photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/52498681_10156980434342264_512228483

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/52498681_10156980434342264_5122284834521088000_o_10156980434332264.jpg THE TWO OBJECTIONSConnor CreeganI guess I would say that the problem lies in the assumption that there is a valid motivational arm correspondent with the arm of your philosophy. You’ve stated before that your system has a “demand” for an aesthetic component, but any reasonable aesthetic component will naturally run contrary to it because literary experiences are, in essence, at odds with excessive use of operational language. So which is it, do we “read Siege” to motivate revolution only to prosecute against the publication of Siege once regime change has occurred, or do we remain purists and hope that present measured material incentives are enough?Feb 12, 2019, 3:31 PMCurt DoolittleNot logical. There is plenty of motivational content that is not false. I just don’t say what political organization, and what mythology, and what mission one must choose – because theya re utilitarian.

I lay out what I think the optimum (most competitive) form of government is that will provide the highest returns for european peoples. I suggest what I think might be the optimum religious content.

But propertarianism like law is ‘via negativa’. Anything that is not false or parasitic is ‘good’. I don’t need to choose ‘the good’ I just need to remove all ‘bad’.

If you need to lie to do it and it includes parasitism on your own then it is not a good. It’s just admission of failure.

Your argument is that all goods consist of lies, and that’s false.Feb 12, 2019, 5:03 PMConnor CreeganDeception, in your philosophy, is contingent on the intended rejection of operational language, is it not?Feb 12, 2019, 5:08 PMCurt Doolittle????Feb 12, 2019, 6:17 PMZach QuarryThe legal system is a different way to apply violence. Before applying physical violence.Feb 12, 2019, 6:17 PMConnor CreeganAm I misunderstanding how you define and identify purposeful deception?Feb 12, 2019, 6:24 PMCurt DoolittleI have no idea because I don’t know what you’re implying.

Given:

Any statement passes the tests of:

categorically consistent (identity)

Internally consistent (Logically consistent)

externally correspondent (empirically consistent)

existentially consistent (operationally stated)

scope consistent (limits and full accounting)

rational (subjectively consistent – incentives )

reciprocal (reciprocally subjectively consistent – exchanges)

with these warranties of due diligence,

within the limits of possible restitution,

any display word or deed is free of imposition of costs,

and therefore free of retaliation.

Therefore it is truthful and moral.

We can never know if a statement is true (critical naturalism). We can only know that we have exhausted due diligence sufficient for the demand for due diligence given the promise, claim, testimony we are making.

This is Propertarian Natural Law’s epistemology: “Testimonialism’, or what some call ‘Critical Naturalism’.Feb 12, 2019, 6:47 PMTHE TWO OBJECTIONS