Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • I’ll debate you munchkin if you can ever manage to make an argument. Men do not

    I’ll debate you munchkin if you can ever manage to make an argument. Men do not grant respect or attention to the disapproval, shaming, ridicule and gossip of children, adolescents and the infantilized. That is why men have responsibility and the infantile do not. #JordanPeterson

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 21:57:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974766529765093376

    Reply addressees: @ThatsMrNeil

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974635865346662400

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974635865346662400

  • The difference is that both those who manage to read them and those who do not a

    The difference is that both those who manage to read them and those who do not attribute equal value to your opinions. Men do not give weight to the words of those lacking responsibility over their minds,emotions, and bodies. Men possess agency and mere domesticated animals don’t

  • The difference is that both those who manage to read them and those who do not a

    The difference is that both those who manage to read them and those who do not attribute equal value to your opinions. Men do not give weight to the words of those lacking responsibility over their minds,emotions, and bodies. Men possess agency and mere domesticated animals don’t

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 21:21:00 UTC

  • So in other words, you don’t have an argument, because you can’t make an argumen

    So in other words, you don’t have an argument, because you can’t make an argument, because you lack the knowledge and ability to make an argument, because you lack the agency and ability to gain the knowledge to construct an argument. 😉 (infantilism)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 21:21:00 UTC

  • If you had an argument you’d make one other than demonstrate your ignorance of i

    If you had an argument you’d make one other than demonstrate your ignorance of intellectual history, by schoolgirl disapproval, shaming, gossip and rallying. You’re demonstrated evidence of the veracity of his arguments. Those who cannot argue the facts gossip rally and shame.

  • If you had an argument you’d make one other than demonstrate your ignorance of i

    If you had an argument you’d make one other than demonstrate your ignorance of intellectual history, by schoolgirl disapproval, shaming, gossip and rallying. You’re demonstrated evidence of the veracity of his arguments. Those who cannot argue the facts gossip rally and shame.

  • If you had an argument you’d make one other than demonstrate your ignorance of i

    If you had an argument you’d make one other than demonstrate your ignorance of intellectual history, by schoolgirl disapproval, shaming, gossip and rallying. You’re demonstrated evidence of the veracity of his arguments. Those who cannot argue the facts gossip rally and shame.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 21:20:00 UTC

  • (I’ll find the original article if I can, and link you to it. If I forget and yo

    (I’ll find the original article if I can, and link you to it. If I forget and you don’t find it first, ping me.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 19:29:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974729437450244099

    Reply addressees: @narmno

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974526797684461569

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974526797684461569

  • No, it’s a question about the difference between theology and philosophy on one

    No, it’s a question about the difference between theology and philosophy on one hand and science, cognitive science, natural law (reciprocity), economics on the other. In other words, between that which is free of fictionalism and that which is not. The question remains, we can learn from history, biography, science, economics, or we can learn from the narrative, archetypes and plots, or we can learn from religion, philosophy, and the occult. There is reason we identify ‘fictionalisms’ in each discipline (and I have worked on this subject for the past ten years), and that is because they are self referential rather than suffering and surviving the test of falsification by demonstration. As far as I know, assuming that we separate the study of grammar (continuous disambiguation), logic(formal disambiguation), semantics(constant relations), and paradigms (networks of constant relations), that it is very difficult to find a question asked in any philosophy that is not simply avoidance of science(the sciences), natural law (reciprocity), and economics(results of cooperation) for the purpose of avoiding the falsification of what which which values as either immoral, or deflating of status, and self confidence. As such philosophy is currently used for the purpose of self help, which is to provide pseudoscientific or pseudo rational justification of intuitions and priors so that individuals develop the courage to act or tolerate their status: social, sexual, economic, political, and military value. Or it is used to avoid the high cost of learning rationalism over religion, or science over rationalism.

  • No, it’s a question about the difference between theology and philosophy on one

    No, it’s a question about the difference between theology and philosophy on one hand and science, cognitive science, natural law (reciprocity), economics on the other. In other words, between that which is free of fictionalism and that which is not. The question remains, we can learn from history, biography, science, economics, or we can learn from the narrative, archetypes and plots, or we can learn from religion, philosophy, and the occult. There is reason we identify ‘fictionalisms’ in each discipline (and I have worked on this subject for the past ten years), and that is because they are self referential rather than suffering and surviving the test of falsification by demonstration. As far as I know, assuming that we separate the study of grammar (continuous disambiguation), logic(formal disambiguation), semantics(constant relations), and paradigms (networks of constant relations), that it is very difficult to find a question asked in any philosophy that is not simply avoidance of science(the sciences), natural law (reciprocity), and economics(results of cooperation) for the purpose of avoiding the falsification of what which which values as either immoral, or deflating of status, and self confidence. As such philosophy is currently used for the purpose of self help, which is to provide pseudoscientific or pseudo rational justification of intuitions and priors so that individuals develop the courage to act or tolerate their status: social, sexual, economic, political, and military value. Or it is used to avoid the high cost of learning rationalism over religion, or science over rationalism.