http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3616170/Putin-s-youth-army-Russian-strongman-sets-Soviet-style-pioneer-scheme-schoolchildren-faces-web-claim-s-echo-HITLER.htmlI LOVE THIS STUFF
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-31 01:29:00 UTC
Source: Facebook
-
Curt Doolittle shared a post
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-30 13:18:00 UTC
-
Most rhetoric consists of the search for excuses with which to justify your repr
Most rhetoric consists of the search for excuses with which to justify your reproductive strategy while maintaining the rhetorical pretence of moral objectivity – largely by way of asserting we are all equal in ability and value to one another and possessed of equal incentives. Yet this technique is dependent upon the twin biases of empathy with others to inspire agreement, fear of shaming to disincentivize disagreement.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-30 13:01:00 UTC
-
TRUTHFULNESS I suppose it’s not hard to grasp these properties: 1) identity 2) c
TRUTHFULNESS
I suppose it’s not hard to grasp these properties:
1) identity
2) categorical consistency
3) internal consistency (logical and non contradictory)
4) external consistency (external correspondence)
5) existential consistency (existential possibility)
6) moral consistency (moral objectivity)
And i suppose these tests are not terribly hard to grasp:
1) Falsifiability
2) Limits
3) Parsimony
4) Full Accounting
But I suppose logic, mathematics, and grammar are not all that difficult either.
But then again, the ancients didn’t solve this problem.
It took 2500 years.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-30 11:57:00 UTC
-
REGARDING PUTIN AND THE ORTHODOX CHURCH I get it. I also get the significance of
REGARDING PUTIN AND THE ORTHODOX CHURCH
I get it. I also get the significance of pervasive corruption, the near absence of rule of law, the constructivist use of the absence of rule of law to steal companies and assets from their producers, the inability of the state to construct an advanced, productive economy, and the extensive poverty of the majority of the Russian population.
We would like it we could return to kings, and the unity of church (proletarians) burghers (merchants and craftsmen), and nobility(military).
We can do that.
But the way it must be done is to use violence to create rule of law. Not violence to create corruption.
THE SECRET TO OUR SUCCESS WAS THE LAW
Natural law governed a powerless working class, a fruitful population of burghers (merchants), a weak but wealthy and landed church, and powerful but small monarchies.
I am all for authority to impose rule of law. I am all for athority to defend the tribe, nation, and territory. But I am not all for authority to violate the natural law, nor to render western achievement back into the dark ages from whence Russia has barely climbed. Because like arabs they run on oil, not economies. Because economies require trust and the minimization of corruption.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-30 09:22:00 UTC
-
TIPS ON STRICT CONSTRUCTION Strict construction, in operational language, is ext
TIPS ON STRICT CONSTRUCTION
Strict construction, in operational language, is extremely difficult, because it requires you have procedural understanding of the subject. Strictly constructed propertarian arguments SHOULDN’T be terribly difficult because each operation is subjectively testable by you.
What’ Ive seen from others efforts, is an attempt to mix non-operational moral language with feigned attempts at operational language, in order to retain moral loading – in order to textually vent moral frustration.
But if you make a propertarian argument, you’re merely showing whether theft has occurred or not, or whether theft is attempted or not. That’s all.
It’s only AFTER that determination that you can use pejorative and moral language to morally load an accusation of theft or attempted theft, deceit, or error.
So try to build a story consisting of statements of ‘operational accounting’ He did this, she did that, etc. And only at the end should any statement transform the analytic proof of involuntary transfer to the moral accusation.
Mathematical proofs are not moral they just describe. Accounting balances are not moral, they just describe. Propertarian arguments are not moral, they just describe. Legal justification from first principle of non-parasitism is not moral, just describes.
It is after the proofs of each: mathematical equality, accounting ‘balance’, and propertarian voluntary transfer, that we render our judgements.
Trying to load and frame a propertarian argument is difficult
BECAUSE THAT’S PRECISELY WHAT I CREATED IT TO PREVENT.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-30 09:15:00 UTC
-
AGAINST THE TECHNIQUE OF CRITIQUE ( Jenna, Do you know what the rhetorical techn
AGAINST THE TECHNIQUE OF CRITIQUE
( Jenna,
Do you know what the rhetorical technique of Critique refers to?
TACTICS
(a) Heaping of undue praise on one’s heroes, rather than their arguments.
(b) Rallying, shaming, framing, suggestion, and overloading, rather than empirical decidability based upon the evidence.
(c) Psychologism(shaming) rather than incentives(logic)
(d) Ad hominem of the person rather than criticizing the argument.
(e) Proposing trivial straw man arguments as an excuse for lengthy discourse on psychologism, ad hominem, rallying, shaming and heaping of undue praise.
(f) Failing to propose an alternative solution and subjecting it to equal scrutiny.
(g) The use of false equivalency. The use of asymmetric judgement. The use of selective evidence. The use of ‘fixed pie’ economic reasoning.
(f) Using suggestion that can be readily self-interpreted, rather than argument that can be analytically tested with little room for interpretation.
The reductio explanation of this technique is that it’s “a literary form of gossip.”
WHY IS GOSSIP POSSIBLE?
Setting aside why we permit free speech rather than only truthful speech – a problem for philosophers – why is gossip more possible in the current era than prior eras?
We stopped teaching grammar, logic, and rhetoric earlier in the last century for three reasons:
1) it would have undermined the marxist/socialist/feminist education program
2) it readily exposes the differences in student abilities as a near perfect reflection of class.
3) it is quite hard for ‘teachers’ who are from the bottom 16 % of their classes (just below journalists) to teach grammar, rhetoric and logic.
Today we would have to add basic economics: grammar, logic, rhetoric and micro-economics (the science of incentives) to the ancient educational curriculum.
