Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • I can, without any difficulty at all, cross the boundaries between empiricist, r

    I can, without any difficulty at all, cross the boundaries between empiricist, rationalist, and mystic. The presumption that I am limited is a fools projection of his own inadequacies. I can, with ease speak in any paradigm. That I choose the scientific and beyond the scientific the operational, is merely an affectation of the necessity of providing the decidability necessary to solve the conflict of our age.
    And quite honestly I am quite comfortable in each domain of competency – even if I seek to drive mankind to the more precise I am equally fluent in the less.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-06 22:21:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1754993660985266176

  • If I could, I would ask you to remove women from the equation – from all equatio

    If I could, I would ask you to remove women from the equation – from all equations. And instead consider only men. And what must be done with those men that by fault or no fault bring upon us a conflict of the ages, and in doing so demand that we elevate or destroy those men that would, in their arrogance or ignorance bring about mankind’s destruction through their present folly. Because knowing or not they advance the folly of women and the weak, who – whether knowingly or not – seek to evade rather than accumulate responsibility for the private and common.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-02-06 22:10:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1754991023158132736

  • I claim no right to anything. I deny your right to steal from others via the gov

    I claim no right to anything. I deny your right to steal from others via the government for having evaded the responsibility that they have not evaded. In other words, it is you who is claiming innocence while you practice the criminality of free riding and privatization of commons. Don’t imagine youi’re a good person. you aren’t. The fact that your ‘bad personhood’ isn’t emotionally ascertainable by you and the people around you doesn’t mean it isn’t systemically ascertainable by the evidence of your behavior and the costs of carrying you as a burden to the rest.

    Reply addressees: @Womenrising2023 @AutistocratMS @NoahRevoy

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-31 23:17:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752833391286796288

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752831877965045911

  • Women don’t contribute. In fact, history will fairly readily judge this era as f

    Women don’t contribute. In fact, history will fairly readily judge this era as folly of adding women to the workplace so that their entire productivity can be captured by taxation, can run up consumer and national debt, so that only a few white men over 35 are net contributors to taxes, and so that population collapses, and our government, our economies, and our companies become uncompetitive, and education from primary to academy is destroyed by the female intolerance for meritocracy and face before truth.

    Reply addressees: @Womenrising2023 @FuryForth @AutistocratMS @NoahRevoy

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-31 23:15:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752832914226626560

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752832244228423958

  • (Of course you are not. If you were it wouldn’t be instinct and intuition, but r

    (Of course you are not. If you were it wouldn’t be instinct and intuition, but rational choice. It’s just that some of us, almost exclusively male, are biased to the truth (‘regardless of face and regardless of cost”) and we can’t find more than single digits of women who can. In fact, we can’t even find women who don’t fall for the Naxalt/Axalt fallacy (which you’ve already done a few times). Female empathizing is extremely useful at small scale. But it doesn’t scale. Male systematizing is exeptional at scale, but such generalizations are not always applicable to the individual case. So men and wome are complimentary. But we are very different. and the degree to which we are different is far more so than we’d assumed, even before the marxist-feminist pseudoscientific attempt to claim otherwise. )

    Reply addressees: @Womenrising2023 @AutistocratMS @NoahRevoy

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-31 23:12:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752832260795944960

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752830974256095609

  • Nonsensical statement. Truth is what it is. Decidability in law is what it is. t

    Nonsensical statement.
    Truth is what it is.
    Decidability in law is what it is.
    the fact that you cannot make the distinction between a system of measurement and the normal biases and beliefs and foibles all of us are victim to is more a matter of ‘groupthink’ than any scientific proposition.

    I don’t do philosophy. I do science and law. In matters of conflict resolution opinions don’t matter. Measurements do. And I work in measurements.

    If you need mommy’s comforts seek them in her skirts, or a priests cossack, or a therapist’s chair. Hopefully their comforts will assist you into maturing into adulthood and responsibility despite the extended childhood that the masses like yourself failed to mature out of, largely because of the failure of our institutions to assist you in that maturity.

    Reply addressees: @leith_harmon @raw_power_play @ScottAdamsSays

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-31 19:08:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752770938267959296

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752754908904788203

  • It’s a bedrock of objective morality. Instead you’re claiming something that doe

    It’s a bedrock of objective morality.
    Instead you’re claiming something that does not have that bedrock, which I am absolutely positive you cannot express as such a bedrock, and where the evidence is that people vary greatly in their practices opinions and beliefs, you are simply stating a falsehood about your claim in order to invalidate the opposing position.

    It’s a scientific, objective, universal, rational, illogical, empirical fact that all morality can be expressed in the natural law as a universal in all circumstances. Period.

    That people can be taught it like taught anything else is rather obvious. That the manner I would write it so that it was free from undermining and sedition says nothing about how that same morality would be taught to children.

    Reply addressees: @ArmoryOC @_Itsmrfoxy_

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-30 16:50:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752373719668764678

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752370377739678103

  • The difference is that “A Good” is innovative, adaptive, dynamic, and evolutiona

    The difference is that “A Good” is innovative, adaptive, dynamic, and evolutionary where ‘The Good” is static, stagnating, and devolutionary – at least competitively.

    The natural law says largely what not to do, and says what to do (good) only so far as prohibiting bads. In the production of goods, there are many choices possible that are not bad. What humans choose among the available good choices is merely what is practical for them.

    The faith does not provide anything like this decidability or advice.

    Reply addressees: @ArmoryOC @_Itsmrfoxy_

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-30 16:25:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752367336403636229

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752364971726360589

  • The benefit of Deism, is that it avoids the particularism of the competing cults

    The benefit of Deism, is that it avoids the particularism of the competing cults (religions) and instead says that yes, there is a universal ethical and moral law, and that law is not the work of man but the work of nature and nature’s god. Religions are competing opinions. Laws of nature are monopolies. As such any religion that claims opposition to the natural law of cooperation is in fact false. There is no need for supernatural origins other than the fact that you probably do not like, trust, and in fact likely hate your neighbor – which of course, is why and how monopoly religons of abrahamism came into existence: separatism.

    Reply addressees: @ArmoryOC

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-30 15:35:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752354879404752896

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752344953819464029

  • THIS IS THE RIGHT CASE TO BRING BEFORE THE COURT And it is the first major step

    THIS IS THE RIGHT CASE TO BRING BEFORE THE COURT
    And it is the first major step of returning sovereignty to the states by the devolution of the powers of the federal government to the states, thus returning self determination to the people of the states, and the and of the war against your people by lawfare and sedition using the unjust and expanded powers of the federal government during the civil war, during the socialist experiment under FDR, and during the undermining of our population with the civil rights era and the end of selective immigration.

    —“The failure of the Biden Administration to fulfill the duties imposed by Article IV, § 4 has triggered Article I, § 10. Clause 3, which reserves to this State the right of self defense.

    For these reasons, I have already declared an invasion under Article 1, § l0. Clause 3 to invoke Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself.

    That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary.

    The Texas National Guard. the Texas Department of Public Safety. and other Texas personnel are acting on that authority as well as state law, to secure the Texas border.”
    — Texas Governor Abbott

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-24 23:51:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1750298838596759552