1) I framed the problem as whether you can testify. You cannot. Since you cannot testify, you are in fact fictionalizing (adding information that does not exist). 2) I framed the criteria for decidability as (a) parsimony (b) constant relations between existence, perception, cognition, and action, (c) motive, (d) absence of fictionalism. 3) I can testify to my proposition that all these phenomenon either to exist or can exist, without anything other than an energetic substance seeking an impossible equilibrium. (a pattern which we see throughout the natural world). 4) Your proposition is that fictionalism is different from lying – which it cannot be: you are fabricating information that is not there. The information is either present in reality or you are fabricating it. Note: —“To fabricate information means to assert correspondence between objects which do not correspond; and possibly to suppress the full accounting which proves evident said non-correspondence”— George Hobbs 5) non-temporality (non-time), self organization via entropy, and inter-universe sinusoidal equilibration (the ‘bubble’ universe), requires nothing other than itself. There is no meaning of time outside of such a bubble. 6) We treat all fictionalist arguments as error, and in particular anthropomorphism as an error, because in history we have found *all* instances of that pattern of argument to be error. 7) In summary, there is no difference between your fabrication of a fiction to support your fantasy of comforting anthropomorphism, and the bank robber who tells a story that god told him to do so, and the counterfeiter who says he did nothing wrong. 8) Ergo, you are arguing as if we are discussing a theory when I am arguing that you are engaged in deception (fraud). In other words, you are creating a fictionalism in order to justify a personal psychological, political, or material want (or fear). 9) I *cannot* come to any other conclusion simply because I cannot testify to the untestifiable; cannot fictionalize to compensate; and have before me a rather simple answer that explains the universe, and all that results from it’s entropic transformation. 10) Aristotle was wrong about a great many things. Adults don’t fall back two millennia in order to desperately cherry pick an argument. They work with the totality of information such that they cannot. 11) Propertarianism (my work) cannot be applied by people lacking the agency to serve as judges of truth(speech) and reciprocity(action). The weak need their falsehoods. And they are unfit for rule by rule of law. 12) There are any number of people who have found that they lack the agency to function as judges and prosecutors of truth (speech) and reciprocity(action), and who can compete in markets in everything (natural aristocracy). 13) But their choice is always and everywhere without exception – lack of agency. ie: they are still animals. And as animals must be ruled by those who possess it. (aristocracy).
Form: Argument
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. TERRITORIAL PROPERTY REQUIRES CAPITAL IMPROVE
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
TERRITORIAL PROPERTY REQUIRES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
As I’ve argued in my “Ancestral Lands” video, Lands belongs to those who improve it (invest in it), not those who merely make use of it – that’s true of all property. Possession is just possession. Property is the result of transformation (investment).
Typically (historically) monuments and physical infrastructure determine ownership (property).
It’s not clear why Boer conquest of SA territory is different from Bantu conquest of Khoi and San territory – except that the investment has been profoundly more effective – there wasn’t any before the Boers. None.
It’s not clear that the slaughter of south african whites is anything more than a repetition of the past slaughter of african tribes by one another.
My prescription is that if there is evidence of fighting, the separation is the only solution.
I would prefer africa for africans and europe for europeans at least until we are at demographic, social and economic parity. But some people want globalization where none of us is safe from competitors.
There is a minimum difference in distribution of ability, knowledge and custom that is necessary for peaceful cooperation. Beyond that, then one group must oppress or kill the other.
And that is the worst of all possible solutions.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-10 22:26:48 UTC
-
Territorial Property Requires Capital Improvements
As I’ve argued in my “Ancestral Lands” video, Lands belongs to those who improve it (invest in it), not those who merely make use of it – that’s true of all property. Possession is just possession. Property is the result of transformation (investment). Typically (historically) monuments and physical infrastructure determine ownership (property). It’s not clear why Boer conquest of SA territory is different from Bantu conquest of Khoi and San territory – except that the investment has been profoundly more effective – there wasn’t any before the Boers. None. It’s not clear that the slaughter of south african whites is anything more than a repetition of the past slaughter of african tribes by one another. My prescription is that if there is evidence of fighting, the separation is the only solution. I would prefer africa for africans and europe for europeans at least until we are at demographic, social and economic parity. But some people want globalization where none of us is safe from competitors. There is a minimum difference in distribution of ability, knowledge and custom that is necessary for peaceful cooperation. Beyond that, then one group must oppress or kill the other. And that is the worst of all possible solutions.
