me: “you need hugs”
wife: “i didn’t know that”
me: “trust me, I know these things.”
wife: “eye roll”
me: (hugging)
wife: “are we done yet?”
me: “almost”
wife: “i’ll need to breathe soon”
me: “Ok. that’s enough then.”
I love women. š
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-16 11:21:00 UTC
LITTLE OLD LADY WISDOM
me: “Mom. What percent of men are invisible to women?”
little old lady: “All men are invisible, because they choose to be invisible – they are always outside the box. Because being outside the box is easier: if it’s not interesting to them, men ignore it. They don’t spend the energy. … Men don’t worry about how others feel, their perspectives, their fears, about being left behind, about not understanding what’s going on, and consensus. If it’s not a fact they don’t care.”
The trick with old folks is framing the question so that they don’t patronize you but give an honest opinion from decades of life experience.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-06 12:50:00 UTC
DEGREES OF HOMICIDE VS DEGREES OF LYING
(Discussion between Curt and Greg Hamilton)
Degree of failure of due diligence determines severity.
Example:
… Murder > Homicide > ???
… Lying > Deceiving > ???
We don’t have via negativa terms for crimes, but P-law is a via negativa logic.
So, in P, we call a failure of due diligence “Lying”, because we can’t determine intentions only whether you in fact did the due diligence, and whether you stated a falsehood, or irreciprocity.
Lying by intent and Lying by failures of due diligence.
This definition mirrors “Truth”:
Truth means satisfying the demand for infallibility.
We satisfy the demand for infallibility by due diligence.
So, is it correct to use Falsehood(error) or Lying(failure of due diligence)? Well, how do we know the difference? š
DEGREES OF HOMICIDE
Murder first and second
-vs-
Voluntary, Constructive, and Involuntary manslaughter
-vs-
Negligent Homicide (esp. vehicular)
-vs-
Excusable Homicide: by accident and misfortune, or in doing any other lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent.”
-vs-
Justifiable Homicide (self or other defense)
-vs-
State Licensed Homicide (military, law enforcement)
The key phrase being “with usual and ordinary caution”
Again, I am (we are) stating that in public, to public, in matters public, one must use ordinary caution. We are are increasing the requirements for ordinary caution.
We are increasing the burden on public speech such that by failure of due diligence you do not guard against the spreading of falsehood (lying) because we cannot judge your intent, we can only determine whether or not you enaged in due diligence.
It works just fine. We do it every day in courts around the globe.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 17:16:00 UTC
LUMPING ABRAHAMIC RELIGONS
by Anne Summers with Curt
[That collection of posts on Christianity] only explains / compares female/r capacity and ethnic judaic group strategy. I still don’t see what exactly Christianity is in this. On the one hand Christianity is founded by a pretty alright dude (Jesus) who, for the most part got things right. His teachings seem a bit too radicle for his Semite Bros and are accepted into (found compatible enough for the [female] population of Europe).
( CD: Correct. )
You seem to lump all three religions together in tone as well as origin. I see the origins a little different… Judaic was K and converted to r and subterfuge for survival.
Islam started out r and turned feral (Mohamed is very r) and Christianity is (In my opinion) full on K.
Human individualism is a constant act of sin against the commons. It takes self sacrifice to correct the damage done to the commons.
I grant that there are a lot of christians who are r, or deeply poisoned by Marxist culturalism. I can’t speak for them. And maybe, in a way my questioning you and partially answering my own questions has clarified my own take on Christianity.
Thanks for such an opportunity of the thought dive.
—
Very, very, good Anne Summers Damn. Impressed.
As for this quote:
—“You seem to lump all three religions together in tone as well as origin. I see the origins a little different… Judaic was K and converted to r and subterfuge for survival. “—
Because I disambiguate the method of arguing the religion with the content of it. The content is fine. But the abrahamic method of deceit that is used to create the monotheistic religions is the same method used to create the false promises and undermining of marxism, cultural marxism, feminism, postmodernism, and politcal correctness (denialism). So if I want to end that category of lying and protect our people from undermining by the false promise of abrahamic deceit, then I am sort of stuck with scientifically explaining christianity, following jefferson’s example of the Jeffferson Bible ( thin new testament) and discovering some way of combining our ancestral religions so that we get the benefits of them without the cancer of abrahamism.
So that is what you’re not seeing. And that’s why it’s not making sense to you.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-31 20:37:00 UTC
A CHIT CHAT ON TRUTH OBJECTIVE TRUTH
—“Curt Doolittle there is objective truth. Not sure the reasoning to say otherwise.”—Tim Abbott
Well, that’s ’cause you’re taking advantage of a weakness in english (and most) grammar. This allows you the confidence to claim you understand something when you don’t.
