Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • You Miss the Point. Anti-Materialism Is a Sophism to Cover for Lying. We Seek Ga

    You Miss the Point. Anti-Materialism Is a Sophism to Cover for Lying. We Seek Gains and To Prevent Losses. https://t.co/sHNNMWB3W2

  • You Miss the Point. Anti-Materialism Is a Sophism to Cover for Lying. We Seek Ga

    You Miss the Point. Anti-Materialism Is a Sophism to Cover for Lying. We Seek Gains and To Prevent Losses. https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/you-miss-the-point-anti-materialism-is-a-sophism-to-cover-for-lying-we-seek-gains-and-to-prevent-losses/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 00:47:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267256355993333761

  • The Relativity Priority Dispute

    —“Doolittle starts out by saying that Einstein was revolutionary for saying that “length is not static; it changes according to its placement in the universe”. The Theory of Relativity was NOT invented by Einstein, but by Henri Poircaré….”—

    What the f–k does that have to do with anything I said. (a) einstein invented the frame, period, end of story, (b) like all of us he combined recent works of others, into a solution none of them had seen – as do all thinkers, myself included, (c) you clearly are not informed or smart enough to comment on this subject. Yes, einstein gets an undeserved and disproportionate amount of the credit. It’s equally deserved to Lorentz and Especially Hilbert, who is far smarter than einstein. Yes, there is a very great similarity between Einstein getting the rewards from what was lorentz and hilbert’s work, just as Zuckerberg is getting rewards from what was the brother’s work. Read this and learn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute Likewise, just because I united popper’s falsification, strawson’s performative truth, chomsky’s grammar, and hayek’s law – and explained why poincare, brouwer and bridgman lost the opertionalist argument, doesn’t mean I”m plagiarizing, any more than einstein taking the various works of others, adding to and uniting them. We all stand on the shoulders of others, and all of us move the needle one step at a time forward. Yes, Poincare and lorentz (and maxwell) solved the underlying problem. But no they couldn’t provide the completion of it. I know your motivation is to discredit their only ‘virtuous’ intellectual amidst the long line of criminal liars all the way back into their origins. But it doesn’t work. It just makes you look stupid. Don’t stomp on a post to for attention, or to vent from failure to understand, or stress of your own mental reorganization. All you do is tell us you feel out of control in your life. Instead, Post to contribute. And Ask don’t assert.

  • The Relativity Priority Dispute

    —“Doolittle starts out by saying that Einstein was revolutionary for saying that “length is not static; it changes according to its placement in the universe”. The Theory of Relativity was NOT invented by Einstein, but by Henri Poircaré….”—

    What the f–k does that have to do with anything I said. (a) einstein invented the frame, period, end of story, (b) like all of us he combined recent works of others, into a solution none of them had seen – as do all thinkers, myself included, (c) you clearly are not informed or smart enough to comment on this subject. Yes, einstein gets an undeserved and disproportionate amount of the credit. It’s equally deserved to Lorentz and Especially Hilbert, who is far smarter than einstein. Yes, there is a very great similarity between Einstein getting the rewards from what was lorentz and hilbert’s work, just as Zuckerberg is getting rewards from what was the brother’s work. Read this and learn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute Likewise, just because I united popper’s falsification, strawson’s performative truth, chomsky’s grammar, and hayek’s law – and explained why poincare, brouwer and bridgman lost the opertionalist argument, doesn’t mean I”m plagiarizing, any more than einstein taking the various works of others, adding to and uniting them. We all stand on the shoulders of others, and all of us move the needle one step at a time forward. Yes, Poincare and lorentz (and maxwell) solved the underlying problem. But no they couldn’t provide the completion of it. I know your motivation is to discredit their only ‘virtuous’ intellectual amidst the long line of criminal liars all the way back into their origins. But it doesn’t work. It just makes you look stupid. Don’t stomp on a post to for attention, or to vent from failure to understand, or stress of your own mental reorganization. All you do is tell us you feel out of control in your life. Instead, Post to contribute. And Ask don’t assert.

