Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

(FB 1550774751 Timestamp) POSTED ON HOWE’S SITE Judge for yourself whether Howe is (a)Stupid, (b)Ignorant and Lazy, (c) Intellectually Dishonest, or (d) All of The Above. Compare his definitions of propertarianism, of property, of operationalism, of the means of decidability (testimonialism) and claims made, with posts that are three or more years old. https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10157002703142264 Even worse, his confusion of justificationism (norm, philosophy, religion), with falsificationism (math, science, law) and that P constitutes an instance of law (decidability in matters of conflict) not justification (suggested or consensual behavior) or that he cannot seem to comprehend the difference between theory (search for opportunities) and recipes-actions (operational transformations) – say the theory of smelting vs the means of smelting different metals under different conditions. Or that the purpose of P is force the speaker to demonstrate he has the knowledge that he makes a truth claim in matters of conflict. Or that the Operationalist/Operational/intuitionistic/Praxeological movement resulted in current scientific prose. Or that Eprime is only used to formally criticize operational speech not ‘speak in it’ – in the same way formal logic is only used to formally criticize set statements. I mean… Howe’s criticism is one stupid ignorant lazy arrogant presumptuous statement after another. Ask yourself if it was even vaguely possible to make the above podcast if you had even taken a cursory read of the material, and even a trivial understanding of it. Especially given that we tend to make definitions in series and he doesn’t use a single one. I mean, would you misrepresent the definition of P if it’s on the home page of the site? Would you misrepresent the definition of property and it’s means of construction? Would you misrepresent the operational and ePrime movements by criticism of the personalities of the time, or whether they performed as claimed? I mean, would you? Does the OED contain false definitions because they were written by a man, insane, and in an asylum? Then ask yourself that given that little understanding, that much straw manning, the claim that it’s not personal compared to the gossiping he does at the end whether. And you’ve called my wife, who I met on my second day in Ukraine, a whore and me a sex tourist. And this is because the last time you came after me I did a pretty thorough destruction of apriorism – not that I had to since it’s pretty common knowledge among the educated (even someone like Rand) that this kantian nonsense was just an attempt at secular preservation of authority of the church and state. Yes we are getting popular. In our popularity we are leaving behind people with malinvestments in failed intellectual, economic, and political movements. We might fail in our mission. That said WASTING MY TIME and POLLUTING THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS with stupid, ignorant, intellectually dishonest pretense does nothing to advance anything except a polluted commons, and to prohibit good people with good intentions, seeking a POSSIBLE solution to the problem of leftist usurpation of propaganda from paying the rather high cost of investing in learning how to do so. Which is precisely what P is designed to do. Dishonest, lazy ignorant, stupid, self interested shills. The world needs fewer of you. You’re just as cancerous to our people as the leftists.