Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • WHY HAS THE KORAN NOT BEEN CONVERTED INTO HISTORICAL AND LEGAL VERSE – TESTABLE

    WHY HAS THE KORAN NOT BEEN CONVERTED INTO HISTORICAL AND LEGAL VERSE – TESTABLE STATEMENTS NOT OPEN TO INTERPRETATION?

    If the Koran can be converted to law – a sequence of operationally testable statements, as has all of christendom then why has it not been?

    If the koran can be converted into law so that it cannot be interpreted, why has it not been? To preserve interpretation rather than decidability?

    If the koran can be interpreted, then how can anyone claim it is law?

    Laws are decidable. Opinions are not. Until you can reduce literature to laws that are decidable, then one has no claim other than that all DEDUCTIONS FROM IT are in fact REPRESENTATIVE OF IT.

    In other words, if you can’t DECIDE because of operationally testable statements, then the DECISION is to leave open interpretation. Therefore the decision is to leave open interpretation, and justification of it is just making excuses for licensing interpretation.

    Therefore all actions derived from interpretation are the result of the decision NOT to eradicate interpretation.

    In other words, jihadists, in all their flavors, and islamists in all their flavors, are specifically licensed by all other muslims because they have not DENIED them the ability to interpret the Koran, by stating the Koran in decidable verse: a sequence of operationally testable statements.

    In other words, muslims accommodate terrorist ideologies by not regulating their religion such that it is FREE of terrorist ideologies.

    Jews and Christians have both historicized and legalized their literature. Islam has NOT historicized and legalized its literature, and resists it at every opportunity.

    With every denial we see only confirmation: islam licenses jihadis, terrorism, and interpretation.

    The truth is,that the Koran *CAN* be converted into law.

    At which point it will be untenable.

    Which is why it has not been done.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 11:41:00 UTC

  • HOW IS THIS NOT AN ATTEMPT AT DECEPTION? 100% of people die. There are four caus

    HOW IS THIS NOT AN ATTEMPT AT DECEPTION?

    100% of people die.

    There are four causes of death.

    1 – Biological Failure, (UNAVOIDABLE)

    2 – Biological self abuse ( SELF NEGLIGENCE )

    3 – Accident, and (UNINTENTIONAL, OR NEGLIGENT )

    4 – Murder and Terrorism (INTENTIONAL)

    Everyone eventually dies of an illness (Biological Failure), ergo, that leaves us with Accidents and Murder.

    Accidents are unpreventable by the individual, although we have dramatically reduced accidents through standards, legislative regulation, insurance regulation, and training. That leaves us with murder and terrorism.

    Of Murder, nearly all murders occur via known relationship or relative, and are avoidable, and we spend vast resources on legislation, regulation, insurance,and policing to prevent them.

    Terrorism is INTENTIONAL, is UNAVOIDABLE, is NON NEGLIGENT, yet it is PERFECTLY REGULATABLE by eliminating all individuals who demonstrate any affiliation with the organizations or clans that commit terrorism.

    Why is it then that we do not act on the most preventable of methods of death?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 10:50:00 UTC

  • ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY? —“CURT: What’s your position on intellectual propert

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/08/16/qa-curt-whats-your-position-on-intellectual-property/POSITION ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY?

    —“CURT: What’s your position on intellectual property?”— Sean Ring

    Net Net:

    1 – Trademark = weight and measure, not license to partial monopoly.

    2 – Copyright convert to Creative Commons Protection. (may not use for commercial purposes, but may not prohibit non-commercial use) Prohibition on profiting without homesteading, but does not license a partial monopoly.

    3 – Patents reserve for basic research, or off book production of commons. Licenses a partial monopoly in order to conduct off book research, development, and risk.

    In particular, eliminate conflation of trademark, copyright, and patent. Trademark protection is testable by 2 or 3 second identity measurement. In other words, you can trademark a visual representation of a product and test it against a set of consumers selected by lot. In other words, Gucci bags and Iphone interfaces can be trademarked but not copyrighted or patented, so that as long as a user can distinguish them visually (weight and measure) in a few seconds (two or three) then it’s not a violation of trademark. We have a lot of research that shows this is sufficient line of demarcation for consumers to identify a brand (weight and measure) from one that is an imitation. (which is the origin of trademarks).

    This position eliminates intellectual property per se; separates market from non-market activity, yet preserves the people’s right to use off book research and development.

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/08/16/qa-curt-whats-your-position-on-intellectual-property/

    PURPOSE

    Aside from repairing the various immoralities that have evolved from intellectual property, my intention is to DEFUND the immoralities that are made POSSIBLE by intellectual property:

    – Funding Hollywood propaganda.

    – Funding the news media.

    – Funding propaganda literature

    – Funding the academy’s authors of propaganda

    – Funding the artificial scarcity of research papers produced by public funds.

    In other words, defunding the left.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 10:20:00 UTC

  • #londonisopen for occupation, displacement, terrorists, and terrorism in a feebl

    #londonisopen for occupation, displacement, terrorists, and terrorism in a feeble play by the State to preserve the illusion of lost empire

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 10:01:00 UTC

  • How is @mayoroflondon not a Jihadi Collaborator?

