Source: Facebook

YOU CAN’T REALLY ARGUE WITH A THEIST.

All inferences and deductions are dependent (contingent) upon the premises. Ergo, one does not argue with the faithful. One sets limits on them, as we do children, domesticated animals, and the incompetent. If the faithful offer one another wisdom that is one thing. If the faithful argue with their faith they de facto confuse wisdom with truth – and engage in fraud.

—“[Curt Doolittle], you’re the fuckin troll. you use the exact same methods they do and try to get legitimacy behind an impenetrable vernacular. except no one cares what you say and everyone likes me and thinks you’re a bloviating pseudo-intellectual poseur. you claim to know natural law but there is but one natural law and that is Santana Dharma – you are nothing but a heretic”—Jennifer Scharf

… and ….

—“Curt won’t debate me because he is a charlatan, so sadly, I must confront him. It’s my duty to my devotees to do that because it is a sin to purport as a master of natural law when you aren’t one.”—Jennifer Scharf

—“You want to debate Curt Doolittle, right?”— Bryan Nova Brey

—“ya i’ll debate anyone but it has to be on a livestream.”— Jennifer Scharf

1 – Debates must be in writing, since it is much, much, harder to engage in…

(a) disapproval (disapproval, rejection, shaming, ridicule, rallying, gossiping and reputation destruction)

-OR-

(b) avoidance (obscurantism, fraud, and deceit) ,

-BY-

non-argument (disapproval, avoidance),

-VERSUS-

(c) argument (measurements, decidability),

… in writing

2 – However, as far as I know Jennifer is just a heterodox cultist and her argument will deflate into truth, decidability, and measurement vs utility, choice, reasonableness.

3 – All wisdom literature has pedagogical value. Like nursery rhymes, parables, fairy tales, myths, and legends have pedagogica value. That pedagogy may provide dysgenic, devolutionary, static, development, eugenic results. They help us seek opportunities, and collectively to seek the same opportunities, and largely to pay for them in differences of opportunity costs ‘contributing the remainder’ in favor of our developmental direction, rather than requiring direct costs of time, effort, and resources.

4 – All sciences provide value of decidability in matters of dispute when others engage in Disapproval or Avoidance, versus argument – where argument would expose their deception, fraud, free riding, and parasitism.

5 – So we can produce via-positiva (opportunity) wisdom literature by fiction and analogy (to assist in wide searches for opportunity). Or we can produce via-negativa (cost reduction) wisdom literature by description and decidability (to assist in suppressing parasitism under pretense of opportunity) or simply error.

Truth is truth, wisdom is wisdom, fraud is fraud, and falsehood is simply false – and never shall any of them meet.

(The vedas are a mythology – a wisdom literature, and her brahmins practice their own Pilpul (Sophism) as all justificationists must.)

I don’t make mistakes (in my arguments). It’s my job. Sorry.