Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Men have had a much harder time taming women’s irrationality and impulsivity tha

    Men have had a much harder time taming women’s irrationality and impulsivity than they have their own. We kill off troublesome men. We just constrain troublesome women. Men have no more place in midwifery and nursery than women have in politics and war.

    We spent tends of thousands of years incrementally suppressing male behavior while merely containing female behavior. But we turned the ballot box into Pandora’s box and let loose all the evils in the world.

    Women have no place in politics and war

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-21 06:03:00 UTC

  • WOMEN AREN”T MORAL THEY’RE OPPORTUNISTIC Female Political Openness is just an ex

    WOMEN AREN”T MORAL THEY’RE OPPORTUNISTIC

    Female Political Openness is just an excuse to obscure their fear of confrontation mixed with their natural optimism about offspring – without which they would never bear the heavy costs of children. We cannot confuse the irrationality of women with science, reason or morality. It is an unscientific, irrational, and immoral impulse that inhabits the female brain for the simple reason that a rational female would never bear and raise children.

    Care of the young and old is a female responsibility ad intuition. Care of the civilization is a male responsibility and intuition. Women will give away a civilization out of intuition just as readily as they will gift their children without limit and take the family, tribe, nation, and civilization into conquest and destitution.

    Women have no place in politics. That is the less of the past century. In as little as ten decades of political enfranchisement women have destroyed western civilization.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-21 06:02:00 UTC

  • DISBAND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY Limbaugh calls for the end of the republican party.

    DISBAND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

    Limbaugh calls for the end of the republican party.

    We must end the republican party forever, as the party of Traitors.

    Of course I want to end all parties, because I want to end all elections, and have jurors in the houses chosen by lot.

    But ending the party of Traitors is enough for the moment.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-18 02:00:00 UTC

  • Objective Good vs Subjective Preference

    (the thrust of this argument is a conflation of good and preference, and my opponent’s presumption that because of that conflation there are no ‘goods’. This may be a bit hard to parse, but there are objective goods.) [I] think it is that I simply failed to provide sufficient touch stones so that you would draw the conclusions on your own. In other words the argument I make is a necessary one. And that is why it’s an is. That might take a bit but we will get there.

    —” I would add my surprise to see you mention at the end that this is all about how things are and not should be.”— Mark

    I Think you’re referring to this statement:

    —“(g) as far as I know I am explaining what men do (is), not what they should do (should).”—

    Which in the context I mean that men do what they must do. what they must do is what they in fact do (“is”). And what they should do is what they must do, and do (“should”). In other words, there is no difference between must, can, is and should. Or better stated, “Man justifies his group evolutionary strategy, whatever it is – he survives.”

    —“I see you started out apparently very much talking about good/bad in a thread on political views necessarily based on moral views. So…?”—

    So instead I am stating that moral principles necessary for in-group cooperation and are universal necessities (subject to limits), and that despite local variation in the portfolio of norms necessary for the purposes of competition, production, free rider prevention, and rent seeking, that must, can, is, and should are identical propositions. The only question is cooperation between groups with different portfolios that are incompatible. In compatibility is universally decidable by property rights independent of local variation in the portfolio. And this also is what we see men do in reality. So objective morality – rules necessary for rational beneficial voluntary cooperation – is universal.

    –“good”— Mark

    Now what is the difference between “preference” and “good”? Well I can prefer something I can experience myself. We can say that fulfilling a preference feels good. We can also say that something is good even if it isn’t immediately preferable. So to avoid confusion, lets say that **a preference is an experiential good, and a good is either an non-experiential intertemporal personal benefit, or objectively decidable interpersonal benefit.**

    –“starting point”— Mark

    So, i start with the first question of “why don’t I kill you and take your stuff”. The first question of ethics. The answer is then one of short and long run costs versus benefits. As long as one’s opponents promise greater cost than reward, we choose cooperation or boycott – if we can choose boycott. From there, to the disproportionate rewards of cooperation assuming predation is costly. Or as biological evolution has informed us: we possess the intuitive ability to both imitate, and beyond imitate to empathize, and beyond empathize to cooperate, and beyond cooperation to anticipate demand for cooperation. We evolved it because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding. But when we cooperate we must prevent free riders from undermining the incentive to cooperate – hence the human intuition to punish free riders (cheaters) even at high personal cost. If a group decides that survival is not ‘good’ (bearing a cost of an intertemporal and directly imperceptible forecast subject to risk) and does not survive then it is not ‘good’ for others to imitate it if they wish to survive. Hence over time, good is defined as what others can imitate in order to survive. So, good is an evolutionary imperative, not a preference. A preference may feel good by analogy but it is not an abstract ‘good’ – a value judgement. ie: subjective preferences and objective goods are different things. And those goods that are in fact ‘good’ are objectively ascertainable over time independent of subjective preference. Cheers

  • Objective Good vs Subjective Preference

    (the thrust of this argument is a conflation of good and preference, and my opponent’s presumption that because of that conflation there are no ‘goods’. This may be a bit hard to parse, but there are objective goods.) [I] think it is that I simply failed to provide sufficient touch stones so that you would draw the conclusions on your own. In other words the argument I make is a necessary one. And that is why it’s an is. That might take a bit but we will get there.