-
Territorial Property Requires Capital Improvements
As I’ve argued in my “Ancestral Lands” video, Lands belongs to those who improve it (invest in it), not those who merely make use of it – that’s true of all property. Possession is just possession. Property is the result of transformation (investment). Typically (historically) monuments and physical infrastructure determine ownership (property). It’s not clear why Boer conquest of SA territory is different from Bantu conquest of Khoi and San territory – except that the investment has been profoundly more effective – there wasn’t any before the Boers. None. It’s not clear that the slaughter of south african whites is anything more than a repetition of the past slaughter of african tribes by one another. My prescription is that if there is evidence of fighting, the separation is the only solution. I would prefer africa for africans and europe for europeans at least until we are at demographic, social and economic parity. But some people want globalization where none of us is safe from competitors. There is a minimum difference in distribution of ability, knowledge and custom that is necessary for peaceful cooperation. Beyond that, then one group must oppress or kill the other. And that is the worst of all possible solutions.
-
Military service includes a vast spectrum of jobs, and the question requires we
Military service includes a vast spectrum of jobs, and the question requires we ask “good for what”. Men NEED military service – particularly germanic military service. It’s GOOD for us – better than education and religion. The question is, military service doing what?
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 19:14:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016400149927682053
Reply addressees: @AlHernandez21
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016398387242061826
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016398387242061826
-
—“you can’t prove that [insert random anti-religious statement]”—
–“I’m a philosopher and you can’t prove that [insert random anti-religious statement]”— Some Well Meaning Fool. Well, let us play a game then. Because while you state are a philosopher, I state that I am a scientist specializing in testimony (Truth). And that means that proofs (tests of internal consistency in axiomatic and therefore declaratives systems) only assist us in falsification outside of reductio (trivial) conditions. And that justificationism in philosophy and theology in all its forms is a sophism for the purpose of deception. And that tests of truth in existential systems (hypothesis, theory, law) require due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. And that fablsificationism in all its forms (science and law) evolved for the purpose of defeating deceptions. And that the possible dimensions of criticism we are aware of are consistency, correspondence, existential(operational) possibility, rational choice (volition), reciprocity, completeness, parsimony, and coherence. In other words, while in textual interpretation, scriptural argument, and application of extant law, one justifies a proposition, one does not and cannot prove a statement – instead we seek to falsify propositions and test whether it survives criticism. My assertion is: (a) that one cannot testify to the existence of a creator; (b) that one cannot testify that the works attributed to a creator are not fictions and fictionalisms (lies); (c) that those who created and perpetuated those lies had motives for spreading those lies, and; (d) that the consequences of spreading those lies has been the cause of the thousand year dark age, the destruction of the five great civilizations of the ancient world, and the death of somewhere between half a billion and a billion people; (e) that the argumentative technique invented in order to perpetuate those lies (sophisms), in both via positiva (pilpul and justificationism, using idealism and supernaturalism, with promise of reward/thread of lost opportunity) and via negativa (critique using loading, framing, obscurantism, overloading, suggestion, straw manning, and heaping of undue praise) are open to scientific measurement which defines them as successful methods of deception, (f) that Boazian anthropology, Freudian psychology, Cantorian Infinities, Marxist History, Economics, and Sociology, Scientific socialism, Feminism, and postmodernism, all make use of this same technique, this time with pseudoscience as a substitute for supernaturalism, and economic and political reward as a substitute for reward in current or afterlife. (g) And that only warranty of due diligence under the available dimensions of human action: consistency, correspondence, existential(operational) possibility, rational choice (volition), reciprocity, completeness, parsimony, and coherence (Testimony), can defend an assertion (proposition, argument) against ignorance, error, bias, fraud, and deceit, and the spread of consequences thereof.
-
—“you can’t prove that [insert random anti-religious statement]”—
–“I’m a philosopher and you can’t prove that [insert random anti-religious statement]”— Some Well Meaning Fool. Well, let us play a game then. Because while you state are a philosopher, I state that I am a scientist specializing in testimony (Truth). And that means that proofs (tests of internal consistency in axiomatic and therefore declaratives systems) only assist us in falsification outside of reductio (trivial) conditions. And that justificationism in philosophy and theology in all its forms is a sophism for the purpose of deception. And that tests of truth in existential systems (hypothesis, theory, law) require due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, and deceit. And that fablsificationism in all its forms (science and law) evolved for the purpose of defeating deceptions. And that the possible dimensions of criticism we are aware of are consistency, correspondence, existential(operational) possibility, rational choice (volition), reciprocity, completeness, parsimony, and coherence. In other words, while in textual interpretation, scriptural argument, and application of extant law, one justifies a proposition, one does not and cannot prove a statement – instead we seek to falsify propositions and test whether it survives criticism. My assertion is: (a) that one cannot testify to the existence of a creator; (b) that one cannot testify that the works attributed to a creator are not fictions and