps. Trust in the judge is required for the last step(s).

To earn respect, my word is good as gold. Never lie to a person or in front of a person to a third person except with atonement in advance that demonstrably and transparently exceeds the gain of lying and clearly is to protect a fourth person. That is generally possible only by being honest. I have never understood how some enjoy life by unnecessary lying or being forced into such situations. Generally by making punishment proportional to income seems to sharply reduce crime. Increased burden hurts the higher income person proportionally means harder! Imprisonment hurts equally, but a proportional fine must always be added.

I am truly interested in the empirical value of such statements, particularly impact on innocent victims, for I consider current law bias to criminals punishment to be outrageous and correctly criminal even if no law currently forbid it! Absolute forbid of some laws is solely for criminal reasons and judges can always can block the relax of such laws, IE the law must always consider the burden of proof. Innocents so far are free of burden of proof while convicts for some case-basis time must carry the burden, and must prove themselves innocent! This loss of privilege is essentially the end of mollycoddling of violators.