Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • More NAP and The Blackmail Test

    —“According to the NAP, it’s a voluntary exchange.” The issue I have with that is that blackmail is coercion by definition, and merely acquiescing to coercion (such as handing the mugger your wallet) doesn’t make it less of a NAP breach. Correct?”–– well, rothbard and block and hoppe disagree with you, because it is in fact a voluntary exchange. —“It’s not coercion under the nap because you choose it voluntarily. Search for block and rothbard arguments on blackmail. It is not coercive if it’s voluntary.”— Now, if you study hoppe you’ll find he uses the term ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’ meaning ‘physical things’. The reason libertarianism is debated (and the reason it’s all bullshit) is because no one can define the scope of property that one can aggress against. blackmail isn’t against the scope of intersubjectively verifiable property. It’s against reputation. —“Can we go back to my example with the mugger, which is easier to speak about in an IM format? terms like intersubjectively verifiable property don’t help me with that particular situation”— ok what’s your example. —“All those thinkers (whom I respect) aside, my example is the following:If person A is minding their own business and person B walks up to them with gun in hand and says “Give me your wallet or I’ll shoot you dead” and person A acquiesces, is that a voluntary choice on the part of person A?”— Well since nothing is offered in exchange, no. –“And if person B says “Give me your wallet and I’ll give you a widget. If you do not comply, I will shoot you dead”, is it voluntarily entered into on part of person A then?(I’m not a NAP or libertarian apologist, I am genuinely curious about Propertarian philosophy and want to understand where it differs from mainstream thought)”— There is no difference between propertarianism and tort law other than strict construction. Libertarian thought does not correspond to tort law (only jewish law) because the purpose of tort law is to prevent retaliation cycles, and the purpose of libertarian ethics only to justify getting away with scams. (really). —“I posed a yes-or-no question”— And what has that to do with anything? Framing a question does not mean you’ve honestly asked one. It means it’s unlikely that you’ve asked one. (a) voluntary (b) fully informed (truthful), (c) productive, (d) warrantied, transfer (e) free of imposition of costs by externality. So those are the criteria for reciprocal trade. In the example you gave, is it a voluntary, fully informed truthful, productive, warrantied, transfer free of externality? well no, because it’s not productive, and it’s not voluntary. –“👍 I agree. Can you give me an example of something that can be called blackmail according to tort law that fulfils a,b,c,d, and e?”— Example: I’m going to tell your religious friends who are considering investing in your business that you had a single gay experience in college that I was privy to, unless you pay me 1000 dollars. Now does the NAP under intersubjedtively verifiable property tolerate this? yes. Does it prevent retaliation cycles? No. —“A and B seem fulfilled, but C, D and E don’t.”— It’s not more voluntary than sticking a gun to my head is it? –“It’s not more voluntary than sticking a gun to your head. The degree of offence is slighter, but it is an offence nonetheless, both according to tort law and the NAP”— Thank you for your time, I’ll mull over this That’s your judgement thou. Because according to Rothbard and block, blackmail is voluntary and they’ve written extensively. Why? You have the choice to refuse the deal. The guy with a gun to your head isn’t giving yo uthe choice to refuse the deal. Ergo blackmail is voluntary, and robbery is not. That’s what you’re missing. A definition of voluntary. Where voluntary merely means choice. Hence why I work so hard at deflating terminology so that these problems, which are common libertarian sophisms, are not possible. Most of rothbardian libertarian argument is predicated on this kind of verbal trickery. The imprecision of ideas allowing individuals to substitute their intuitionist definitions, rather than operational existential testiable definitions. Ie: pilpul: deceit by half truth, suggestion, and substitution. Hence why you, and many others are so easily fooled. And why am so diligent about suppression of Pilpul. —“Plpul? Oh like casuistry?”— “Justification of priors using rhetorical devices.” Pilpul is the equivalent of numerology and astrology for the interpretation of texts. Yes, like casuistry. Casuistry = Sophism The problem is people are highly susceptible to sophisms that depend on moral substitution (using a half truth that allows the audience to substitute his intuitions rather than deduce them from the argument. —“So what is a justifiable reaction to blackmail within the propertarian paradigm? I’m probably a propertarian who doesn’t know it yet.”— I don’t use ‘justifiable’ I use empirical. It means “what people do”. People retaliate against blackmail, either legally, violently, or through third parties. But blackmail is one of the most likely ways for getting someone who is not a lover or a relative to kill you. So propertarianism would say that there is no differece between sticking a gun in your face, and sticking blackmail in your face, and you have your choice of means of restitution and punishment. –“I see”–