fictionalisms (lies); (c) that those who created and perpetuated those lies had motives for spreading those lies, and; (d) that the consequences of spreading those lies has been the cause of the thousand year dark age, the destruction of the five great civilizations of the ancient world, and the death of somewhere between half a billion and a billion people; (e) that the argumentative technique invented in order to perpetuate those lies (sophisms), in both via positiva (pilpul and justificationism, using idealism and supernaturalism, with promise of reward/thread of lost opportunity) and via negativa (critique using loading, framing, obscurantism, overloading, suggestion, straw manning, and heaping of undue praise) are open to scientific measurement which defines them as successful methods of deception, (f) that Boazian anthropology, Freudian psychology, Cantorian Infinities, Marxist History, Economics, and Sociology, Scientific socialism, Feminism, and postmodernism, all make use of this same technique, this time with pseudoscience as a substitute for supernaturalism, and economic and political reward as a substitute for reward in current or afterlife. (g) And that only warranty of due diligence under the available dimensions of human action: consistency, correspondence, existential(operational) possibility, rational choice (volition), reciprocity, completeness, parsimony, and coherence (Testimony), can defend an assertion (proposition, argument) against ignorance, error, bias, fraud, and deceit, and the spread of consequences thereof.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. PROPERTARIANISM IS FALSIFIABLE BUT VERY DIFFI
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
PROPERTARIANISM IS FALSIFIABLE BUT VERY DIFFICULT TO FALSIFY
—“Since you pride yourself in being honest, may I ask what exactly one would have to prove in order to fully refute Propertarianism?”—Josef Kalinin
—(Quoting Curt): “And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness.”— Nick Zito
—“Property En-Toto & Acquisitionism is quite central to the entire Propertarian framework. Provide a substantive refute of these and you may cause a dent. You can find the full scoped definitions of these at Propertarianism.com”—Nick Zito
^ What he said. In addition, add reciprocity and reasonableness(rationality) of choice. both of which i think are nearly impossible to refute.
The reason it’s falsifiable but difficult to falsify is that it’s not so much a model as a description of constant relations from physics through sentience. Three points test a line so to speak, and the more points the more certain the line.
1) The Grammars(metaphysics), 2) Acquisitionism + Property in Toto (psychology), 3) Propertarianism (Sociology), and 4) Natural Law of Reciprocity (Cooperation) are falsifiable but extremely difficult to falsify.
Even if we state how it can be done by stating the premises(dependencies) those premises are extremely difficult to falsify. The reason being that they are continuously consistent, correspondent, possible, and coherent with everything we know to date.
I mean… that was my objective. A scientific language of cooperation (ethics, morality, law, politics, group strategy)
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 17:20:58 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. So far, every argument every person has made
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
So far, every argument every person has made against Propertarianism (Natural Law under Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism) is trying to do nothing other than engage in persuasion by deception, rather than truthful, fully informed, productive, warrantied, exchange.
“What can I get away with” is just an excuse. That’s what ‘justificationism means’
There is only one question. If you won’t or can’t argue testimonials, then the only reasons are fraud, evasion of due diligence and liability (warranty), or both.
It’s not complicated.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 16:53:02 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. ENDORSEMENT: As an economist (not as a libert
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
ENDORSEMENT:
As an economist (not as a libertarian or conservative) I am endorsing Bob Stefanowski for Governor of Connecticut.
I don’t usually get involved with ‘domestic disputes’ but this man is rock solid and his plan will rescue the state from collapse both demographic, economic, legal, and financial.
Connecticut, Massachusetts, and California are the three states where the left intellectuals (Yale, Harvard, Berkeley) were able to assert the greatest influence on policy due to the density of working class labor in the east, and the immigration wealth generated by the settlement and expansion of California.
California has such immigration demand due to the desirability of pacific coastal living, theincrease in asian port activity, and the movement of the tech sector from Boston to San Francisco.
Mass has partly corrected because the loss of the tech sector forced them to reorganize slowly since 1986.
Connecticut has not corrected for reasons that include extraordinary tax income from NYC revenues, but CT residency, and the continuous flight of industry from the state. (And the rather high minded puritanical virtue-cycle self-delusional character of new englanders ).
Connecticut has driven out anyone who can afford to leave. it has one asset and many liabilities. The asset is the territory itself which is an extremely desirable bit of greenery and rolling hills that make residential life … idyllic. The liability is that it’s populated with sh_t-holes from Springfield MA, south to Windsor, Bloomfield, Hartford, East Hartford, Manchester, Willimantic, Norwich, Newington, New Britain, Bristol, Waterbury, Wallingford, North Haven, Hamden, New Haven, Milford and Bridgeport.
Basically everything within five miles of the north-south corridor is a sh_t-hole. Every small town on the other hand is a remnant of ‘little england’ and it’s migration to ‘new england’.
This cannot be fixed without either radical exit of the working and underclasses (unlikely), or radical entry of SCIENTIFIC higher education (my idea), and radical attraction of wealthy settlers (coasts), and radical attraction of business.
This Candidate may or may not succeed. But he is the real deal when it comes to finance, economics, and taxes.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 16:33:05 UTC