  • The main issue with current churches is that they’re empty. The church failed to

    The main issue with current churches is that they’re empty. The church failed to reform, failed to maintain a quality priesthood, and failed particularly to solve the crimes of pedophilia, and to purge the ranks, and to permit marriage so that bad people don’t join.

    Reply addressees: @ForesterTKH

  • Why the Harsh Words on Christianity?

      As always, I’m running a test with multiple ambitions: 1) Are Christians really all nothing more than virtue signaling cucks, hiding behind a veil faith to mask cowardice, laziness, and lack of agency, or will they fight for their people? We almost never find a ‘devout’ Christian willing to fight. Ever. They always have an excuse. They won’t show up without a guarantee. They won’t fight until it doesn’t matter, and like women with small children, wantto show up and get an everbody-wins-prize if other men do the winning. I mean, isn’t christian tolerance just an excuse to gossip rally and shame while one leftist program after another undermines our civlization? Does christian really mean “I’m a domesticated human farm animal and I need to follow the herd in safety, ignorance and bliss? 2) Can we shame Christians into restoring masculinity to Christianity? Catholicism is dead in the next generation right? Traditional protestant denominations are dead. We only have the Evangelicals. About half go secular and half evangelical, and we’re gong to run out of christians to go evangelical soon. So, do we have to bring in Orthodoxy? How do we de-feminize de-loser Christianity? Because Orthodoxy works. Why? They don’t appeal to the trend, they stay with tradition. 3) Can we shame or criticize them into the reality that it doesn’t matter if you OBEY scripture or dogma without question; or if you follow jesus’ example, even if biblical prose is ‘for children'(Spiritualism, Deism); or if you do so because traditionally it has worked (Rational Choice); or understand that natural law and jesus’ example is the scientifically optimum strategy for cooperation – especially in a commercial polity (Scientific Choice)? 4) Or do we have to just assume all Christians are dead weight, will not fight for anything, will just coower at home and whine, and that we need to restore a pagan religion to save western civlization?

  • Why the Harsh Words on Christianity?

      As always, I’m running a test with multiple ambitions: 1) Are Christians really all nothing more than virtue signaling cucks, hiding behind a veil faith to mask cowardice, laziness, and lack of agency, or will they fight for their people? We almost never find a ‘devout’ Christian willing to fight. Ever. They always have an excuse. They won’t show up without a guarantee. They won’t fight until it doesn’t matter, and like women with small children, wantto show up and get an everbody-wins-prize if other men do the winning. I mean, isn’t christian tolerance just an excuse to gossip rally and shame while one leftist program after another undermines our civlization? Does christian really mean “I’m a domesticated human farm animal and I need to follow the herd in safety, ignorance and bliss? 2) Can we shame Christians into restoring masculinity to Christianity? Catholicism is dead in the next generation right? Traditional protestant denominations are dead. We only have the Evangelicals. About half go secular and half evangelical, and we’re gong to run out of christians to go evangelical soon. So, do we have to bring in Orthodoxy? How do we de-feminize de-loser Christianity? Because Orthodoxy works. Why? They don’t appeal to the trend, they stay with tradition. 3) Can we shame or criticize them into the reality that it doesn’t matter if you OBEY scripture or dogma without question; or if you follow jesus’ example, even if biblical prose is ‘for children'(Spiritualism, Deism); or if you do so because traditionally it has worked (Rational Choice); or understand that natural law and jesus’ example is the scientifically optimum strategy for cooperation – especially in a commercial polity (Scientific Choice)? 4) Or do we have to just assume all Christians are dead weight, will not fight for anything, will just coower at home and whine, and that we need to restore a pagan religion to save western civlization?

  • Pinker Has Joined Freud, Boas, Marx, Adorno, Harari, Harris in Selling Half Truths

    Nov 21, 2019, 10:56 AM NO, VIOLENCE (harm) is evolving (progressing) along the spectrum from physical, to financial, economic, to informational. There is more HARM than ever in human history and on far greater scales. It’s just distributed across time across the entirety of human capital. Measure it.

