Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • THERE IS ONLY ONE MOST PARSIMONIOUS DESCRIPTION AND ONLY MEN ARE WILLING TO SPEA

    THERE IS ONLY ONE MOST PARSIMONIOUS DESCRIPTION AND ONLY MEN ARE WILLING TO SPEAK IT

    There are an infinite number of fictions we can fabricate. There is only one most parsimonious description.

    As far as I know a god is a fictional character. A demigod is a fictional character. A hero is a fictional character. And archetypal measurements are the easiest for man to employ.

    I leave Pilpul, Critique and the Fictionalisms for Women and Abrahamists. Truth is the weapon of men for a reason, and lies the weapon of those who are not men for a reason.

    Men Truth, Duty, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, and Markets of Meritocracy.

    All else is for those who are not men, but animal.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-04 10:31:00 UTC

  • GODS? GUILTY AS CHARGED (edited for clarity) In the matter of gods we have only

    GODS? GUILTY AS CHARGED

    (edited for clarity)

    In the matter of gods we have only the testimony of men, and the means, motive, and opportunity to lie in their testimony. Given means motive and opportunity to lie, and no evidence of all that they speak the truth, then all gods are merely fictional characters. Those characters serve as anthropomorphic analogies. Those analogies serve as to provide decidability when we have no other means of deciding.

    It is not that gods – like all units of measurement – are not useful. They are. Particularly for the intergenerational transfer of such units of measurement.

    But there is no difference between Gandalf and Jehova and Allah other than that we make no false testimony to the existence of Gandalf, and we give false testimony to the existence of Jehova and Allah. We must give false testimony because we cannot give testimony of any other kind. It is not possible. None of us have observed the existence of any god that cannot be explained by more simple means.

    We can however, give thanks to our ancestors. That is because we have ancestors worthy of our thanks. The reason for the fabrication of Jehova and Allah is that the people who invented those fictional characters had no ancestors worthy of their thanks.

    Means, Motive, and Opportunity.

    Guilty as Charged.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-04 10:01:00 UTC

  • Strange Question – the Correct Answer

    —“As a conservative, would you prefer a hypothetical effeminate capitalist society or a hypothetical masculine socialist society?”— Hmmm…. Socialism(equality) is the result of the female reproductive strategy, and capitalism(markets) is the result of a young (ascendent) male reproductive strategy, and classical liberalism(hierarchy) is the result of the established male reproductive strategy, and authoritarianism (command) regardless of redistributive, market, or extractive, is the result of dominant male reproductive strategy. As far as I know fascism has won the postwar competition as the means of rule, and markets as the means of production, and redistribution as the means of gaining the publics permission to rule. All nations of any scale are now fascists (intolerant) mixed economies, with minor variations in corruption and liberty. https://www.quora.com/As-a-conservative-would-you-prefer-a-hypothetical-effeminate-capitalist-society-or-a-hypothetical-masculine-socialist-society/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=418aaf6d&srid=u4Qv

  • Strange Question – the Correct Answer

    —“As a conservative, would you prefer a hypothetical effeminate capitalist society or a hypothetical masculine socialist society?”— Hmmm…. Socialism(equality) is the result of the female reproductive strategy, and capitalism(markets) is the result of a young (ascendent) male reproductive strategy, and classical liberalism(hierarchy) is the result of the established male reproductive strategy, and authoritarianism (command) regardless of redistributive, market, or extractive, is the result of dominant male reproductive strategy. As far as I know fascism has won the postwar competition as the means of rule, and markets as the means of production, and redistribution as the means of gaining the publics permission to rule. All nations of any scale are now fascists (intolerant) mixed economies, with minor variations in corruption and liberty. https://www.quora.com/As-a-conservative-would-you-prefer-a-hypothetical-effeminate-capitalist-society-or-a-hypothetical-masculine-socialist-society/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=418aaf6d&srid=u4Qv

  • The concept of good vs evil

    Argument. I say, well, we know when the concept of good vs evil was invented – to separate the Iranians from the indians. I mean, Nietzche wrote about this, historians have written about it, and Karen Armstrong’s Great Transformation both touches on it and gives citations. Woman – how can that be? Who says? Prove it! I’m like… um. You know do you have a counter argument? Do you have anything other than emotive opinion? Another one (woman, lawyer) says “we are poorer than in 1960”, and me and another guy say… “um.. omg no. is astounding how much wealthier we are. I mean, even since 1980” We give purchasing power examples. She gives us disbelief. WTF am I supposed to do with normies….. We need to end democracy right away. These f-king people are terrible.