1) Try to say that without the verb to-be. (is, are, was, were etc). Try it.
2) define truth.
This is my area of specialization (falsifying presumptions of knowledge) Its like training people not to think in deities (anthropomorphic fictions). Same for platonisms (non-anthropomorphic fictions).
—“Curt Doolittle I would be interested to learn where I am wrong. An animal dies. That becomes a fact. To say the animal is not dead is a lie.”—Tim Abbott
^which is a tautology. ( And also a reductio simplicity. )
I can speak truthfully. (adverb)
You can speak truthfully. (adverb)
What does it mean to speak ‘the fast’ (adverb) or ‘the red’ (adverb)?
When you say “I promise the animal is dead” under what conditions are you not speaking truthfully?
A fact is a promise of a theory of an observation.
A theory is a promise of observations yet to be observed.
All non tautological, non-trivial claims are forever contingent.
One can only satisfy the demand for testimony in a given market (context) which defines limits.
There is some most parsimonious vocabulary, paradigm, language, (right now it’s math at the limits of math). But math currently is too limited for the scope of demand for testimony.
So, one can speak honestly, truthfully (falsifying with his limits of knowledge and reason), scientifically(testimonially, having done due diligence) on can speak tautologically within a given language, or we can imagine that someday somehow we may produce a most parsimonious language with universal commensurability (paradigm) – which is an ‘ideal’.
If we spoke in that paradigm (an ideal) we would speak truthfully – consistently correspondently operationally completely and coherently, in the most parsimonious language (what you call objective).
So, like ‘infinity’, ‘the truth’ is simply a variable we attribute to ‘i don’t know’ because I don’t know the limits.
So one cannot claim ‘the truth exists’ one can say we can discover a means of speaking truthfully, meaning satisfying the market demand for infallibility in the context at hand. The truth, like infinity, is simply a statement of ‘we dunno that yet’.
Ill try to do a better job per advice from Martin Å tÄpĆ”n:
WHEREAS;
1. The universe exists.
2. The patterns of constant relations in the universe exist
3. We can correctly identify name and describe those patterns.
The question is whether you are defining The Truth as those relations, or whether you are defining truth as the precision of our speech measured by parsimony, consistency, correspondence, completeness and coherence.
AND WHEREAS;
1. patterns exist (realism naturalism determinism).
2. The potential for us to describe them perfectly free of error exists.
3. We identify increasingly precise means of naming and describing them.
THEREFORE
We therefore must invent:
(a) a means of naming and describing them,
(b) a means of discovering them.
(d) discoveries of each of them
(b) a means of continuously improving them.
AND;
1 -Western man invented truthful speech (realism, naturalism, determinism, operationalism, testimonialism)
2 -Western man invented the means of discovering them (reason, empiricism, science, operationalism)
3 – Western man invented (by far) most of the discoveries using those inventions.
THEREFORE;
And this is why I’m so … consistent in my pursuit of the truth – so that we don’t revert back to the lies that dominate the rest of mankind.
Source date (UTC): 2020-01-12 16:08:00 UTC
REAL LIFE CONVERSATION THIS MORNING
Curt: “Men evolved for politics and think in bell curves, women evolved for children and other mothers and think in flat lines. We call it NAXALT. Not… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=523124704951091&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2019-12-06 15:44:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1202977180055212032
REAL LIFE CONVERSATION THIS MORNING
Curt: “Men evolved for politics and think in bell curves, women evolved for children and other mothers and think in flat lines. We call it NAXALT. Not All X Are Like That. Women can’t help saying it. Its a test of feminine cognition.”
Woman: “You can’t make a generalization like that. Not all women are like that.”
Curt: Blank stare. Looks at floor. Sips from coffee cup. Walks away.
Fking hopeless.
Source date (UTC): 2019-12-06 10:44:00 UTC
“WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY FALSIFICATION? (IN COURT)”
—“I donāt think I understand what you mean by āfalsification.ā I doubt you mean it in the Popperian sense because it is entirely possible to put questions before the judiciary that pray for verification, rather than falsification. And falsification does not just happen on the basis of substantive āoperationalā concerns but also on matters of legal or administrative procedure.”— Duke Newcomb (awesome alias)
DEFINITION OF FALSIFICATION
No amount of justification or confirmation provides us with satisfaction of demand for infallibility given the question at hand. Only due diligence by attempted falsification of identity, internal consistency, operational possibility, rational choice, reciprocity, external correspondence, completeness, full accounting, parsimony, and coherence.
