Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • How about we worry about TRUE and FALSE speech. Because that’s the problem. Free

    How about we worry about TRUE and FALSE speech. Because that’s the problem. Free speech was hotly debated and a mistake. Only truthful.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 11:36:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853572858081140736

    Reply addressees: @primalpoly @JayMan471

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853402884003643392

    IN REPLY TO:

    @gmiller

    SJW logic: offensive speech is a form of violence, so is not #1A-protected. Also, violence is a form of free speech, so is #1A protected. https://t.co/6VBuO1FgQb

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/853402884003643392

  • NO, TRUTHFUL SPEECH IS EASY TO IMPLEMENT CURT DOOLITTLE We can require truthful

    NO, TRUTHFUL SPEECH IS EASY TO IMPLEMENT

    CURT DOOLITTLE

    We can require truthful speech, just as we do products, services, and claims. There is no reason not to in political speech also.

    JAYMAN:

    This is impossible to implement.

    CURT DOOLITTLE

    Jayman.

    Lets have a debate on that ’cause i’m positive you’re wrong. 😉

    We can never know truth proper, but falsehood is easy.

    And we can require truthful speech, just as we do products, services, and claims. There is no reason not to in political speech also.

    One need not require truth, only prohibit falsehood, incompleteness, and irreciprocity – something courts do every day.

    So no, it’s not only possible, it’s easy. And we do it in many, many ways already, successfully, every day.

    And it will serve as the completion of the scientific enlightenment that we have struggled and failed to perform for centuries.

    And it will provide as great a set of returns as has empiricism. If not more.

    —–

    NOTE: I can’t go into testimonial grammar on twitter. so no, I can’t explain it there….

    (edited for grammar and context)

    #jayman

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-16 10:09:00 UTC

  • A LESSON IN ARGUMENT (your important thought of the day) Defeat inferior technol

    A LESSON IN ARGUMENT

    (your important thought of the day)

    Defeat inferior technology with superior technology. Or if you understand logic: no closed system is sufficient for proofs of that system. (if you have to ask, you won’t understand.)

    So that said, when debating:

    You don’t refute mysticism with mysticism but with reason.

    Not reason with reason but rationalism.

    Not rationalism with rationalism but empiricism.

    Not empiricism with empiricism but Testimonialism.

    Refutation requires the expansion of the scope of information and testing, and by restating ‘simpler’ arguments in ‘more precise’ arguments using that additional scope of information.

    Internal Contradiction does not falsify meaning.

    The purpose of meaning is to allow choices that produce consequences.

    Consequences do.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-13 08:17:00 UTC

  • Rational Self Interest

    Apr 09, 2017 6:01am RATIONAL SELF INTEREST by John Dow Assuming self-interest is rational, by punishing all non-reciprocating choices via law, acting in group interest becomes rational. I don’t care if you reciprocate by rational self-interest or as a result of high prosociality, as long as you reciprocate. Assuming the maximization of group fitness has higher potential yields to individual fitness than any other factor, and assuming the maximization of individual fitness is desired, this is rational self-interest.

  • Rational Self Interest

    Apr 09, 2017 6:01am RATIONAL SELF INTEREST by John Dow Assuming self-interest is rational, by punishing all non-reciprocating choices via law, acting in group interest becomes rational. I don’t care if you reciprocate by rational self-interest or as a result of high prosociality, as long as you reciprocate. Assuming the maximization of group fitness has higher potential yields to individual fitness than any other factor, and assuming the maximization of individual fitness is desired, this is rational self-interest.

  • NO. A SINGLE LAW, MANY GODS, AND THE PROHIBITION ON LIES —A single god means a

    NO. A SINGLE LAW, MANY GODS, AND THE PROHIBITION ON LIES

    —A single god means a single law, which is not generally a bad good thing. God is no lie, god is a symbol.—Daniel Seis

    Nope. A single law and many gods appears to be a better solution if we look at history, because men differ in wants and abilities but natural law allows all to obtain them through cooperation.

    Slaves requires a single god. They are equal in their lack of everything.

    A division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy requires gods for each of the divisions, subdivisions, and so on.

    There is only one law of the universe.

    The rest is just education in its application to niches.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-12 12:04:00 UTC

  • THINKING OF SOVEREIGNTY AT THE GROUP EVOLUTIONARY SCALE NOT THE INDIVIDUAL SCALE

    THINKING OF SOVEREIGNTY AT THE GROUP EVOLUTIONARY SCALE NOT THE INDIVIDUAL SCALE: LIBERTY OR FREEDOM

    —“I think that [Doolittle] wants to incentivize cooperation within the group so that the group will succeed in its environment and in competition with other groups. In these situations, it does not matter whether individuals cooperate in order to benefit themselves or in order to benefit the group, and their justifications do not matter; the cooperation which allows the group to succeed matters (to us). I feel like I have missed a few details, so maybe someone will help fill them in.”– Brandon Vaughn

    ANSWER:

    Correct.

    The western group competitive (evolutionary) strategy is non-parasitism, truth, high trust, to produce normative commons, the returns upon which – whether genetic, normative, institutional or physical capital – are greater than groups that cannot produce such commons can compete with.

    Commons are the west’s competitive advantage. And we alone other than the japanese seem able to produce them at any substantial scale.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-09 13:03:00 UTC

  • RATIONAL SELF INTEREST by Joel Davis Assuming self-interest is rational, by puni

    RATIONAL SELF INTEREST

    by Joel Davis

    Assuming self-interest is rational, by punishing all non-reciprocating choices via law, acting in group interest becomes rational.

    I don’t care if you reciprocate by rational self-interest or as a result of high prosociality, as long as you reciprocate.

    Assuming the maximization of group fitness has higher potential yields to individual fitness than any other factor, and assuming the maximization of individual fitness is desired, this is rational self-interest.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-09 06:01:00 UTC

  • Let’s get this straight. The only reason to talk to you and not kill, enslave, o

    Let’s get this straight. The only reason to talk to you and not kill, enslave, or punish you, is if we engage in conversation limited to perfect reciprocity: meaning transparent, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of information, free of imposition of costs by externality.

    That means if you engage in ridicule, accusation, avoidance, obscurantism, in order to impose or justify an imposition of costs upon me or others, it is preferable prey upon you honestly, truthfully, by means of violence than it is preferable to be preyed upon you by means of stupidity, ignorance, bias, or deceit.

    Why? First question of ethics: why don’t I kill you and take your stuff? (and kill your sons, and rape and enslave your wives and daughters).

    We are past the point of negotiating with the left.

    You are dead.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-08 15:36:00 UTC

  • SUMMARY There is no source of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom, and the luxury of s

    SUMMARY

    There is no source of Sovereignty, Liberty, Freedom, and the luxury of subsidy of the weak, other than a monarchy, martial aristocracy, and militia of the enfranchised. Because there is no method of decidability, no method of insurance, and no process other than violence: threat, punishment, murder, and revolt. And the method of licensing violence and revolt early and often is a constitution of natural law that provides the incentive to prosecute individuals at all levels by anyone with the information to do so – such that no power can ever accumulate sufficiently to deny a group, the militia, the aristocracy, or the monarchy the license to first prosecute by juridical means, then by martial means. This institution is self perpetuating if for no other reason than the universality, the status, and the high cost of obtaining that status and responsibility. Expensive rituals endure. Every man a sheriff. A warrior. A Judge.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-07 09:06:00 UTC