    —“Pinker addresses this in the FAQ on his site. Metaphorically extending the term ‘violence’ to practices you want to stigmatize(financial crime, inequality, etc) with rape, homicide and genocide confuse moralization with understanding. … Certainly, there are new financial, economic and informational practices that are bad and may even be increasing, but Pinker’s work is focused on violence, not “bad things”.”—

    I know law and philosophy are my specializations but I would think that was pretty hard for you to say that with an outside voice. Ergo: why is violence a ‘bad’? And why make the claim in the first place if not to claim harms are declining (they aren’t). In other words, (a) false promise to people by the sophism that harms are declining (they aren’t),(b) false promise of disambiguation of physical from net harms? So what if physical harm declines while net harm increases, for no other reason than physical harm is less profitable? All Steven is saying is what every other economist says: harms are NOT decreasing, it’s just that physical crimes are more costly and less profitable than at any previous time in history. So why not state Whole Truth? Another system of lies like Boas, Freud, Marx, Cantor? See? This is the problem with the left of center “Pseudo -Intellectual’ public intellectuals: They produce what sells but is only half true and that’s because they rely on correlations not as economists or physicists: OPERATIONALISMS. Tell the WHOLE truth not half-truth: lying.

  • Pinker Has Joined Freud, Boas, Marx, Adorno, Harari, Harris in Selling Half Truths

    Nov 21, 2019, 10:56 AM NO, VIOLENCE (harm) is evolving (progressing) along the spectrum from physical, to financial, economic, to informational. There is more HARM than ever in human history and on far greater scales. It’s just distributed across time across the entirety of human capital. Measure it.

    —“Pinker addresses this in the FAQ on his site. Metaphorically extending the term ‘violence’ to practices you want to stigmatize(financial crime, inequality, etc) with rape, homicide and genocide confuse moralization with understanding. … Certainly, there are new financial, economic and informational practices that are bad and may even be increasing, but Pinker’s work is focused on violence, not “bad things”.”—

    I know law and philosophy are my specializations but I would think that was pretty hard for you to say that with an outside voice. Ergo: why is violence a ‘bad’? And why make the claim in the first place if not to claim harms are declining (they aren’t). In other words, (a) false promise to people by the sophism that harms are declining (they aren’t),(b) false promise of disambiguation of physical from net harms? So what if physical harm declines while net harm increases, for no other reason than physical harm is less profitable? All Steven is saying is what every other economist says: harms are NOT decreasing, it’s just that physical crimes are more costly and less profitable than at any previous time in history. So why not state Whole Truth? Another system of lies like Boas, Freud, Marx, Cantor? See? This is the problem with the left of center “Pseudo -Intellectual’ public intellectuals: They produce what sells but is only half true and that’s because they rely on correlations not as economists or physicists: OPERATIONALISMS. Tell the WHOLE truth not half-truth: lying.

  • On Mises: Needs Repeating

    Mises’ Praxeology As The Failure To Develop Economic Operationalism Mises was a raging clown claiming economics was constructivist ALONE. A fellow autist for certain, he didn’t grasp his discovery for reasons I’ve illustrated at length elsewhere. Mises is important for his membership in the great failure of the 20th century, which was a Jewish construction – reversing Descartes rescue of western mathematics from Semitic superstition. Short versions PRAXEOLOGY AS A FAILURE TO DEVELOP OPERATIONALISM https://propertarianinstitute.com/2014/06/21/mises-praxeology-as-the-failure-to-develop-economic-operationalism-yes/ MISES POSITION IN INTELLECTUAL HISTORY https://propertarianinstitute.com/2014/10/17/mises-position-in-intellectual-history/ ROTHBARDIAN FALLACIES https://propertarianinstitute.com/2014/06/20/rendering-rothbardian-fallacies-intellectually-embarrassing-and-argumentatively-impossible/ HOPPE’S ERRORS https://propertarianinstitute.com/2015/07/31/a-list-of-hans-hermann-hoppes-errors/ If you can find an error in there it’d be a miracle. If it weren’t for rothbardians we might have been able to reform mises by rewriting human action in scientific prose. At this point there is no point.