JURIDICAL FALSIFICATION
The jury and judge do not find a matter of truth or falsehood, but sufficient falsification of alternatives to render a judgement of under reasonable doubt.
REGARDING ‘PROOF’
In law, “Proof” does not exist because existential reality is not constructed axiomatically and not closed – so we only use the term by analogy. Instead, we are providing a theory (argument) and evidence (external correspondence) that alternative explanations (theories) are unreasonable (fail to satisfy the demand for consistency, possibility, rationality, correspondence, full accounting, and parsimony.
This confusion is possible because of the inarticulate vocabulary of legal jargon that is non-operational, and not constructed from the tests of demonstrated interest, or court insured property constructed by demonstrated interest, or reciprocity, or argued under testimonial truth. This is what P-law provides: disambiguation and operationalization, and therefore scientifically stated, internally consistent, law (rules of jurisprudence).
RESULTS OF FALSIFICATION
Restating your claim in scientific prose: It is possible to test a theory by putting a question before the judiciary and determining whether or not they falsify it. All that it tells us is that it survived falsification or not. Nothing else.
WHAT ABOUT PROCEDURE?
Legal and administrative procedure have nothing to do with truth or falsehood, but with regulation. Whether those regulations affect truth, falsehood, or reciprocity, irreciprocity is a matter of convenience (cost) for the court and nothing to do with truth and reciprocity.
CAUSAL RELATIONS
The Natural Law of Reciprocity > A constitution for operational under it > a judiciary for adjudicating differences under it > Procedures (regulations) demanded by the court (often arbitrary, often pragmatic, but not always) < regulations (enforcement of, proceduralization of, legislation and command) < Legislation (contract or command) < Command.
A SMART GUY GETS IT RIGHT AWAY
—“Ah. It is not the proposition before the trier of fact that is falsified, it is the alternatives. And they are not falsified in the sense of having their falsehood established. They are falsified in the sense of being inferior in their explanatory power of the facts of the matter before deliberation to the preferred theory of the case. By falsification, you mean the process of reasoning to the best (most apparently reasonable) legal theory on the basis of the best evidence. Got it.”— Duke Newcomb
Impressive. Uncommon. Rare case of fully grasping it. Nice work.
The Darwinian survival of theories of causality in the competitive market for infallibility of juridical decisions given the harm caused and restitution demanded.
—end—
( FYI: Daniel Roland Anderson: Another one with potential? )
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-24 15:08:00 UTC
Click for video: photos_and_videos/videos/10000000_164774001417906_570362092411588422_n_128826298515532.mp4 SHORT AMA – IN THEATRE
(low light) (Testing connection)Ahmed RedaHey!Oct 4, 2019, 1:27 PMCurt DoolittleHello allOct 4, 2019, 1:27 PMMicah PezdirtzJoker?Oct 4, 2019, 1:27 PMShamus Oliver SmithAt the desk in SeattleOct 4, 2019, 1:27 PMMicah PezdirtzIT’S HAPPENINGOct 4, 2019, 1:27 PMCurt DoolittleI might go see joker tonight. If I can find anyone else in driving distance that has a white collar… lolOct 4, 2019, 1:28 PMShamus Oliver SmithTop oā the morning, sir!Oct 4, 2019, 1:28 PMAlexio MaciasWatch out for incel shootersOct 4, 2019, 1:29 PMJoseph PilroseVox Day over hereOct 4, 2019, 1:29 PMMike EmmonsHowdy CurtOct 4, 2019, 1:29 PMWilliam BlackCan I get a shout out for Difficulty II?Oct 4, 2019, 1:31 PMMichael HayesSound is goodOct 4, 2019, 1:31 PMMicah PezdirtzAudio goodOct 4, 2019, 1:31 PMMike EmmonsLoud and clearOct 4, 2019, 1:31 PMNoah J RevoyLoud and clear. Audio is good.Oct 4, 2019, 1:31 PMCurt DoolittleCan you hear me?Oct 4, 2019, 1:31 PMAlexio MaciasSounds goodOct 4, 2019, 1:31 PMAhmed Reda(Y)Oct 4, 2019, 1:31 PMCurt DoolittleOK. Good thanks.Oct 4, 2019, 1:31 PMMicah PezdirtzAny word if Moly will talk with Curt, Noah, Bill, etc?Oct 4, 2019, 1:32 PMWilliam BlackBig shout out for Difficulty my guyOct 4, 2019, 1:32 PMNoah J RevoyVery good brother. Got a few minutes between clients.Oct 4, 2019, 1:32 PMNoah J RevoySM demand collapsing = market opening.
