(FB 1551627436 Timestamp) —“The spirit approaches the church, hypocrisy fills it.”—Francesco Principi
Source: Original Site Post
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551652765 Timestamp) —“A harmless man is no man at all.”—Holly Morrigan
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551661068 Timestamp) Better to be silent and be thought a fool that open your mouth and remove all doubt. Double for FB. Triple for Twitter. Voice in my head says ‘don’t punch down’. Paternal instinct says ‘discipline these children!’.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551572497 Timestamp) NO MORE LIES —“@Curt Doolittle If I have an idea, a theory, yet don’t have the evidence yet–it still might be true. The Higgs Boson comes to mind. It was an idea, a theory, there were no facts yet to prove it, it fit in with the standard model, itself a theory, and solved some problems in quantum mechanics, but it wasn’t until the particle was actually discovered by the LHC that we could call it true. So was it a lie before then? You can’t always exactly know what’s true. Some questions are unsettled. So we make assumptions to try things out. It’s not exactly faith but it’s like it. It requires that we temporarily believe in it to test it, to question it, to try and figure it out. All part of reasoning. Maybe you didn’t mean what you said to this depth, what you wrote seems to make perfect sense on the surface, but through a little questioning, seeking to drill down, to get to the essence and the fundamentals of things, it seemed to me to be a little imprecise. This is not to simply be disputatious, to be contrary, not to be mean or anything, your statement was a fine, stimulating, sentiment, but to honestly question.┗ Mark Wright We do not have faith or temporarily believe in anything. We seek only to discover by testing that which is testable. And we limit ourselves to that limit. 1) such things are testable and falsifiable. 2) such things preserve the parsimony of naturalism, 3) such things are not counter to all of historical evidence, nor commensurate with the long history of ignorance error, fraud, and deceit
4) such things serve as no premise for consequent inference likewise for fraud and deceit, 5) such things are not dependent on verbal pretense or sophism, 6) such things are not claimed true only speculative,
7) such things have no malincentive to lie, or preserve a lie.
8) Conversely what i argued against was the opposite of all those tests. It is not arrogance but intolerance for the continued use of lies against my people by those in conscious or unconscious league with the ancient enemy of not only my people but all of mankind. No more lies. #post -
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551652461 Timestamp) SITE UPDATE: Nit: Fixed missing year on post search results.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551658306 Timestamp) OMG. New IQ test. Accusing another person of being a Fed means you are intellectually unfit, and get the helicopter treatment as well. Out of the political pool is one thing. But you need to get out of the GENE pool. lol
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551568113 Timestamp) “AUTISTOCRACY” —“I’m perfectly comfortable with aristocracy being formed by autists. Autistocracy.”— Martin Å tÄpán
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551645740 Timestamp) —“….I think this is just the Overton Window moving rapidly – which means by 2020 it’s gonna be ripped of the frame, since lefties are accelerating the other way.”—James Santagata Yep. Demographics are destiny. Window is moving fast.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551655771 Timestamp) scold
[skÅld]
NOUN a person, in particular a woman, who nags or grumbles constantly. “his mother was the village scold” COMMON SCOLD From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In the common law of crime in England and Wales, a common scold was a type of public nuisanceâa troublesome and angry person who broke the public peace by habitually chastising, arguing and quarrelling with their neighbours. The majority of individuals punished for scolding were women, though men could also be labelled scolds. The offence, which was exported to North America with the colonists, was punished by monetary fines, but also by methods intended to publicly humiliate such as ducking: being placed in a chair and submerged in a river or pond. Although rarely prosecuted it remained on the statute books in England and Wales until 1967. Scolding offences were commonly presented and punished in manorial and borough courts that governed the behaviour of peasants and townspeople across England. Scolds were also presented in church courts.[2] The most common punishment was a monetary fine. Various historians have argued that scolding and bad speech were coded as feminine offences by the late medieval period. Women of all marital statuses were prosecuted for scolding, though married women featured most frequently, while widows were rarely labelled scolds.[3] In some places, such as Exeter, scolds were typically poorer women, whereas elsewhere scolds could include members of the local elite.[4] Women who were also charged with other offences, such as violence, nightwandering, eavesdropping or sexual impropriety were also likely to be labelled scolds.[5] Individuals were frequently labelled ‘common scolds’, indicating the impact of their behaviour and speech on the whole community. Karen Jones identified 13 men prosecuted for scolding in Kent’s secular courts, compared to 94 women and 2 couples.[6] Men accused of scolding were often charged alongside their wives. Helen, wife of Peter Bradwall scolded Hugh Welesson and Isabel, his wife, in Middlewich in 1434, calling Isabel a “child murderer” and Hugh a “skallet [wretched] knave”. Isabel and Hugh also scolded Helen, calling her a “lesyng blebberer” (lying bletherer). All parties were fined for the offences, though Hugh and Isabel were fined jointly.[7] Like women, male scolds were often accused of many other offences, such as fornication, theft, illegal trading, and assault.[8] Note that in american law, Scolding was folded into disorderly conduct in the early 1970’s
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551566518 Timestamp) PROP THOUGHT PROVIDES STOIC REWARDS (author gave me permission to share) (this is not an uncommon observation) —“Hi Curt Can I share something with you..? I’m trying to formulate some thinking around the implications of P … particularly in how Operationalism etc may relate to “individual well being”. Background: I’m going through a difficult situation with child custody right now… A lot high stress exchanges, bad feelings, shaming, baiting by from ex wife, gossip in local community. (rrgsm) However, I’m also getting a great deal satisfaction learning to incorporate testimonials into daily life. And it’s helping these immediate circumstances. Seriously: Tell people to focus on ONE particular video “Propertarianism – Testimonialism: Epistemology” Now, just thinking through some observations: As I shift my thinking towards P’s Operationalism and Testimonial epistemology…I’m finding a correlative shift of experience in my emotional states. Quite strikingly so. And I’m now wondering if there must be some direct causality between adopting the conceptual frameworks of P and subsequent real time changes in neurochemical/cortical function. e.g. that using P in an daily capacity instantiates higher cortical activity and accelerates and reinforces optimum levels of cognitive performance. And I think it’s because modes of thinking with P causes adrenal “fight-flight” activity (and clouded judgement) to subside. Somehow the INTERNAL COHERENCY of P seems to be a significant factor. So, does the multi-dimensional coherency of the conceptual approach (P) have some direct resonant relationship towards cortical functioning? Has this angle been discussed anywhere? Do you think it is possible to describe the emergent neurochemical basis (that allows for clear thinking) but as a ramification for having adopted P (Operationalism and Testimonialism) in particular? Cheers!”— (Bill Joslin Explains) Endocrine stress: P derived conclusions allow the hypothalamus to calm after acquisition (no more effort to needed to support or uphold the conclusion) – a high stressed CORT driven endocrine aligns with floating conclusions which require constant effort to maintain. The RESULT being a stoic calm opposed to a stoic calm being the practice to achieve calmness: “Odin grants a hard heart” FWIW: King of the hill learning might actually be a biological imperative for learning P as it’s an Adrenal (i.e. not CORT) driven process. –Bill Joslin
( Curt: P => Stoicism. )