    —” I would add my surprise to see you mention at the end that this is all about how things are and not should be.”— Mark

    I Think you’re referring to this statement:

    —“(g) as far as I know I am explaining what men do (is), not what they should do (should).”—

    Which in the context I mean that men do what they must do. what they must do is what they in fact do (“is”). And what they should do is what they must do, and do (“should”). In other words, there is no difference between must, can, is and should. Or better stated, “Man justifies his group evolutionary strategy, whatever it is – he survives.”

    —“I see you started out apparently very much talking about good/bad in a thread on political views necessarily based on moral views. So…?”—

    So instead I am stating that moral principles necessary for in-group cooperation and are universal necessities (subject to limits), and that despite local variation in the portfolio of norms necessary for the purposes of competition, production, free rider prevention, and rent seeking, that must, can, is, and should are identical propositions. The only question is cooperation between groups with different portfolios that are incompatible. In compatibility is universally decidable by property rights independent of local variation in the portfolio. And this also is what we see men do in reality. So objective morality – rules necessary for rational beneficial voluntary cooperation – is universal.

    –“good”— Mark

    Now what is the difference between “preference” and “good”? Well I can prefer something I can experience myself. We can say that fulfilling a preference feels good. We can also say that something is good even if it isn’t immediately preferable. So to avoid confusion, lets say that **a preference is an experiential good, and a good is either an non-experiential intertemporal personal benefit, or objectively decidable interpersonal benefit.**

    –“starting point”— Mark

    So, i start with the first question of “why don’t I kill you and take your stuff”. The first question of ethics. The answer is then one of short and long run costs versus benefits. As long as one’s opponents promise greater cost than reward, we choose cooperation or boycott – if we can choose boycott. From there, to the disproportionate rewards of cooperation assuming predation is costly. Or as biological evolution has informed us: we possess the intuitive ability to both imitate, and beyond imitate to empathize, and beyond empathize to cooperate, and beyond cooperation to anticipate demand for cooperation. We evolved it because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding. But when we cooperate we must prevent free riders from undermining the incentive to cooperate – hence the human intuition to punish free riders (cheaters) even at high personal cost. If a group decides that survival is not ‘good’ (bearing a cost of an intertemporal and directly imperceptible forecast subject to risk) and does not survive then it is not ‘good’ for others to imitate it if they wish to survive. Hence over time, good is defined as what others can imitate in order to survive. So, good is an evolutionary imperative, not a preference. A preference may feel good by analogy but it is not an abstract ‘good’ – a value judgement. ie: subjective preferences and objective goods are different things. And those goods that are in fact ‘good’ are objectively ascertainable over time independent of subjective preference. Cheers

  • REFUTING IMMORAL ATTACKS ON PROPERTARIANISM. Why would you unless you either don

    REFUTING IMMORAL ATTACKS ON PROPERTARIANISM.

    Why would you unless you either don’t understand it, are immoral, or both.

    –“What, you trying to make the argument that a minority prescription cannot produce a revolution?

    Or that a majority is needed to force political change?

    Or that treating information as s commons such that truthful speech is required just as we have done in courts to limit religious speech?

    Or that it would be better to continue to permit pseudoscience and propaganda and deceit than to constrain it?

    Or that houses where we conducted truthful exchanges in the production of commons would not be better than corporatism, special interests, class warfare, race warfare, party warfare, fed by media complicit in propaganda?

    I have spent a lot of my life in these subjects and I am all too well aware of the power of so called “scribblers” to reorder human thinking.

    The question I have for anyone that criticises these ambitions is why they prefer pseudoscience to science, obscurantism to philosophy, propaganda to information, deceit to truthfulness.

    There is no safe answer with which one can retort. Especially since the evidence of transformation of polities to greater correspondence (truth) is now overwhelming in every era.

    So if you don’t like me or my arguments you are welcome to attempt to refute them.

    But constant offers if opinion and a failure to construct argument are just pissing in fire hydrants.

    Basically you are forcing a cost of refutation upon me by shaming rather than engaging in the pursuit of truth.

    First, this violates the principle of cooperation under which it is rational to forgo predation in favour of cooperation.

    Second it is a rather obvious tactic. And the question it presents us with is why are you motivated to preserve lying, shaming, rallying which is merely the postmodern equivalent is saying its unchristian and a violation of gods will.

    There is no more substance to your statements than this.

    So if we focus the lens in your incentives and abilities, then why is it that you as one who imposes costs upon others rather than seeking the truth, and imposes those costs though fraudulent methods of criticism, and who seeks to preserve the institutional tolerance for the forms of fraud that you employ … Why is it that you feel your pseudo rational non empirical, truth preventing, arguments should be more tolerable in politics than their rationalist and supernatural predecessors?

    Why are you so afraid of truth and voluntary exchange? Why are you so immoral that you will impose costs by fraud upon others?

    In other words, why are you demonstrably an immoral person?

    Except to perpetuate immorality?

    Truth built the west. Truth can restore it.