The window is shifting.
But stay positive (only P has constructive ideas)Oct 4, 2019, 1:33 PMMike EmmonsMolyneux seems to be studiously avoiding speaking with youOct 4, 2019, 1:34 PMAlexio MaciasWho would you like to debate if you could choose anyone?Oct 4, 2019, 1:35 PMMicah PezdirtzEven moly likes to sugar coat things in his bittersweet way but like curt said he won’t even go where the discussion needs toOct 4, 2019, 1:35 PMNoah J RevoyMen (and some mothers) are starting to fear for their children.
Position P as the solution to protect their children from predators.
Meme of 2019 Democratic voter related.Oct 4, 2019, 1:36 PMGeorgeHi curtOct 4, 2019, 1:40 PMGeorgeAny thoughts for a propertarian college one day? As in on land a solid locationOct 4, 2019, 1:41 PMNoah J RevoyI’m going to write him again tomorrow. I was on a list that Mike made for future guests, but he left a few weeks after I got on the list. I think the list disappeared.Oct 4, 2019, 1:42 PMMichael HayesRelease the videos you make and dislike to us. :)Oct 4, 2019, 1:44 PMMicah PezdirtzBtw enjoyed your talk with George Bruno. Really got me thinking about propagating a network of leadersOct 4, 2019, 1:44 PMAlexio MaciasAre you familiar with the anarcho-capitalist social experiment that seemingly spontaneously occurred in a town in Austria in the middle of the Great Depression. The town was able to achieve virtually 100% employment with printing their own currency that lost value if not spent which led to an insulated economy of virtually 100% employment. But the central govnt frowned upon them taking autonomy and put them back into poverty.Oct 4, 2019, 1:48 PMMichael HayesNovelty seeking is an issue in a world of consumption and cog-fem humans.Oct 4, 2019, 1:56 PMMicah PezdirtzHave you covered mechanistic competition between neural circuits as the basis for complex decision making?Oct 4, 2019, 1:56 PMMichael HayesThey’ve adapted mal-adaptability. Yes; LIMITS.Oct 4, 2019, 2:00 PMNoah J RevoyWriting is a special kind of thinking. Alternating writing with discussions is my favorite way to learn/discover.Oct 4, 2019, 2:00 PMMichael HayesHow to sell the limits as helpful (the container for emergence)Oct 4, 2019, 2:00 PMAlexio MaciasHow bad do you think the problem is of the capitalist system cannibalizing I.E. corporations destroying industry disrupting innovation technology in order to maintain their industry status quo/profits.Oct 4, 2019, 2:02 PMNoah J RevoyThis feels like sitting with Curt, around a campfire and discussing shit. All we need are some cigars and whisky.Oct 4, 2019, 2:03 PMMichael HayesChaos/Order all the way down.Oct 4, 2019, 2:09 PMAlexio MaciasDo you think the Supreme Court rulings should be considered law or an opiniom?Oct 4, 2019, 2:13 PMMichael HayesThat could be a worthwhile moveOct 4, 2019, 2:13 PMLuke WeinhagenWas listening to audio only today, but came through clearly. Thanks for taking some time.Oct 4, 2019, 2:14 PMNoel KellyClearOct 4, 2019, 4:57 PMJose MartinezAre there any Propertarianism meetup groups or events?Oct 4, 2019, 9:24 PMIan OliverLove it Curt DoolittleOct 7, 2019, 9:20 AMIan OliverYes can hearOct 7, 2019, 9:23 AMSHORT AMA – IN THEATRE
(low light) (Testing connection)
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-04 13:26:00 UTC
SEDATION OF THE HERD BEFORE THE SLAUGHTER
—“Itās still better than itās ever been – we are just upset because we can see leading indicators of decline….”–Gary Knight
—“Yeah man, it’s pretty awesome that I have an iPhone and burgers cost $1 at McDonalds. Who needs like, borders, or culture and shit…— Ely Harman
In my understanding, saturation with media has replaced evidence of reality, and so people are unaware of just how bad it’s gotten. We forget that $1burgers, cable entertainment, the internet, video games, porn, pot, are forms of sedation. Not fulfillment but sedation.
Socialization has fallen apart.
Civilization follows.
Source date (UTC): 2019-08-07 15:27:15 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102576398991525062