  • More NAP and The Blackmail Test

    —“According to the NAP, it’s a voluntary exchange.” The issue I have with that is that blackmail is coercion by definition, and merely acquiescing to coercion (such as handing the mugger your wallet) doesn’t make it less of a NAP breach. Correct?”–– well, rothbard and block and hoppe disagree with you, because it is in fact a voluntary exchange. —“It’s not coercion under the nap because you choose it voluntarily. Search for block and rothbard arguments on blackmail. It is not coercive if it’s voluntary.”— Now, if you study hoppe you’ll find he uses the term ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’ meaning ‘physical things’. The reason libertarianism is debated (and the reason it’s all bullshit) is because no one can define the scope of property that one can aggress against. blackmail isn’t against the scope of intersubjectively verifiable property. It’s against reputation. —“Can we go back to my example with the mugger, which is easier to speak about in an IM format? terms like intersubjectively verifiable property don’t help me with that particular situation”— ok what’s your example. —“All those thinkers (whom I respect) aside, my example is the following:If person A is minding their own business and person B walks up to them with gun in hand and says “Give me your wallet or I’ll shoot you dead” and person A acquiesces, is that a voluntary choice on the part of person A?”— Well since nothing is offered in exchange, no. –“And if person B says “Give me your wallet and I’ll give you a widget. If you do not comply, I will shoot you dead”, is it voluntarily entered into on part of person A then?(I’m not a NAP or libertarian apologist, I am genuinely curious about Propertarian philosophy and want to understand where it differs from mainstream thought)”— There is no difference between propertarianism and tort law other than strict construction. Libertarian thought does not correspond to tort law (only jewish law) because the purpose of tort law is to prevent retaliation cycles, and the purpose of libertarian ethics only to justify getting away with scams. (really). —“I posed a yes-or-no question”— And what has that to do with anything? Framing a question does not mean you’ve honestly asked one. It means it’s unlikely that you’ve asked one. (a) voluntary (b) fully informed (truthful), (c) productive, (d) warrantied, transfer (e) free of imposition of costs by externality. So those are the criteria for reciprocal trade. In the example you gave, is it a voluntary, fully informed truthful, productive, warrantied, transfer free of externality? well no, because it’s not productive, and it’s not voluntary. –“👍 I agree. Can you give me an example of something that can be called blackmail according to tort law that fulfils a,b,c,d, and e?”— Example: I’m going to tell your religious friends who are considering investing in your business that you had a single gay experience in college that I was privy to, unless you pay me 1000 dollars. Now does the NAP under intersubjedtively verifiable property tolerate this? yes. Does it prevent retaliation cycles? No. —“A and B seem fulfilled, but C, D and E don’t.”— It’s not more voluntary than sticking a gun to my head is it? –“It’s not more voluntary than sticking a gun to your head. The degree of offence is slighter, but it is an offence nonetheless, both according to tort law and the NAP”— Thank you for your time, I’ll mull over this That’s your judgement thou. Because according to Rothbard and block, blackmail is voluntary and they’ve written extensively. Why? You have the choice to refuse the deal. The guy with a gun to your head isn’t giving yo uthe choice to refuse the deal. Ergo blackmail is voluntary, and robbery is not. That’s what you’re missing. A definition of voluntary. Where voluntary merely means choice. Hence why I work so hard at deflating terminology so that these problems, which are common libertarian sophisms, are not possible. Most of rothbardian libertarian argument is predicated on this kind of verbal trickery. The imprecision of ideas allowing individuals to substitute their intuitionist definitions, rather than operational existential testiable definitions. Ie: pilpul: deceit by half truth, suggestion, and substitution. Hence why you, and many others are so easily fooled. And why am so diligent about suppression of Pilpul. —“Plpul? Oh like casuistry?”— “Justification of priors using rhetorical devices.” Pilpul is the equivalent of numerology and astrology for the interpretation of texts. Yes, like casuistry. Casuistry = Sophism The problem is people are highly susceptible to sophisms that depend on moral substitution (using a half truth that allows the audience to substitute his intuitions rather than deduce them from the argument. —“So what is a justifiable reaction to blackmail within the propertarian paradigm? I’m probably a propertarian who doesn’t know it yet.”— I don’t use ‘justifiable’ I use empirical. It means “what people do”. People retaliate against blackmail, either legally, violently, or through third parties. But blackmail is one of the most likely ways for getting someone who is not a lover or a relative to kill you. So propertarianism would say that there is no differece between sticking a gun in your face, and sticking blackmail in your face, and you have your choice of means of restitution and punishment. –“I see”–