However, if the body politic were taught grammar, logic, rhetoric, and micro-economics (incentives) then it would be impossible for many writers (yourself included it appears) to see his or her words represented in modern font.
WHY DECEIVE?
I specialize in truthful speech. This specialty requires a great deal of understanding of untruthful speech. And gossip (Critique) is a well developed technique for conveying untruthful speech. It is the secular version of deception that we invented to replace mystical deception.
The question is, why, if one is correct, right, true, and just, why one would rely on Critique (Gossip) in lieu of argument?
We can say one lacks the skill, absent talent. We can say one is an unknowing pawn in the great game, and absent intent. We can say that one is a purveyor of deceit by intent.
But it is hard for the audience to know whether one lacks intelligence, whether one is a fool, or whether one is a liar.
Because when we speak truthfully and empirically then we can be judged on the content of our arguments, and by the content of our arguments, the content of our character.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
)
https://www.facebook.com/wpjennajohnson/
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-30 04:52:00 UTC
-
( Jenna, Do you know what the rhetorical technique of Critique refers to? TACTIC
( Jenna,
Do you know what the rhetorical technique of Critique refers to?
TACTICS
(a) Heaping of undue praise on one’s heroes, rather than their arguments.
(b) Rallying, shaming, framing, suggestion, and overloading, rather than empirical decidability based upon the evidence.
(c) Psychologism(shaming) rather than incentives(logic)
(d) Ad hominem of the person rather than criticizing the argument.
(e) Proposing trivial straw man arguments as an excuse for lengthy discourse on psychologism, ad hominem, rallying, shaming and heaping of undue praise.
(f) Failing to propose an alternative solution and subjecting it to equal scrutiny.
(g) The use of false equivalency. The use of asymmetric judgement. The use of selective evidence. The use of ‘fixed pie’ economic reasoning.
(f) Using suggestion that can be readily self-interpreted, rather than argument that can be analytically tested with little room for interpretation.
The reductio explanation of this technique is that it’s “a literary form of gossip.”
WHY IS GOSSIP POSSIBLE?
Setting aside why we permit free speech rather than only truthful speech – a problem for philosophers – why is gossip more possible in the current era than prior eras?
We stopped teaching grammar, logic, and rhetoric earlier in the last century for three reasons:
1) it would have undermined the marxist/socialist/feminist education program
2) it readily exposes the differences in student abilities as a near perfect reflection of class.
3) it is quite hard for ‘teachers’ who are from the bottom 16 % of their classes (just below journalists) to teach grammar, rhetoric and logic.
Today we would have to add basic economics: grammar, logic, rhetoric and micro-economics (the science of incentives) to the ancient educational curriculum.
However, if the body politic were taught grammar, logic, rhetoric, and micro-economics (incentives) then it would be impossible for many writers (yourself included it appears) to see his or her words represented in modern font.
WHY DECEIVE?
I specialize in truthful speech. This specialty requires a great deal of understanding of untruthful speech. And gossip (Critique) is a well developed technique for conveying untruthful speech. It is the secular version of deception that we invented to replace mystical deception.
The question is, why, if one is correct, right, true, and just, why one would rely on Critique (Gossip) in lieu of argument?
We can say one lacks the skill, absent talent. We can say one is an unknowing pawn in the great game, and absent intent. We can say that one is a purveyor of deceit by intent.
But it is hard for the audience to know whether one lacks intelligence, whether one is a fool, or whether one is a liar.
Because when we speak truthfully and empirically then we can be judged on the content of our arguments, and by the content of our arguments, the content of our character.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
)
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-30 04:51:00 UTC
-
(I mean, if you support Clinton, I guess you’re just a stupid and a bad person w
(I mean, if you support Clinton, I guess you’re just a stupid and a bad person whether you know it or not. If you support Saunders you’re an stupid but good person whether you know it or not. If you support trump your an empirical and cunning person and I have no idea you’re a good or bad person.
I mean, I can’t support George Washington or George Patton or Douglas Mcarthur, so I choose the best of the available choices. )
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-30 04:08:00 UTC
-
POST’S ONGOING VERY STRANGE POSITIONING I realize that the Post is part of the s
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/even-in-victory-donald-trump-cant-stop-airing-his-grievances/2016/05/29/a5f7a566-2526-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_naTHE POST’S ONGOING VERY STRANGE POSITIONING
I realize that the Post is part of the status quo establishment, but it’s pretty clear to those of us who are of empirical rather than ideological bias, that the editorial team’s FAILED to grasp the demographic and political shift away from consensus on ideology (a class competition) and toward higher tribalism (a clan competition).
1) All people vote their reproductive interests, and all reproductive interests are better satisfied within tribe than without.
2) Given that all ‘tribes’ are constructed out of people with different distributions of talents – some lower, genetically, socially, familially, and economically, and some higher genetically, socially, familially, and economically – and that these distributions of talents are determined by the differing rates of reproduction of their classes – societies MUST organize to compete militarily, economically, and politically, with the people that they consist of. Ergo, in an homogenous upward-redistributive society that has practiced eugenics for thousands of years (Northern Europe) you will get equalitarianism – because people are relatively equal in ability. If you look to south america, or india, where the underclasses breed rapidly, you will get a caste system. If you look to Arabia, where there is no upper or middle class you will get authoritarianism.
Ergo, if you attempt to build a heterogeneous democracy you will eventually end up with either a caste system (which we now have approximately by race).
So why should you expect to create a series of racial competitions and not produce authoritarians in every caste? (Jackson etc on the black, and conservatives on the white, and the emerging hispanic consensus, and the existing jewish consensus.)
All empirical governments grow. All ideological governments stagnate. The Neocon-Neoliberal era is done. Welcome back to the world of tribalism.
Source date (UTC): 2016-05-30 04:01:00 UTC