    (A couple of middle class guys hanging around Paris nearly overthrew the world.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-16 11:42:00 UTC

  • THE ONLY ‘GOOD’ IS A TRADE. EVERYTHING ELSE IS PREFERENCE Male – Female relation

    THE ONLY ‘GOOD’ IS A TRADE. EVERYTHING ELSE IS PREFERENCE

    Male – Female relations are a trade between competing reproductive strategies. Feminists seem to have the opinion that their strategy is superior despite the fact that all civilization seems to have been constructed to control women’s gossiping, lying, sexual and reproductive excesses as much as it has been to control men’s theft, violence, murder and war.

    We compromise. If there is no compromise with women then we have the alternative to return to our natural state where women are mere cattle herded by men, with the only reprieve provided by affection by women and defense of daughters and mates by men.

    What do you think the entire damned world does? Europeans treated women much better than others for historical reasons that are very hard to reproduce.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-15 04:35:00 UTC

  • OBJECTIVE GOOD VS SUBJECTIVE PREFERENCE (the thrust of this argument is a confla

    OBJECTIVE GOOD VS SUBJECTIVE PREFERENCE

    (the thrust of this argument is a conflation of good and preference, and my opponent’s presumption that because of that conflation there are no ‘goods’. This may be a bit hard to parse, but there are objective goods.)

    I think it is that I simply failed to provide sufficient touch stones so that you would draw the conclusions on your own.

    In other words the argument I make is a necessary one. And that is why it’s an is.

    That might take a bit but we will get there.

    —” I would add my surprise to see you mention at the end that this is all about how things are and not should be.”— Mark

    I Think you’re referring to this statement:

    —“(g) as far as I know I am explaining what men do (is), not what they should do (should).”—

    Which in the context I mean that men do what they must do. what they must do is what they in fact do (“is”). And what they should do is what they must do, and do (“should”). In other words, there is no difference between must, can, is and should. Or better stated, “Man justifies his group evolutionary strategy, whatever it is – he survives.”

    —“I see you started out apparently very much talking about good/bad in a thread on political views necessarily based on moral views. So…?”—

    So instead I am stating that moral principles necessary for in-group cooperation and are universal necessities (subject to limits), and that despite local variation in the portfolio of norms necessary for the purposes of competition, production, free rider prevention, and rent seeking, that must, can, is, and should are identical propositions.

    The only question is cooperation between groups with different portfolios that are incompatible. In compatibility is universally decidable by property rights independent of local variation in the portfolio. And this also is what we see men do in reality.

    So objective morality – rules necessary for rational beneficial voluntary cooperation – is universal.

    –“good”— Mark

    Now what is the difference between “preference” and “good”? Well I can prefer something I can experience myself. We can say that fulfilling a preference feels good. We can also say that something is good even if it isn’t immediately preferable.

    So to avoid confusion, lets say that **a preference is an experiential good, and a good is either an non-experiential intertemporal personal benefit, or objectively decidable interpersonal benefit.**

    –“starting point”— Mark

    So, i start with the first question of “why don’t I kill you and take your stuff”. The first question of ethics.

    The answer is then one of short and long run costs versus benefits. As long as one’s opponents promise greater cost than reward, we choose cooperation or boycott – if we can choose boycott.

    From there, to the disproportionate rewards of cooperation assuming predation is costly. Or as biological evolution has informed us: we possess the intuitive ability to both imitate, and beyond imitate to empathize, and beyond empathize to cooperate, and beyond cooperation to anticipate demand for cooperation. We evolved it because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding. But when we cooperate we must prevent free riders from undermining the incentive to cooperate – hence the human intuition to punish free riders (cheaters) even at high personal cost.

    If a group decides that survival is not ‘good’ (bearing a cost of an intertemporal and directly imperceptible forecast subject to risk) and does not survive then it is not ‘good’ for others to imitate it if they wish to survive. Hence over time, good is defined as what others can imitate in order to survive. So, good is an evolutionary imperative, not a preference. A preference may feel good by analogy but it is not an abstract ‘good’ – a value judgement.

    ie: subjective preferences and objective goods are different things. And those goods that are in fact ‘good’ are objectively ascertainable over time independent of subjective preference.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-14 10:10:00 UTC

  • How many EU programmers work 80-90 hour weeks on a regular basis in return for s

    How many EU programmers work 80-90 hour weeks on a regular basis in return for stock options? How many in USA? USA invents. EU Copies.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-12 10:42:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675626776341663745

    Reply addressees: @wef

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675616196671221760

    IN REPLY TO:

    @wef

    Can #Europe ever build its own Silicon Valley? https://t.co/Yg2c68VzkH #tech https://t.co/n5pwtNqPhd

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675616196671221760

  • So the reason for higher USA tech risk is economy is designed to encourage risk

    So the reason for higher USA tech risk is economy is designed to encourage risk and reward and only ‘interfere’ if someone ‘cheated’.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-12 10:40:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675626377543065600

    Reply addressees: @wef

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675616196671221760

    IN REPLY TO:

    @wef

    Can #Europe ever build its own Silicon Valley? https://t.co/Yg2c68VzkH #tech https://t.co/n5pwtNqPhd

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675616196671221760