  • I can’t write proofs for every post. Besides. People wouldn’t read them.

    UM, LET ME HELP YOU….. —“Just an opinion”— It is a fact that we can, using the big 5/6 inventory, and breaking those dimensions into traits, measure the differences between the expressions of those genders, and this measurement has been done at vast scale over many years. These traits map to reward (endocrine) systems. Those endocrine systems map to stages of the prey and reproductive drives, since in evolutionary history that is the minimum necessary framework evolution was able to work with and extend into the full suite of properties of homo-sapiens-sapiens. As such, while I use Ordinary Language Terms, those terms are necessary to translate those differences in endocrine responses and therefore incentives, to a narrative set of comparisons that people can understand. In this case, men in fact do demonstrate loyalty and women far less, while men do not experience what women call devotion (the feeling they have toward children) on anywhere near the scale. I then translate these terms into economic language such that we see the equilibrial relation between male and female behavior. I do this so that I can explain to people in scientific terms what their intuitions mean, sot hat they know they are both genetically determined (80%) in utero/developmentally determined (20%) and not choice. Because they are not choice, that means we must not expect to CONVINCE each other. Instead the solution is not to achieve one solution or the other but to create exchanges where both get SOME or MOST of what they want (both personally and politically) even if none of us get ALL of what we want. Now because I just assume you are a decent person (it is my default presumption even if I must tolerate the occasional solipsism from the intuitions of women, and the occasional dominance expression from overconfident young men), I’m taking the time to explain this to you – even though you did not take the time to investigate me, or ask me how I came to such conclusions, or even construct a rational or scientific opposition, just an emotive one. But I cannot cover the subjects I do, which literally encompass the entirety of the human spectrum of knowledge and explain every statement in argumentative form. Instead, people tend to follow me for rather long periods, and I post a lot of aphorisms, contrasts (as do confucians, but closed), series, spectra, and grids as well as “SKETCHES” because if I wrote proofs for every idea I put forth (a) no one could comprehend them, and (b) I would cover 1/100000’th of the subjects that I do. OK? Thank you. 😉

  • I can’t write proofs for every post. Besides. People wouldn’t read them.

