Sorry Hans. I have passed you now. I solved what Mises didnt. Thank you for giving me shoulders to stand on. And the inspiration. But I think you cannot follow me on this journey.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-11 03:48:00 UTC
Form: Short Note
-
IS IMPORTANT NOT BAD Sugar, starch, grains and carbs are. Eat like a cave man. A
http://shar.es/NmnzyFAT IS IMPORTANT NOT BAD
Sugar, starch, grains and carbs are.
Eat like a cave man. All the fresh kill you can get.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 14:38:00 UTC
-
“ONE MINUTE DEBATE MANAGER” The argumentative technique I use, and the one I rec
“ONE MINUTE DEBATE MANAGER”
The argumentative technique I use, and the one I recommend, is the ‘One Minute Manager” solution, whereby one responds to aggressive accusations or comments, particularly postmodern and feminist rallying and shaming, with equally loaded criticism and ridicule (albeit intellectualized), and then to return to the central argument.
This technique lets you continue the rational discussion unburdened by the nonsense now that its emotional content has been cleared, rather than tainting your and response and the central argument.
So “slap them’ quickly for their bad manners, then return to the central argument.
If you are consistent in the use of this pattern, it tends to successfully contain all sorts of deceptive debate partners, while demonstrating to them, and to the audience, that you will not be taunted out of the central argument. And it stops your argument from being tainted by their attempt at fraud and distraction.
It’s just hard, but it works. But then I do this kinda thing for a living.
Slap quickly in one paragraph. Be truthful that they’re relying on childish techniques reserved for feminists, schoolgirls and betas, and then, start a new paragraph, restate the central argument, and return to conducting the central argument.
It works. Every time you restate the central argument you draw attention to it and repetition is often the best means of persuasion.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-10 12:22:00 UTC
-
Click for video: videos/10497632_10152570694542264_2050681731_n_1015257067754226
Click for video: videos/10497632_10152570694542264_2050681731_n_10152570677542264.mp4
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-09 17:24:00 UTC
-
Yes, I can reconstruct it all *I think*, but I lost all my research, and all my
Yes, I can reconstruct it all *I think*, but I lost all my research, and all my notes from June 7th to July 6th. I didn’t lose the research papers, because Dropbox was saving them. I just lost my notes. (I read a couple of books a day plus some random number of papers, so that is a lot of damned work). But what bothers me most is that I also lost 30 days of outline along with the notes. I want to cry. And it’s entirely my fault. I was traveling and I have TWO time machines and I didn’t bring the small one with me.
So, I’ve now changed Scrivener to save the backup into a dropbox directory. But I really don’t really understand what happened. I think somehow I accidentally saved the doc to an alternative directory – maybe downloads? And it’s not clear where you’re saving it – it’s invisible and happens in the background. And so when I lost the drive I lost the downloads folder, and 30 days of notes with it.
Sigh.
Well, I’m caught up with posting to my site (archiving). And I guess it’s back to work at reconstruction…
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-09 12:35:00 UTC
-
Passive Voice Allows For The Victimism Exploit
(insightful)(first application of operationalism)
West Point forbids its cadets to use the passive voice. It’s an excellent practice. In the strict sense we forbid the passive voice in English and it makes for much more solid communication than in French where the passive voice acceptable. Inverted sentences in the passive voice drive me nuts as they seem nothing more than the exclamation of a noun that the speaker modifies with adjectives and participles, which he, in turn, further modifies with adverbs. I think also that the passive voice makes for a cultural vulnerability that socialism and the ‘victimism’ exploit. If you are a people to whom things happen (passive voice), are you not more likely to allow a nebulous 3rd party (the State) act on you? If, on the other hand, you are a nation that makes things happens (active voice), are you not more likely to oppose the usurpation/negation of your liberties?”– Don Finnegan
Active Voice, E-Prime, and Operational Language place increasing demands on the speaker such that his words cannot contain obscurantisms. (Germans were wrong. English is better for philosophy. lol)
-
Passive Voice Allows For The Victimism Exploit
(insightful)(first application of operationalism)
West Point forbids its cadets to use the passive voice. It’s an excellent practice. In the strict sense we forbid the passive voice in English and it makes for much more solid communication than in French where the passive voice acceptable. Inverted sentences in the passive voice drive me nuts as they seem nothing more than the exclamation of a noun that the speaker modifies with adjectives and participles, which he, in turn, further modifies with adverbs. I think also that the passive voice makes for a cultural vulnerability that socialism and the ‘victimism’ exploit. If you are a people to whom things happen (passive voice), are you not more likely to allow a nebulous 3rd party (the State) act on you? If, on the other hand, you are a nation that makes things happens (active voice), are you not more likely to oppose the usurpation/negation of your liberties?”– Don Finnegan
Active Voice, E-Prime, and Operational Language place increasing demands on the speaker such that his words cannot contain obscurantisms. (Germans were wrong. English is better for philosophy. lol)
-
MORE AND MORE FREQUENTLY…. “Curt. Since I’ve been following you, peter Schiff
MORE AND MORE FREQUENTLY….
“Curt. Since I’ve been following you, peter Schiff sounds a lot less realistic.”
“Curt. Since I’ve been following you, Molyneux seems like a good populist, but.. not much else”
“Curt. Since i’ve been following you ….”
“Curt. I have the same feeling about Rothbard…”
Reforming libertarianism one person at a time.
( Now if I had some hope of getting the same reaction to performative truth, operationalism, and instrumentalism. ). 🙂
If that happens it will be after I am dead …. lol
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-08 16:11:00 UTC
-
I am not sure how you get praxeology and apriorism in the same argument, because
I am not sure how you get praxeology and apriorism in the same argument, because operationalism (praxeology) and justification (apriorism) are like oil and water. They don’t mix. They’re mutually exclusive concepts.
Then, you pour gasoline on it, and call it a ‘science’ when it’s not, and we get ‘pseudoscience’ out of it. Sigh. No wonder Misesians look stupid all the time.
Why nobody figured that out is sorta’ exasperating.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-08 07:03:00 UTC
-
How To Rapidly Become A Billionaire
(seriously) (worth reading) [I]t’s been done. Secret? Threaten a big company’s revenue stream or customer base, by providing a service better than they do. Why is that possible? Internal incompetence of bureaucracies. Why? Because brands always seek to facilitate the brand with tangential value rather than deliver a product or service in the most excellent way possible for consumers regardless of brand. Almost all companies make this mistake, Apple and Microsoft included. Dropbox should never have had a chance. But every other large organization failed by trying to “leverage”. That is a fallacy. Beats threatened Apple. Multiple companies threatened Facebook. Unfortunately management falsely understands the leverage as risk mitigation rather than risk amplification. Make it excellent. Threaten them over their mistakes. That is how you become a billionaire in short fashion. Thankfully I don’t care to be more than a millionaire. I do my threatening of paradigmatic fallacies with political philosophy and for me that is a greater reward.
