Oh Ick. Appropriate language has to be used again! For some reason the Scum that can only be described with Appropriate Language -- still exist.
*************************
Calibration Example 1:
“He doesn't care what they say about him. That is why we listen to him.”
Wrong. Here we have an ideal example of the need for calibration. The above statement is often said by people who are talking to other persons who are either Illiterates or TV Watchers (same thing) or Idiot Voters (same things) and who are yacking (between doggie biscuits) something negative about 'Peters'.
I appreciate the efforts of my readers and anyone else who tries to defend the Truth before persons who are lame-brained from exposure to Queer Propaganda; but don't you think it would be better to go into the details a little more? What harm can it do? TV Watchers and Idiot Voters have less memory cells between their ears than a $10 pocket calculator; and will forget what you said to them as soon as they have walked ten steps away from you. And yet! Truth will have been better served with calibration!
The calibration in this case is ... The Turds of Queer Propaganda are so hideous and anti-Human that no Human listens to any feces that spits forth from their anal faces. Henceforth, no Human has the faintest idea of what that feces is. It doesn't matter, because the turds do not matter. Therefore, no Human is ignoring or 'not caring' that any such feces may purportedly be about them -- in any sub-language or sub-gutterance. We do not 'not care' what the turds of Queer Propaganda are saying about us -- because we have no idea that the turds could be trying to say anything about us. And, to change a turd of Queer Propaganda from what it is today into some kind of thing that could actually say something (in some language) would require so many decades of brain surgeries and subsequent lessons [starting with Reader 1] that everyone would have forgotten what the reasons were for the operations within a few years.
Thinking that Humans could 'not care' about what Queer Propaganda is saying about them, is like implying that Humans could 'not care' what the toilet bowls in Hell are saying right now.
----------
Calibration Example 2:
“We will bring civilization and law and order to the Galaxy. When we finally get there, that is.” So said the Politician.
Bullshit. It is all about economics and more customers, even if they never wanted anything from us and we have to enslave them to sell them anything.
----------
Calibration Example 3:
“Abortion is all about the Body Rights of Women” So said the Lesie-Turd.
Cow Pies. It is all about mind control and Big Queer Business, even though no woman has ever wanted anything from them and has to be brainwashed to buy anything from them. No matter how awful.
----------
Calibration Example 4:
Universe and Universal.
What does 'Universe' mean?
What do we call the 'Universe'?
Is it 'Universal'?
What is 'Universal'?
As you read these explanations from other sources, keep in mind the dismal reality of today; the Politics Game is forever corrupt and senseless and a plague upon the lives of all Humans. That is a Universal Fact and a Universal Constant. Until the voting stops and the game either collapses or voting is made mandatory and Dictatorial Oligarchies become the main competitors in a new and very violent Politics Game. In which, Humans will be treated as temporary cattle, fit only for worshiping the Filthy Monkeys of the FM Band.
-----
The terms 'Universe' and 'Universal' are defined as follows:
-----
Universe -- 1. The aggregate of all existing things; the whole creation; in restricted sense, the Earth.___2. Human Beings collectively; mankind.___3. All objects, collectively, that are the subjects of consideration at once.
Universal -- 1. Relating to the entire Universe; of or pertaining to persons or things regarded collectively or distributively; belonging to the whole Earth or to all Human Beings; all embracing; unlimited; general.___2. Common to all in any specific group.___3. Regarded or existing as a whole; entire.___4. Suited to all purposes and conditions.___5. (Logic) Including all of a logical class. [1] Predicable of all the individuals of an ideal class of which the existence is assumed but not known. [2] Predicable of all the individuals of a class the consists of a limited aggregation of individuals, as of all the individuals of a biological species, genus, family, or other group similarly aggregated; opposed to particular; as, a universal proposition.
(Philosophy) A universal concept; that which may be predicated of many particular things or persons.
Practical Standard Dictionary of the English Language
Funk & Wagnalls [1926]
-----
Universe -- 1. All existing things, including the earth, the heavens, the galaxies, and all therein, regarded as a whole.___2a. The earth together with all its creatures.___2b. All mankind.___3. A distinct sphere or realm, as of the imagination, that exists as an independent unit. (Logic) The universe of discourse.
Universal -- 1. Including, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world: WORLDWIDE <a universal drought> <universal hunger>___2. Relating to, involving, or affecting all the members of a class or group <the universal concerns of parenthood>___3. Applicable or common to all uses, situations, or conditions <a universal language>___4. Of or relating to the universe or cosmos: COSMIC___5. Comprehensively broad in subject matter.
(Logic) A universal proposition. A general or abstract concept or term considered absolute or axiomatic.
(Logic) A general or widely held principle, concept, or notion.
(Logic) A trait or pattern of behavior, characteristic of all the members of a particular culture or of all Human Beings.
New Riverside University Dictionary [1984]
----
Universal -- (Philosophy) A metaphysical entity characterized by repeatability and unchanging nature through a series of changing relations, as substance.
New World Dictionary of American English. 3rd Edition. [1988]
-----
Universals -- (excerpts from The Encyclopedia of Philosophy 1967)
The following is forbidden knowledge and banned from all Queer Medias.