    UM, LET ME HELP YOU….. —“Just an opinion”— It is a fact that we can, using the big 5/6 inventory, and breaking those dimensions into traits, measure the differences between the expressions of those genders, and this measurement has been done at vast scale over many years. These traits map to reward (endocrine) systems. Those endocrine systems map to stages of the prey and reproductive drives, since in evolutionary history that is the minimum necessary framework evolution was able to work with and extend into the full suite of properties of homo-sapiens-sapiens. As such, while I use Ordinary Language Terms, those terms are necessary to translate those differences in endocrine responses and therefore incentives, to a narrative set of comparisons that people can understand. In this case, men in fact do demonstrate loyalty and women far less, while men do not experience what women call devotion (the feeling they have toward children) on anywhere near the scale. I then translate these terms into economic language such that we see the equilibrial relation between male and female behavior. I do this so that I can explain to people in scientific terms what their intuitions mean, sot hat they know they are both genetically determined (80%) in utero/developmentally determined (20%) and not choice. Because they are not choice, that means we must not expect to CONVINCE each other. Instead the solution is not to achieve one solution or the other but to create exchanges where both get SOME or MOST of what they want (both personally and politically) even if none of us get ALL of what we want. Now because I just assume you are a decent person (it is my default presumption even if I must tolerate the occasional solipsism from the intuitions of women, and the occasional dominance expression from overconfident young men), I’m taking the time to explain this to you – even though you did not take the time to investigate me, or ask me how I came to such conclusions, or even construct a rational or scientific opposition, just an emotive one. But I cannot cover the subjects I do, which literally encompass the entirety of the human spectrum of knowledge and explain every statement in argumentative form. Instead, people tend to follow me for rather long periods, and I post a lot of aphorisms, contrasts (as do confucians, but closed), series, spectra, and grids as well as “SKETCHES” because if I wrote proofs for every idea I put forth (a) no one could comprehend them, and (b) I would cover 1/100000’th of the subjects that I do. OK? Thank you. 😉

  • SORRY ABRAHAMISTS. FACE REALITY – NEVER AGAIN. We complete the scientific method

    SORRY ABRAHAMISTS. FACE REALITY – NEVER AGAIN.

    We complete the scientific method and the european, greco, roman, germanic program, and in doing so write it into law and end your fraud in supernatural, pseudo-rational (counter-enligthenment), and pseudoscientific (contemporary) eras. Never again.

    LOOK:

    Operational grammar, semantics, and testability (calculation and falsificationism)

    -vs-

    fictionalist grammar and semantics and untestability (sophism and justificationism).

    It’s not an OPINION. It’s just a FACT. Sorry. It’s the difference between numerology, astrology, semitic mysticism, monopoly, and semitic law, vs mathematics, science, historical mythology, competing disciplines, and tort (natural) law.

    I mean, it’s not an opinion any more than that there is a substantial difference between arithmetic and geometry or measurement vs analogy.

    I mean, I know this is hard for mortal minds to grasp, but it sure as hell shouldn’t be.

    Abrahamic religion is the language of lying. Egyptian and Hindu religions are merely mythologies (wisdom literatures) not laws. Buddhism was originally a very poorly stated means of self discipline producing what we call mindfulness (self control). Confucianism is much closer to reason within the limits of chinese language, concepts, grammar and technology. But the abrahamic religions claim to be both a monopoly, and true, and singular. And they are presented and argued using conflationar grammar and semantics, justificationism, and sophism we call ‘Pilpul’ (the verbal equivalent of numerology).

    There is nothing good in abrahamic religions that cannot be stated without lying. There is everything bad in those religions because they evolved to teach us to lie, are taught by lying, and defended by lies and sophisms, and produced externalities the horrors of which are the darkest mark in human history.

    The abrahamic innovation reversing greek reason resulted in Judaism under which the most educated people in europe accomplishing absolutely nothing except conspiring with the state against the people then being cyclically exterminated for it. Christianity accomplished nothing other than destroying germanic culture, eliminating the ability of europeans to defend themselves until the VIking restoration, privatizing literacy as a means of control and submission, turning 50% of european capital dead and for no other purpose than rents, and creating the largest and most corrupt and parasitic bureaucracy in human history. Islam accomplished nothing except the consumption and extermination of all the great civilizations of the ancient world, and reducing all peoples under its influence to dysgenic, ignorant, superstitious, aggressive emoters, and leaving 3/4 of a billion people dead in their wake. The abrahamic dark age was the darkest event in human history, and while the great plagues were devastating, it is patently obvious that abrahamic pilpul and its fictionalism was worse than anything other than malaria.

