Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • UKRAINIAN “CAROLING” Some random young girl just rang the bell. Came into the do

    UKRAINIAN “CAROLING”

    Some random young girl just rang the bell. Came into the doorway, Announced she was singing us a christmas song. Sang it. Three verses with Chorus. (I can’t catch the meaning). The recited a short bit on best wishes. And thanked us. And smiled.

    During this entire period we are expected to smile appreciatively (which is pretty easy), then give her a tip.

    Now we are not exactly in the nicest area of town, but its all small families in small apartments.

    What I am constantly struck by is the ‘us-ness’ of a homogenous population.

    It makes me tear.

    I remember this in america.

    It’s what we lost,

    And it is beautiful.

    Love your nation.

    F_ck the corporeal state.

    I am going to kill as many of you as I can with the written word.

    And dance in my grave at every twitch of every rope.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 13:12:00 UTC

  • LOVE IS NOT EASILY DIVISIBLE While you can feel love toward multiple people, you

    LOVE IS NOT EASILY DIVISIBLE

    While you can feel love toward multiple people, you cannot exchange first priority with more than one person. The same way you cannot change first priority among many friends.

    Hell, I love everybody. But there is nothing like the total trust you share with someone you love, whose commitment to you is never in question, and upon whom you can count to share joys, passions, fears, and tragedy.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 13:07:00 UTC

  • Why is it that brutal honesty is such an effective political weapon in a democra

    Why is it that brutal honesty is such an effective political weapon in a democracy? lol It’s not the honest man. It’s all the liars that created a vacuum by disrespecting voters.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 09:42:00 UTC

  • With the word “commons” in it , you might be interested

    With the word “commons” in it , you might be interested.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 07:28:00 UTC

  • ARGUMENTATIVE ASSISTANCE FOR STUDENTS OF DEBATE 1 – “Anecdotal evidence is a con

    ARGUMENTATIVE ASSISTANCE FOR STUDENTS OF DEBATE

    1 – “Anecdotal evidence is a contradiction in terms. One either has sufficient data to eliminate more parsimonious alternatives, wishful thinking, and error, or one is engaged in justification of a prior, with or without your knowledge and understanding of it.”

    2 – “Outliers do not distributions make. The terms Men, Women, Class, Race, and Culture refer to distributions not outliers. Outliers are not evidence of anything except noise.”

    3 – “The central objective of political representation is to do no harm, not to find an imaginary perfect candidate, and not to give everyone a chance to rule. Exceptional people are marginally indifferent and learn by doing.”

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 06:25:00 UTC

  • I am working on this popper/critical rationalism/context post because I was insp

    I am working on this popper/critical rationalism/context post because I was inspired by a FB friend’s criticism of popper (justifiable) the other day. And I can only tolerate doing it for 15 minutes at a time.

    My body does not wanna work today….

    Too bad…. write -> web site -> write-> help documentation -> repeat.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 05:57:00 UTC

  • I LOVE WOMEN. OMG. LIKE FLOWERS. NEVER ENOUGH OF THEM IN THE WORLD. F_ck the fem

    I LOVE WOMEN. OMG. LIKE FLOWERS. NEVER ENOUGH OF THEM IN THE WORLD.

    F_ck the feminists. All women are beautiful. Just stop putting so much crap in your mouth, and spend more time prattling about nonsense. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 05:44:00 UTC

  • THREE TRIBES OF MEN WITH HAIR In the west we have three tribes wherein men seem

    THREE TRIBES OF MEN WITH HAIR

    In the west we have three tribes wherein men seem to keep their hair: The Welsh, the Lombards, and one in southern Russia that I can’t name – something in the Georgian region. Now, hair loss in men is caused by complex and asynchronous factors related to testosterone – lower testosterone earlier balding, higher testosterone tends to later balding. The same chemistry that produces facial and body hair causes head hair to go dormant. Some of us simply have more hair than others so it takes longer to go bald, some of us less so that it’s more visible sooner.

    The reason seems fairly obvious to me, as someone who had so much hair that it would often ‘hurt’, and I would just die in summers – and that is heat dissipation. As we get bigger its harder to dissipate heat when running, and humans were born to run so to speak. So baldness, if it is an adaptation, is likely an adaptation to the increasing need for heat dissipation. it’s more interesting I think to ask why we get beards (armor) on our faces, but lose hair (armor) on our heads.

