Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • “you have no option but to submit”– First you cannot testify to such, only expr

    –“you have no option but to submit”–
    First you cannot testify to such, only express faith in such, and as such lie that you have the knowledge to testify truthfully to make the claim. Second, I submit to nothing, but only adapt to the evidence of the laws of the universe. There is no god. There needn’t exist a god. And we know from the study of human psychology that anthropomorphism and mythicism are just the simplest and most primitive means of indoctrinating children in manners ethics and morals that they can comprehend without education. The fact that one does not mature from mythology to philosophy to empiricism and history, to science and operationalism is merely a demonstration of one’s ability to learn, adapt, and evolve. Adults do not take counsel from children.

    Reply addressees: @_mad_monk_

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-14 20:22:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868028879388246016

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1868015715531497505

  • “Truth transcends all, predates all and will out last all. It’s an aspect of God

    –“Truth transcends all, predates all and will out last all. It’s an aspect of God.”–

    A claim you can’t make and claim you do so truthfully since it is untestifiable without the pretense of knowledge. In other words, you have to lie to make that claim.
    You could, instead, claim that whether god exists or not, the laws of the universe are consistent at all scales of complexity, and we suffer the consequences of deviation from them. This is testifiable.
    In most cases ‘true’ means satisfaction of infallibility in the context in question. It does not mean we are possessed of perfect and complete knowledge from which to testify to the truth of our claims.
    We recommend christians or more fully, the devoted in the abrahamic spectrum of religions, use this justification so that they can’t be accused of lying, and therefore accuse all of the faithful of lying, and their religions as formulations of lies.
    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @julianrosser @BrianRoemmele

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-14 01:02:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867736875722846213

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867452530747486268

  • RUDYARD AND JAMES LINDSAY VS THE STREISAND EFFECT I wouldn’t overstate the US an

    RUDYARD AND JAMES LINDSAY VS THE STREISAND EFFECT
    I wouldn’t overstate the US and world shift until it’s taken root. The swing is always back and forth.

    That said:

    Rudyard is close friend and a true believer in religion with a bias in favor of the medieval period. But, he has the most intellectual potential of any of the young people I can find, because while he may be biased, he’s not anchored and fearful of adaptation as he learns – which you can see in his slow and gradual addressing of this issue. So I give him the benefit of the doubt, and wait for him to develop on his own terms at his own rate. But that said, I know my job is judicial (negativa) and his is evangelical (positiva). Both sides of the coin are necessary for human societies.

    I view Lindsay as what I said: a good book reviewer, an exceptional advocate and communicator, a center leftist, and otherwise, as an intellectual, unnecessarily a poser (I think it’s a class issue myself). I would have much more optimistic view of him – because he’s still relatively young – if he wasn’t compensating with (hiding behind) arrogance and feminine ridicule, and instead stating his current position and being open to his future evolution.

    cc: @whatifalthist , @ConceptualJames

    Reply addressees: @pundasdad @whatifalthist

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-13 18:39:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867640565309091843

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867626971662102541

  • No James, the difference is that you’re using feminine-abrahamic-marxist-leftist

    No James, the difference is that you’re using feminine-abrahamic-marxist-leftist undermining and canceling by term abuse and labeling because you can’t make a rational and empirical argument other than the pretense of a vague analogy to gnosticism – which itself is neither a rational nor empirical but fictionalist analogy rather than argument.

    All humans act rationally and all human actions are rationally and neutrally explicable. If you can’t do that what you’re doing instead is manipulation, sedition, and propaganda.

    You’re going to bury yourself on this hill (again) so why attempt to create a false equivalencing by conflating that the right is correct and the left is not?

    Reply addressees: @ConceptualJames

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-13 17:26:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867622128444665856

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1867592431572533372

  • THE EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF JOURNALISTS’ ADMISSION OF THEIR FAILURE Exhausted by

    THE EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF JOURNALISTS’ ADMISSION OF THEIR FAILURE
    Exhausted by pseudo-journalists who post click-bait, gossip, activism, cultural sedition, propaganda instead of testifying to the rational incentives of parties in conflict, the population is abandoning ‘traditional media’ in favor of a ‘market of opinions’ that circumvent their dishonesties, manipulations, activism, and undermining. The result will be an additional decline in readership as their irrelevance spreads even faster.