    No no. Your lies are done.

    NEVER AGAIN.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 15:32:00 UTC

  • UM, LET ME HELP YOU….. —“Just an opinion”— It is a fact that we can, using

    UM, LET ME HELP YOU…..

    —“Just an opinion”—

    It is a fact that we can, using the big 5/6 inventory, and breaking those dimensions into traits, measure the differences between the expressions of those genders, and this measurement has been done at vast scale over many years.

    These traits map to reward (endocrine) systems. Those endocrine systems map to stages of the prey and reproductive drives, since in evolutionary history that is the minimum necessary framework evolution was able to work with and extend into the full suite of properties of homo-sapiens-sapiens.

    As such, while I use Ordinary Language Terms, those terms are necessary to translate those differences in endocrine responses and therefore incentives, to a narrative set of comparisons that people can understand.

    In this case, men in fact do demonstrate loyalty and women far less, while men do not experience what women call devotion (the feeling they have toward children) on anywhere near the scale.

    I then translate these terms into economic language such that we see the equilibrial relation between male and female behavior.

    I do this so that I can explain to people in scientific terms what their intuitions mean, sot hat they know they are both genetically determined (80%) in utero/developmentally determined (20%) and not choice.

    Because they are not choice, that means we must not expect to CONVINCE each other. Instead the solution is not to achieve one solution or the other but to create exchanges where both get SOME or MOST of what they want (both personally and politically) even if none of us get ALL of what we want.

    Now because I just assume you are a decent person (it is my default presumption even if I must tolerate the occasional solipsism from the intuitions of women, and the occasional dominance expression from overconfident young men), I’m taking the time to explain this to you – even though you did not take the time to investigate me, or ask me how I came to such conclusions, or even construct a rational or scientific opposition, just an emotive one.

    But I cannot cover the subjects I do, which literally encompass the entirety of the human spectrum of knowledge and explain every statement in argumentative form.

    Instead, people tend to follow me for rather long periods, and I post a lot of aphorisms, contrasts (as do confucians, but closed), series, spectra, and grids as well as “SKETCHES” because if I wrote proofs for every idea I put forth (a) no one could comprehend them, and (b) I would cover 1/100000’th of the subjects that I do.

    OK?

    Thank you. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 12:54:00 UTC

  • UM WITHOUT PROPERTY MOTHER IS KNOWABLE, WITH PROPERTY FATHER IS KNOWABLE. Father

    UM WITHOUT PROPERTY MOTHER IS KNOWABLE, WITH PROPERTY FATHER IS KNOWABLE.

    Father=Property=Civilization

    —“So was Gimbutas, the woman behind the Kurgan hypothesis, which postulated that the Proto-Indo-Europeans originated on the East European steppe. She said that the Old Europeans were peaceful, matriarchal goddess-worshippers while the Proto-Indo-Europeans were warlike, patriarchal nomads in an attempt to construe their invasion as a negative event, and yet the opposite ensued and people were glad that they got rid of the degeneracy of the previous population. She wanted things to be a certain way and it backfired.”—Alexander Zavialov

    Well, (a) yes it’s gimbutas that ‘discovered’ the urheimat. But (b) her feminist (matriarchy) theory I’m pretty sure went out the window. (c) it is true that in very primitive (early) societies households consisted of women and their men ‘rotated’ to fuck what they could. In this sense it was matrilineal. But that’s because YOUR MOTHER IS ALL YOU KNOW IS TRUE in a consanguineous band.

    It’s once you have property and divide up property and women that you get paternalism. Why? Because PROPERTY AND EXcluSIVITY IS KNOWABLE. (mostly).