    If you have ever gone natural long enough (cleaning with water and baking soda and without harsh soap), you can readily grasp that the purpose of body hair is to hold your scent. Which aside from diet is like a less spicy set of variations of sandalwood in both sexes (hence our love of sandalwood incense.) I love that smell on me and women.

    But the head and facial hair is largely defensive in men, and hair is largely a signal of health and fertility in women. And given that men are about 10% bigger than women, and more ‘dense’ with higher heat retention; and given that about 70% of males will experience male pattern baldness and that women far less; and given that we can clothe our bodies and our heads, apparently nature made a trade off for men: less protection of the head in exchange for greater heat dissipation and durability under stress.

    One humorous analogy I like to use is that women like a lot of clothes because they aren’t really that different. Men are very different and like uniforms.

    What I don’t like is the knowledge that nature has evolved men to vary so greatly so that we can serve so many purposes like so many types of warrior ants. And as such a few of us are very valuable mates, and many of us are literally disposable: nature counts on us dying and women selecting our betters for reproduction.

    Algorithmically this presents a difficult problem. Because on the one hand we could cull about 70% of males and about 20% of females from the average population. But we cannot DEFEND from those who have inferior breeding but a larger number of males with higher aggression.

    So you see, we have to have this distribution and marriage to survive competition against others. Not because it is the optimum linear algorithm. But it is the optimum game algorithm in an equilibrium.

    Bet you didn’t see that coming did you? 🙂

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 05:34:00 UTC

  • OMG I’m offensive today I think. lol

    OMG I’m offensive today I think. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 05:04:00 UTC

  • Q&A: EUGENICS AND RACE? —How is eugenics a mode of thought not comparable to r

    Q&A: EUGENICS AND RACE?

    —How is eugenics a mode of thought not comparable to race? Especially given the social and economic divides amongst ethnicities?— Savannah

    Because eugenics is the study of individuals using the properties of individuals while race applies properties of a class to all individuals represented or not by those properties.

    1 – One can judge an individual by the properties of its class (racism)

    2 – One can judge a class by the properties of its individuals (racialism).

    3 – Or one can judge individuals by the properties of each individual (eugenics).

    The first is simply non logical and immoral.

    The second is logical, moral, but in-actionable

    The third is simply logical, moral, and actionable.

    Eugenics of some sort is necessary for shared prosperity. I prefer paying the underclasses not to breed, and not paying them and sterilizing them if they do; and eliminating the migration of labor to capital and requiring the migration of capital to labor instead; maintaining as close to a homogenous society as possible. If we have small states with these policies we will have marginal inequality – inequality is necessary for the organization of invention, investment, production, distribution, trade, and savings. But people disproportinoately resist redistribution when it consists of parasitism.

    Women have a genetic ‘incompetence’ in political matters as they evolved to protect their offspring and other women’s offspring REGARDLESS of their merit as a means of surviving their ‘ownership’ by competing bands of males.

    So just as men are noticeably incompetent with childrearing, women are noticeably incompetent with political matters.

    Even if it’s uncomfortable, the data on the 20th century is in: women happily destroy civilization due to their reliance upon internal intuitionistic incompetence designed to produce irrational behavior: the birthing, care and preservation of children in the presence of warring males, and the need to demonstrate submission and to and share with other women as a means of work sharing, risk reduction, and maintaining group cohesion against existing and invading males.

    Women see us men as the enemy. That is why feminists sound like they do. It may be true that we are an enemy of their parasitism. But we are far less of an enemy than the enemy they import into our nations through the misapplication of their genetically produced political incompetence which is a side effect of the need to care for an extremely costly, annoying child, over which she may or may have not had much control in the selection of fathers, and even when she did, it was impulsive and speculative rather than reasoned – and most often selected by familiarity and empathy rather than understanding and judgement.

    A mother’s love is blind for a reason. It must be. A reasonable creature would walk away from an offspring that requires five to seven years of high cost maintenance to reach minimum self sufficiency, and twice that for maturity.

    But her blindness applies not only to her children and her peers children, but to anything that she can imagine.

    Does that hurt?

    Well, you know it’s just true.

    The data is in.

    Women have no place in politics.

    It’s suicidal.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-06 05:04:00 UTC