Source: Facebook

  • In my driver’s limited version of English, troublesome women drivers are all ‘bl

    In my driver’s limited version of English, troublesome women drivers are all ‘blondes’ regardless of hair color.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-16 05:05:00 UTC

  • “WHO IS TO DO THE LAUNDERING?” THE EFFECT OF WARRANTY —“As for truth, who is t

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/06/21/a-hierarchy-of-truths/Q&A: “WHO IS TO DO THE LAUNDERING?” THE EFFECT OF WARRANTY

    —“As for truth, who is to do the laundering and how do we know if it has been done in error?”—Karl Smith

    We do it ourselves, and warranty we have done so. If we have ‘interests’ then we can test it. But warranty tends to produce desired ends: “skin in the game”.

    1) Spectrum: Deceitful, Honest, Truthful, True, Tautological.

    See: A Hierarchy of Truths

    http://www.propertarianism.com%2F2015%2F06%2F21%2Fa-hierarchy-of-truths%2F

    2) We can give honest testimony but honesty is not warrantied (promise) that we have performed due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit. As such we cannot state that we have laundered that information consisting of imaginary, erroneous, imaginary, biased, or wishful thinking from it.

    We can give truthful testimony, if we can warranty we have performed due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit. We need a method of performing due diligence (criticism) of our statements.

    We cannot testify to truth even if we utter it, because even if we perform due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit, we cannot know if we are informationally complete, and cannot warranty it.

    We can testify to a tautology because it is informationally complete, but as informationally complete it has no theoretical content (no general rule), and therefore no general explanatory power, and requires no warranty.

    3) We can subject our theories to criticisms:

    – identity (naming, properties, category)

    – internal consistency(logic),

    – external correspondence(empiricism),

    – parsimony(limits),

    – existential possibility (operationalism),

    – morality (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of hazard and externality of the same criteria),

    Or more simply, we can use the scientific method, which has nothing unique to the sciences per se, and instead is a general process of criticism for the production of truthful testimony: epistemology.

    Science is a Moral Discipline

    http://www.propertarianism.com%2F2014%2F12%2F23%2Fscience-is-a-moral-discipline-in-which-we-struggle-to-speak-truthfully%2F

    MORE – SEE

    a) A Short Course In Testimonial Truth

    https://www.google.com/search…

    b) A Short Course in Propertarian Morality

    www.propertarianism.com%2F2015%2F07%2F27%2Fa-short-course-in-propertarian-morality-2%2F

    Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-16 04:46:00 UTC

  • “The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the

    —“The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.”— Spencer


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-16 03:21:00 UTC

  • (not that I feel like beating on russia these days, but truth is truth) The west

    (not that I feel like beating on russia these days, but truth is truth)

    The west has legitimate problems with Russia:

    1) Russia’s history of murdering its own people in vast numbers, and occupying and destroying much of eastern Europe, and then engaging in both the cold war and the expansion of world communism. This history prevents Russia from making a legitimate claim to extension of its borders just as we resist german’s extension of is borders.

    2) Absence of rule of law, widespread corruption, use of propaganda and outright lying – which in Russia is heroic and in the west is the very pinnacle of immorality. The Russian sponsorship of a predatory government maintaining the poverty of the people of Ukraine and its agitation over the return of eastern Europe to christendom given its history was and is intolerable both to Westerners and to eastern europeans. The assumption that Russia would add rule of law but retain its conservatism was just fine – as long as Russia joined the west thereby uniting all european peoples and restoring christendom after its destruction by the communists. This would have achieved the long standing goal of uniting german culture and engineering with Russian resources and labor.

    3) Russian intellectuals’ fascination with the restoration of an empire responsible for genocides only surpassed by the Chinese, and the tragic victimization and impoverishment of eastern Europe, and even Germany – instead of unity of european peoples. As if power – disappearing people in the night, suppressing speech, and terrorism by secret police – rather than prosperity were somehow something to aspire to.

    4) Invasion of Ukraine breaking the postwar consensus on borders – the purpose of which was to prevent another world war. In doing so Russia confirmed both its failure to learn from its past failings, and its willingness to impose harm on ‘our people’. Putin was until then a respected politician in the west who could just have asked the west to negotiate a trade for discounted natural gas in exchange for a full crimean lease including independence on the hong kong model for 200 years – after which it would have been irrelevant. The same for the Donbas since Ukrainians despise that region because it’s the source of Russian influence on the government, source of gangsters supported by Russia, and the source of the drug trade. So Putin confirmed that Russia had learned nothing, and wishes to repeat its past crimes against humanity.

    American utopianism is absurd and the neo-conservative movement has been as disastrous as the progressive, neo-puritain, and socialist. Americans are perfectly happy to feel good about themselves by punishing brown and yellow people the world over. America has the luxury of stupidity due to wealth in part gained by their domestic utopianism.