    There aren’t any consanguineous bands left. Why? They can’t survive and compete without property.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 10:44:00 UTC

  • WE ARE THE PRODUCT OF OUR LAWS. EVERYTHING ELSE IS AFFECTATION Natural law preda

    WE ARE THE PRODUCT OF OUR LAWS. EVERYTHING ELSE IS AFFECTATION

    Natural law predates all western states, and is merely the law of tort (reciprocity for the prevention of retaliation cycles), which is merely traditional european customary law back into the pre-govermental (tribal) period. Natural law is the label and justification for traditional (northern) european customary law. It was the greeks who started and zeno in particular who gave the romans, the explanation that traditional customary law of individual sovereignty and reciprocity (and tripartism), was in fact ‘natural’ ( living according to the laws of nature), and the church’s contribution was to state it was necessary for peaceful cooperation among peoples as a means of demanding the state – particularly once the spanish started slaughtering primitives in the new world.

    Western civ like all civs is a product of our law, and our law like all civs originated in our military orders and was codified during the period of the great transformations.

    Theologians, priests, monks, and the church like philosophers, public intellectuals, professors, and the academy, and like propagandists, politicians, bureaucrats and the state, take credit for and develop names for, those things which they justify but do not cause or created or even practice.

    Meanwhile the law, the economy, the trades, and families leave daily records of the purely empirical.

    We are almost always just the product of our laws, and everything else is propaganda.

    Hence the importance of law, and in particular the law of sovereign men, and that is the law of tort: the resolution of conflict and the prevention of retaliation cycles by the demand for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs upon third parties (externalities).

    It just so happens that once you choose sovereignty and the law of tort you are forced to produce markets, and in doing so adapt faster to changes than all other civilizations combined.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 08:41:00 UTC

  • MORE NAP AND THE BLACKMAIL TEST —“According to the NAP, it’s a voluntary excha

    MORE NAP AND THE BLACKMAIL TEST

    —“According to the NAP, it’s a voluntary exchange.” The issue I have with that is that blackmail is coercion by definition, and merely acquiescing to coercion (such as handing the mugger your wallet) doesn’t make it less of a NAP breach. Correct?”—

    well, rothbard and block and hoppe disagree with you, because it is in fact a voluntary exchange.

    —“It’s not coercion under the nap because you choose it voluntarily. Search for block and rothbard arguments on blackmail. It is not coercive if it’s voluntary.”—

    Now, if you study hoppe you’ll find he uses the term ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’ meaning ‘physical things’.

    The reason libertarianism is debated (and the reason it’s all bullshit) is because no one can define the scope of property that one can aggress against.

    blackmail isn’t against the scope of intersubjectively verifiable property. It’s against reputation.

    —“Can we go back to my example with the mugger, which is easier to speak about in an IM format? terms like intersubjectively verifiable property don’t help me with that particular situation”—

    ok what’s your example.

    —“All those thinkers (whom I respect) aside, my example is the following:

    If person A is minding their own business and person B walks up to them with gun in hand and says “Give me your wallet or I’ll shoot you dead” and person A acquiesces, is that a voluntary choice on the part of person A?”—

    Well since nothing is offered in exchange, no.

    –“And if person B says “Give me your wallet and I’ll give you a widget. If you do not comply, I will shoot you dead”, is it voluntarily entered into on part of person A then?

    (I’m not a NAP or libertarian apologist, I am genuinely curious about Propertarian philosophy and want to understand where it differs from mainstream thought)”—

    There is no difference between propertarianism and tort law other than strict construction. Libertarian thought does not correspond to tort law (only jewish law) because the purpose of tort law is to prevent retaliation cycles, and the purpose of libertarian ethics only to justify getting away with scams. (really).

    —“I posed a yes-or-no question”—

    And what has that to do with anything? Framing a question does not mean you’ve honestly asked one. It means it’s unlikely that you’ve asked one.