Volume Eight. Page 194.
The word 'universal,' used as a noun, has belonged to the vocabulary of English-writing philosophers since the sixteenth century, but the concepts of universals, and the problems raised by it, has a far longer history. It goes back through the universalia of medieval philosophy to Aristotle and Plato. Indeed, Plato may be taken to be the father of this perennial topic of philosophy, for it is in his dialogues that we find the first arguments for universals and the first discussion of the difficulties they raise. Plato believed that the existence of universals was required not only ontologically, [[metaphysically]] to explain the nature of the world which as sentient and reflective beings we experience, but also epistemologically, [[philosophically]] to explain the nature of our experience of it. He proposed a solution to his problem, but he also recognized the objections to his particular solution. Ever since, except for intervals of neglect, philosophers have been worrying about the nature and status of universals. No account has yet been propounded which has come near to receiving universal acceptance; this reflects not merely disagreement on the answers to be offered but also, and perhaps more importantly, disagreement on exactly what the questions are that we are, or should be, trying to answer.
That in some sense or other there are universals, and that in some sense or other they are abstract objects --that is, objects of thought rather than sense perception--no philosopher would wish to dispute; the difficulties begin when we try to be more precise. They may be indicated (although not defined) by the abstract nouns which we use when we think about, for example, beauty, justice, courage, and goodness and, again, by the adjectives, verbs, adverbs, and prepositions which we use in talking of individual objects, to refer to their qualities and to the relations between them. In saying of two or more objects that each is a table, or square, or brown, or made of wood we are saying that there is something common to the objects, which may be shared by many others and in virtue of which the objects may be classified into kinds. Not merely is such classification possible, for scientific and other purposes; it is unavoidable: all experience is of things as belonging to kinds, however vague and inarticulate the classification may be. Whatever we see (to take sight as an example) we see as a something -- that is, as an object of a certain kind, as having certain qualities, and as standing in certain relations to other objects -- and although every individual object is unique, in that it is numerically distinct from all others, its features are general, in that they are (or might be) repeated in other objects.
Even if there were only one red object in the world, we would know what it would be like for there to be others, and we would be able to recognize another if we were to meet with it.
Generality is an essential feature of the objects of experience, recognition of generality is an essential feature of experience itself, and reflection of this generality is shown in vocabulary of any language, all the words of which (with the exception of proper names) are general.
Universals are, by tradition, contrasted with particulars, the general contrasted with the numerically unique, and differing theories of universals are differing accounts of what is involved in this generality and in our experience of it. The leading theories of universals--realism, conceptualism, nominalism, and resemblance theories--can best be explained by an examination of the doctrines of the main exponents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Encyclopedia_of_Philosophy
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/universals-medieval/
https://philosophynews.com/the-third-man-argument-part-1/
https://sacredstructures.org/general/what-does-the-bible-say-about-oneness/
https://webot.org/info/en/?search=Universal_proposition
https://www.britannica.com/topic/realism-philosophy/Universals
If you read these websites you will get a beginner's idea of what 'Universals' is about.
*************************
As for myself, I have created another video for you to watch (if you will) that explains again how totally uncaring I am about anything that happens within the horrible Politics Game. This video cannot be watched by non-Humans (and should not be) so do not worry about any reactions about it from the Scuzz. All that those Voting Mindless Idiots can do is to complain about whatever their owners and operators tell them to complain about. They cannot know what they are really complaining about.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15wH-Cll8nZmOa2U6QJKYVLDR73I2KNnL/view?usp=sharing
This video is 1280x720p and is 5 Gigabytes. I tried to make a smaller (576p) version but the sound sync will not work at that resolution.
*************************
I was going to end this there, but I am thinking about the concept of 'added value'. I should add something that will help you in times like this -- such as websites about the futility of voting ...
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Futility+of+voting.-a0131490702
https://5pillarsuk.com/2015/04/25/the-futility-of-british-democracy/
https://www.quotemaster.org/Futility
https://yournz.org/2017/08/21/the-futility-of-modern-democracy/
https://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Vote-Futility-American-Electoral/dp/1540459152
https://rense.com/general58/voting.htm
https://www.likhoon.com/what-is-the-main-reason-for-not-voting-quizlet/
'After increasing for many decades, there has been a trend of decreasing voter turnout in most established democracies since the 1980s. In general, low turnout is attributed to disillusionment, indifference, or a sense of futility (the perception that ones vote wont make any difference).'
https://thinkhardthinkwell.com/2010/05/09/uk-elections-and-the-futility-of-voting/
https://openthemagazine.com/features/india/why-voting-is-futile/
https://newint.org/features/2022/02/07/long-read-politics-futility
https://medium.com/@LatentAxiom/why-voting-is-an-exercise-in-futility-488657f4522a
https://katehon.com/en/article/futility-electoral-politics
At this time the scum on the Queer Medias are pretending that there are huge voter turnouts for this episode of Worthless Elections. Do you believe them? Have they ever said anything that can be believed?
*************************
Markel Peters
https://voices-of-iowa.blogspot.com/
https://voices-of-iowa-concise.blogspot.com/