    How is @mayoroflondon not a Jihadi Collaborator?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 09:55:00 UTC

  • EMPIRES ARE A BAD IDEA. KIN NOT CORPORATION. Empires MUST eventually rely on dip

    EMPIRES ARE A BAD IDEA. KIN NOT CORPORATION.

    Empires MUST eventually rely on diplomacy rather than force. diplomacy must eventually rely on deception rather than truth.

    The only people with whom we share common interest as scale are our kin.

    NATIONS NOT EMPIRES.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 09:24:00 UTC

  • FIRST QUARTER SURPRISE WAS AGENCY That was the last piece of the puzzle. Markets

    FIRST QUARTER SURPRISE WAS AGENCY

    That was the last piece of the puzzle. Markets evolve agency.

    The rest has been largely work on religion – and the battle of the east and west against the steppe and desert peoples who were unsuccessful at transitioning to farming and developing farmer genes and farmer ethics and farmer cultures.

    At present I’m doing pretty well on the core of the book. Lets see how well I do this time. So far, no roadblocks. No “dammit, I have to solve that now.”

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 09:14:00 UTC

  • The Chinese want to insulate themselves and rule by influence. The west has been

    The Chinese want to insulate themselves and rule by influence.

    The west has been expansionist, because the west tries to profit from rule.

    The problem is, that western civilization requires the imposition of markets and the continuous reorganization of the dominance hierarchy, and this has been unsuccessful in every other civilization.

    It is increasingly appearing that it might be genetic as well as cultural.

    We must contain ourselves to our realms until the other peoples, purely by want of imitation, adopt our methods.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 09:01:00 UTC

  • LITERATURE AND LAW ARE ENOUGH: (DEVOTEES OF THE CULTS OF IDEALISM, SUPERNATURALI

    LITERATURE AND LAW ARE ENOUGH: (DEVOTEES OF THE CULTS OF IDEALISM, SUPERNATURALISM AND SUPERNORMALISM.)

    The via positiva myth and literature, via negativa law.

    You want to achieve good, and I want to achieve the eradication of the false and the bad.

    You want to achieve consensus on the good, and I want to eliminate consensus on the false and the bad, by providing incentives to prosecute the false and the bad, even if some well meaning fools think it is a good.

    You want to find a means of education, and I want to find a means of conflict resolution.

    You want to find a means of INDOCTRINATION of a monopoly and I want to find a means of REGULATION a market, without the need for indoctrination, so that people can develop whatever good and true narratives they desire, as long as they are not bad.

    You want to do something expensive: education, and I want to do something cheap: law.

    You want to do something that provides people with opportunities, and I want to do something that deprives them of opportunities.

    You want something that you can convince people of, and I want something that they needn’t be.

    Science (measurement and decidability) can only exist as a via-negativa process (eliminating of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit), but it requires a great deal of knowledge to employ – principally because it is impossible to attach values to statements.

    While it is something quite different to teach and rally, and much easier to rely upon fictionalisms, idealisms, myths, narratives, that contain more experiential information so that values can be attached to statements.

    In other words, it is very hard to load, frame, and suggest using science and law, and it is very easy to load, frame, and suggest using narratives.

    And my position is, that if we deny people fictionalisms and idealisms, that have sufficient Supernormalism in myth, heroes, and histories, that the lies of Supernaturalism, Idealism, conflationism, need not be employed in education and communication, any more than they need be employed in any other aspect of life.

    Or at least, those ‘techniques’ produce externalities that are demonstrably harmful as hell, and that such people employing such techniques may have no dominion over others in the construction of commons, legislation, and law.

    Ying and Yang was a prison. Good and Evil a prison. Deflationary Truth and Falsehood the method of transcendence.

    And as far as I know, Literature and Law are all that is necessary for pedagogy. It is that people who have learned to ‘lie’ by idealism and supernaturalism are unable to exit the programming of the cults just as those who argue by theological means are unable to exit the programming of the cult.

    We can exit falsehood. Literature and history make no claims of the ideal the supernatural, albeit they educate us through supernormalism (hyperbole).

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 08:55:00 UTC

  • CAN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD (TESTIMONIALISM) PRODUCE TRUTH? The scientific method

    CAN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD (TESTIMONIALISM) PRODUCE TRUTH?

    The scientific method CAN produce the truth. (The most parsimonious statement of correspondence by reduction to experientially decidable measurements that is possible.) The problem is, that we can very rarely KNOW it’s the truth in other than non-trivial terms for the simple reason that it is very hard to identify when information is missing. (For example, it is hard to imagine that there is much left to understand in the function of chemistry’s periodic table, only its application. But we could change the meaning of ‘Chemistry’ in the future. That would not mean that our existing statements were false, only that we had changed the context of the promise.

    That’s why I use the term “Truthful” to deflate the traditional conflation ( under the form of idealism you favor speaking in ) of Truth (idealism) into:

    1 – Truth (the most parsimonious statement possible in the context of the question),

    2 – “Truthful” Truth (warranty of due diligence under testimonialism’s full set of dimensions),

    3 – Truth (Warranty of due diligence in one’s Testimony to the best of one’s rational ability),

    4 – Truth (honesty in the absence of due diligence).

    Now, I probably should deflate the term ‘concept’ as well, into its constituent parts… but I think names, properties, categories, relations, recipes, actions, transformations, and narratives, are all well understood, whereas truth is more frequently used in ideal and conflated variations.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2017-06-08 08:37:00 UTC