    (a) voluntary (b) fully informed (truthful), (c) productive, (d) warrantied, transfer (e) free of imposition of costs by externality.

    So those are the criteria for reciprocal trade.

    In the example you gave, is it a voluntary, fully informed truthful, productive, warrantied, transfer free of externality?

    well no, because it’s not productive, and it’s not voluntary.

    –“👍 I agree. Can you give me an example of something that can be called blackmail according to tort law that fulfils a,b,c,d, and e?”—

    Example: I’m going to tell your religious friends who are considering investing in your business that you had a single gay experience in college that I was privy to, unless you pay me 1000 dollars.

    Now does the NAP under intersubjedtively verifiable property tolerate this? yes.

    Does it prevent retaliation cycles? No.

    —“A and B seem fulfilled, but C, D and E don’t.”—

    It’s not more voluntary than sticking a gun to my head is it?

    –“It’s not more voluntary than sticking a gun to your head. The degree of offence is slighter, but it is an offence nonetheless, both according to tort law and the NAP”—

    Thank you for your time, I’ll mull over this

    That’s your judgement thou. Because according to Rothbard and block, blackmail is voluntary and they’ve written extensively.

    Why? You have the choice to refuse the deal. The guy with a gun to your head isn’t giving yo uthe choice to refuse the deal.

    Ergo blackmail is voluntary, and robbery is not.

    That’s what you’re missing. A definition of voluntary. Where voluntary merely means choice.

    Hence why I work so hard at deflating terminology so that these problems, which are common libertarian sophisms, are not possible.

    Most of rothbardian libertarian argument is predicated on this kind of verbal trickery. The imprecision of ideas allowing individuals to substitute their intuitionist definitions, rather than operational existential testiable definitions.

    Ie: pilpul: deceit by half truth, suggestion, and substitution.

    Hence why you, and many others are so easily fooled. And why am so diligent about suppression of Pilpul.

    —“Plpul? Oh like casuistry?”—

    “Justification of priors using rhetorical devices.”

    Pilpul is the equivalent of numerology and astrology for the interpretation of texts.

    Yes, like casuistry. Casuistry = Sophism

    The problem is people are highly susceptible to sophisms that depend on moral substitution (using a half truth that allows the audience to substitute his intuitions rather than deduce them from the argument.

    —“So what is a justifiable reaction to blackmail within the propertarian paradigm? I’m probably a propertarian who doesn’t know it yet.”—

    I don’t use ‘justifiable’ I use empirical. It means “what people do”. People retaliate against blackmail, either legally, violently, or through third parties. But blackmail is one of the most likely ways for getting someone who is not a lover or a relative to kill you.

    So propertarianism would say that there is no differece between sticking a gun in your face, and sticking blackmail in your face, and you have your choice of means of restitution and punishment.

    –“I see”–

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 19:43:00 UTC

  • A Priest Is the Enemy of Civilization

      I prefer we return to a prohibition on priests, and a requirement that citizens, especially leading citizens, lead the rituals. As far as I know this is the optimum social model and priests are a threat to civilization. I prefer the rotation of ceremony among the population, regardless of age and gender. I prefer the protestant method with a male judge (moderator) and the community ‘speaking their minds’. This produces the optimum debate. The problem with female judges (moderators) is that women (really) cannot divorce themselves sufficiently (produce agency) and this is why men and women eventually prefer working for men whenever there is any differences in the group. I find it almost impossible just to listen to a female judge in court for the same reason I can’t tolerate a female speaker on theoretical instead of empirical (where women excel) content. This is because I am extremely sensitive to logical errors, and ‘cheats’ and women simply cannot reach male levels of speaking the uncomfortable truth regardless of its impact on the dominance hierarchy. And it is this willingness to speak the truth regardless of its impact on the hierarchy, and the risk to one’s self for having said it, that is the origin of the uniqueness of the west. Priests are as evil as pseudoscientists, bureaucracy and democracy. Never again.