  • The concept of good vs evil

    Argument. I say, well, we know when the concept of good vs evil was invented – to separate the Iranians from the indians. I mean, Nietzche wrote about this, historians have written about it, and Karen Armstrong’s Great Transformation both touches on it and gives citations. Woman – how can that be? Who says? Prove it! I’m like… um. You know do you have a counter argument? Do you have anything other than emotive opinion? Another one (woman, lawyer) says “we are poorer than in 1960”, and me and another guy say… “um.. omg no. is astounding how much wealthier we are. I mean, even since 1980” We give purchasing power examples. She gives us disbelief. WTF am I supposed to do with normies….. We need to end democracy right away. These f-king people are terrible.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. I ONLY WORK WITH AND I ONLY CONSTRUCT PARADIG

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    I ONLY WORK WITH AND I ONLY CONSTRUCT PARADIGMS CONSISTING OF CONSTANT RELATIONS THE REMAIN CONTIGUOUS ACROSS DISCIPLINES

    In other words, Logic > Mathematics > Physics > Chemistry > Biochemistry > Biology > Sentience > Consciousness > Reason > Calculation > Computation.

    So when you ask me “Hey have you hear of X nonsense?” I hear “Hey have you heard of this set of fictional paradigms that are discontiguous with existential, observable, testifiable, reality?”

    No. Fairy stories. I like fairy stories. But only when they are in fact fairy stories, not fairy stories claiming to be something else.

    There is only one most parsimonious paradigm. And that most parsimonious paradigm is that which consists of constant relations contiguous across the disciplines.

    CONTIGUOUS
    1 : being in actual contact : touching along a boundary or at a point – the 48 contiguous states
    2 : touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence – contiguous row houses contiguous vineyards
    3 : next or near in time or sequence -The fires were contiguous with the earthquake.

    DISCONTIGUOUS
    1 : not contiguous – intermittent · sporadic · broken · fitful · interrupted · on and off · disrupted · erratic · disconnected

    CONSTANT RELATIONS
    1 : properties shared between two or more referents.
    2 : properties remaining constant between two or more states.

    INCONSTANT RELATIONS
    1 : properties not shared between two or more referents.
    2 : properties not constant between two or more states.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-02 23:20:57 UTC

  • I ONLY WORK WITH AND I ONLY CONSTRUCT PARADIGMS CONSISTING OF CONSTANT RELATIONS

    I ONLY WORK WITH AND I ONLY CONSTRUCT PARADIGMS CONSISTING OF CONSTANT RELATIONS THE REMAIN CONTIGUOUS ACROSS DISCIPLINES

    In other words, Logic > Mathematics > Physics > Chemistry > Biochemistry > Biology > Sentience > Consciousness > Reason > Calculation > Computation.

    So when you ask me “Hey have you hear of X nonsense?” I hear “Hey have you heard of this set of fictional paradigms that are discontiguous with existential, observable, testifiable, reality?”

    No. Fairy stories. I like fairy stories. But only when they are in fact fairy stories, not fairy stories claiming to be something else.

    There is only one most parsimonious paradigm. And that most parsimonious paradigm is that which consists of constant relations contiguous across the disciplines.

    CONTIGUOUS

    1 : being in actual contact : touching along a boundary or at a point – the 48 contiguous states

    2 : touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence – contiguous row houses contiguous vineyards

    3 : next or near in time or sequence -The fires were contiguous with the earthquake.

    DISCONTIGUOUS

    1 : not contiguous – intermittent · sporadic · broken · fitful · interrupted · on and off · disrupted · erratic · disconnected

    CONSTANT RELATIONS

    1 : properties shared between two or more referents.

    2 : properties remaining constant between two or more states.

    INCONSTANT RELATIONS

    1 : properties not shared between two or more referents.

    2 : properties not constant between two or more states.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-02 19:20:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. WHY DO YOU CONSTRAIN ARGUMENT TO THE MATERIAL

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    WHY DO YOU CONSTRAIN ARGUMENT TO THE MATERIAL AND COMPUTATIONAL?

    The reason I stick so rigidly with the computational model and existential (material) model is to close the door completely to abrahamism(jewish), rationalization(french) and phenomenalism(german) as means of self deception.

    The computational and material model explains the phenomenological. With it we can discuss the phenomenological without attributing CAUSATION TO IT.

    Our experiential world is the result of the physical and computational.

    Most philosophical and argumentative systems measure the experiential rather than merely observe that the experiential is a measurement (consequence) of the material and computational.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-02 14:12:14 UTC

  • WHY DO YOU CONSTRAIN ARGUMENT TO THE MATERIAL AND COMPUTATIONAL? The reason I st

    WHY DO YOU CONSTRAIN ARGUMENT TO THE MATERIAL AND COMPUTATIONAL?

    The reason I stick so rigidly with the computational model and existential (material) model is to close the door completely to abrahamism(jewish), rationalization(french) and phenomenalism(german) as means of self deception.

    The computational and material model explains the phenomenological. With it we can discuss the phenomenological without attributing CAUSATION TO IT.

    Our experiential world is the result of the physical and computational.

    Most philosophical and argumentative systems measure the experiential rather than merely observe that the experiential is a measurement (consequence) of the material and computational.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-02 10:12:00 UTC