    And sure, democracy is done for, republicanism is a luxury of wealthy europeans riding on the accumulated wave of centuries of intellectual, technical and artistic achievement. Yes, women have have used enfranchisement to incrementally destroy the west that alone liberated them, and yes, the left has used the funding provided by women through advertising and expanding education in the the academy and rent seeking that expands the state to convert us into another brazil.

    That does not mean that anything Russia desires or does is not more of the same even worse than we have experienced from her before. She rails against the nazis who were half the criminals the russians have been.

    That people want strength is a statement of their weakness.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-15 17:31:00 UTC

  • Q&A: WTF ARE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT? 😉 —“I have to ask… what the actual FUC

    Q&A: WTF ARE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT? 😉

    —“I have to ask… what the actual FUCK are you guys talking about? From the outside this all reads like complete and utter nonsense — but each of you seem convinced that what you are speaking to is real, and concrete. Help a brother out.”—-Michael V. Coppola

    It’s not nonsense really. Its actually a profoundly important argument.

    WHY?

    Leftists rely on loading(adding emotional content), framing(selective presentation of argument) and overloading (repetition and propaganda), to advance their agenda with pseudoscience, misrepresentation, and outright lying, and to resist criticism by rallying and shaming (what we call political correctness).

    What the other guys are arguing is that without government, media, and academy (“the Cathedral Complex”) they can use the same techniques to ‘inspire’ a competing alternative religion. And second, that I should adopt this strategy in my work.

    Now my work is the merger of science and philosophy into what I call Testimonialism (an extension of the scientific method), and Propertarianism (an extension of property rights, rule of law, and classical government), and what I have done is created an amoral (which means objective and emotionless) language and logic that does not require we rely upon introspection to determine if something is truly objectively moral or not.

    I want to make it very difficult to lie in public when discussing the production of commons (politics). They want to preserve this dishonest form of argument because they feel the heroic tradition is not enough to inspire people (despite the evidence of its persistence across millennia).

    They are advocating that I do the opposite. which defeats the entire purpose of my work: creating an environment as saturated with truth, as the post-christian era was saturated with reason, and the current era is saturated with physical science. I want to restore the high trust society, restore us to truthful discourse, and make it impossible for parasites to compete and survive within our society.

    Now, normally I would see this argument as silly but I have a long standing policy of defeating attackers completely, and it’s a great opportunity to discuss this problem with people who are highly invested (ON THE RIGHT) but who want to continue to make use of the tools that enabled THE LEFT.

    That’s basically it.

    Thanks for asking.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-15 16:53:00 UTC

  • (Worth Repeating) —-“There is a reason the strong can speak their minds honest

    (Worth Repeating)

    —-“There is a reason the strong can speak their minds honestly and truthfully: only the weak need do otherwise.”—-


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-15 16:37:00 UTC

  • NIETZSCHE, EVOLUTION, AND TRUTH (reposted) My understanding is that Nietzsche cl

    NIETZSCHE, EVOLUTION, AND TRUTH

    (reposted)

    My understanding is that Nietzsche claimed, that by Darwin’s removing the exterior causes for the evolution of man, that what he calls ‘will to power’ was sufficient to produce man (or all similar animals) through the process of evolution.

    Now, today we might use different terminology. I use ‘acquisition’ and ‘pacification’ and eschew ‘power’ since it appears from the evidence that it’s the acquisition of a portfolio of experiences and opportunities for experience that people desire and act in favor of – chief of which is status.

    I think we might also argue that mere entropy causes our development, even if circumstances (a peaceful enough oven in which to cook advanced life) are extremely rare, the universe has many opportunities to try. So as such our will to power is merely a set of chemical responses that we evolved in order to defeat entropy.

    So in effect I agree but eschew reliance on Nietzsche’s effeminate psychologizing and german conflation, loading and framing.

    Further, since psychologizing and psychology evolved as tools of feminine gossip and critique, I avoid them. I have the courage to use truth, rather than depend upon intellectual crutches.

    Using psychological explanations is a display of feminine strategies. Which is useful for the weak. But unnecessary for the strong.

    Truth is enough. Incentives are enough. Psychologizing is merely an attempt to engage in gossip using the strategy of women who do so because they are demonstrably weaker.

    I don’t know if I want power. I want to demonstrate I am simply superior. Power just means more work to do. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-15 16:35:00 UTC

  • Slayer of false gods, false promises, pseudoscience, shoddy argument, and justif

    Slayer of false gods, false promises, pseudoscience, shoddy argument, and justification of priors.

    Sigh.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-15 16:07:00 UTC

  • The way you distance yourself from accusations of bias is to offend everyone equ

    The way you distance yourself from accusations of bias is to offend everyone equally. 😉

    Workin’ on it. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-15 16:06:00 UTC

  • Democrats vs Liberals: Democrats are low IQ people who vote for free stuff. Libe

    Democrats vs Liberals:

    Democrats are low IQ people who vote for free stuff.

    Liberals are high IQ people who use free stuff to win votes.

    qotd: Shaun Moss


    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-15 13:06:00 UTC