    The truth: the competition is destroying traditional media. Instead of reforming, instead of ‘testifying’, they continue their construction of false narratives to grasp attention by false means, in an industry of fraud, and as such complain that the public discussion as disinformation rather than a market for information that has falsified THEIR DISINFORMATION.

    That’s the Truth.
    That’s our Judgement
    And their collapse is their just desserts.

    Cheers
    CD
    NLI

    Reply addressees: @PeterSweden7

    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-28 21:29:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1862247572800512004

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1862142884289335405

  • Non argument. You’re pretense of argument is an act of lying. You are lying to a

    Non argument. You’re pretense of argument is an act of lying. You are lying to advance a prior. I do not yet know what that prior consists of. Most such priors are supernatural. Until I discover what prior I will assume you’re lying to defend a pretense of knowledge, to defend a pretense of competency to defend a pretense of self image and self worth.

    All simple minds are the same. They only vary in the lies they assert to create the suppression of neuroticism due to their incompetence, and therefore their awareness of their inadequacy, which their self image cannot tolerate.

    Reply addressees: @iEslam @DaveShapi

    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-28 16:43:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1862175382872764416

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1862174514202714534

  • You have made no argument, you’re just name calling. There is no argument to mak

    You have made no argument, you’re just name calling.
    There is no argument to make in favor of a decadent religion, any more than there is to drug addiction. The fact that ‘people like it’ tells us nothing about why, since islam went mainstream and fundamentalist in the tenth…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-21 22:39:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1859728347682701785

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1859725450072949139

  • Hubris consists of the pretense of knowledge, unsupported by argument, and insul

    Hubris consists of the pretense of knowledge, unsupported by argument, and insult ridicule outraging shaming and rallying are employed instead.

    Just like you’re doing.

    Not one argument made. Just personal attacks. It’s classic. Stereotypical. Cognitively feminine raging against…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-15 16:11:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1857456378060935423

    Reply addressees: @JasonR_Badger @Markleaver10 @scottjla @gspeth @RichardDawkins

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1857437668763742298

  • I stated his frame and incentives. Note that every response in this dumpster fir

    I stated his frame and incentives. Note that every response in this dumpster fire of a thread, does nothing but engage in disapproval, projection, shamming, rallying, fictionalizing, distraction, and of course, undermining – hiding behind pretenses of knowledge and virtue that cant be demonstrated in a single response.
    All humans act rationally within their limits (bounded rationality). If you cannot state the rational incentives of those who oppose you then you are demonstrating incompetence and intellectual dishonesty. Which is precisely why you resort to the pretense that your approval has any more merit than a child’s disappointment over ice cream flavor.
    I haven’t heard an argument yet. In fact, I am quite certain none are forthcoming. Because you cannot demonstrate the behavior you (collectively do) without demonstrating you lack the ability to engage in an argument.
    Infantilization worked. On you.

    Reply addressees: @Masq811 @gspeth @RichardDawkins

    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-15 04:41:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1857282704720728064

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1857279259754336737

  • I’m keeping track of how many arguments in this thread are other than accusation

    I’m keeping track of how many arguments in this thread are other than accusations in ignorance – basically infantilism on one hand or the female method of social undermining because of the lack of competency to render an argument. As if any such utterance was other than evidence of intellectual incompetence, and confusion of the difference between truth and approval.

    Now I recognize I’m the leading researcher in the field of sex differences in evasion of argument, and as such these things are transparent to me, but I’m still somewhat amazed that any male could reach the age of twenty five and still lack the ability and skill to make political judgements on strategic, legal, policy, economic, and intergenerational grounds.

    It’s fascinating.

    Social media made it possible for the first time to produce organic experiments on cognitive differences evidenced by expression without the negative consequences of relying on reported behavior (surveys) or controlled experiments (self fulfilling contrivances).

    Smart mice sometimes recognize the maze their in. The dim one’s never do.

    Reply addressees: @TerryDwyerSyd @RichardDawkins

    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-15 01:35:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1857236049845731328

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1857226008598036746