The problem is you can’t take a woman seriously if she (a) does not reason seriously (b) does not respect the boundary of violence.
In the past, we could use violence agianst women who broke that boundary – just as we could use it against men.
Our big mistake was ending slander, libel, scolding, and the duel.
Source: Original Site Post
-
You Do Not Debate Or Argue With Women. You Give Them What You Can And Deny Them What You Must.
I have made this argument over and over again, my difference is that I do not believe the incentive exists for women to force the change unless we counter-react against crazy-women (which is a very large percentage of women) by threat of binding ALL women. Hence my emphasis on truthful reciprocal speech. -
You Do Not Debate Or Argue With Women. You Give Them What You Can And Deny Them What You Must.
I have made this argument over and over again, my difference is that I do not believe the incentive exists for women to force the change unless we counter-react against crazy-women (which is a very large percentage of women) by threat of binding ALL women. Hence my emphasis on truthful reciprocal speech. -
The Parasitisms That Compete With Reciprocity
Marxism = parasitism upon private property. Libertarianism = Parasitism upon commons. NeoConservatism = Parasitism upon Genes, Traditions, and Institutions. Authoritarianism masks the underlying theft, which is why I talk not about the authority (which each sector justified) but about the thefts (which are very hard to). Same with economics. We talk about whether they aer scientific or not but we do not talk about the thefts that occur, versus the trades that would be possible under rule of law by the natural law of reciprocity. Theft is not an opinion. “Good” is an opinion. -
The Parasitisms That Compete With Reciprocity
Marxism = parasitism upon private property. Libertarianism = Parasitism upon commons. NeoConservatism = Parasitism upon Genes, Traditions, and Institutions. Authoritarianism masks the underlying theft, which is why I talk not about the authority (which each sector justified) but about the thefts (which are very hard to). Same with economics. We talk about whether they aer scientific or not but we do not talk about the thefts that occur, versus the trades that would be possible under rule of law by the natural law of reciprocity. Theft is not an opinion. “Good” is an opinion. -
—“Please Define Deflationary Grammar”—
—“PLEASE DEFINE DEFLATIONARY GRAMAR”— (also: See the various categories of Truth (including deflationary). Deflationary <-> Inflationary <-> Conflationary <-> Fictionalism DEFLATIONARY: identity(constant relations), Mathematics(positional relations), Logics(sets of relations), Algorithms (States and Transformation of states), Procedures/Recpies(states, transformation of states, by operations), Contracts(exchanges), Survival (from competition) INFLATIONARY: the descriptive narrative. the fiction. CONFLATIONARY: addition of inconstant relations for purposes of association(transfer) or suggestion (deception) FICTIONALISM: supernatural, ideal (especially platonism), pseudoscientific (especially marx, boaz, freud), pseudo-rational (Especially pretense of closure), pseudo historical (especially revisionist history whereupon present knowledge, luxury, and incentive, is attributed to past actors.) GRAMMAR: Rules of continuous disambiguation. SEMANTICS: sets of constant relations. PARADIGM: Networks of sets of constant relations. In other words we have developed deflationary, inflationary, conflationary, and fictionalist (fraudulent) grammars, wherein the possible operations(transformations, comparisons,) and therefore possible paradigms and semantics (constant relations) are increased or decreased in scope in order to test and falsify (deflate by disassociation) or communicate (inflate by association) or mislead (inflate, conflate, and fictionalise) for the purpose of self, and other, fraud, deception, pretense. In other words, anything that is not false or immoral/unethical(involuntary transfer) is a truth candidate, a preference candidate, and a ‘good’ candidate. This exercise is just codifying in scientific terms the 4000 year old empirical law of tort (reciprocity): do whatever you want but don’t display, speak, or perform a fraud no matter how you justify doing so. Ergo, via positiva philosophy is limited to the selection of personal preferences and contactual goods, but otherwise, as far as I know, the subject of truth is complete and now science (as it probably always should and could have been had the Stoics not be suppressed by the eastern empire.) The problem is, we have regulated action, we have regulated production (commerce and trade) we have regulated contract (Promise of performance) but we have not regulated speech, for the simple reason that it has been heretofore too difficult to limit speech to that which is warrantable. Ergo, if it isn’t warrantable, we can’t tell it’s not false or unethical/immoral directly or by externality.. No man wants laws to bound his ambitions for self delusion as to his social, sexual, economic, political, and military market value. No murderer, theft, or fraud wants constraints on his parasitism and predation. Likewise no social climber, virtue-signaller, priest, public intellectual, wants limits on his speech which constrains his ability to defraud himself and others in pursuit of attention, status, and virtue signals that might increase his perceived social, sexual, economic, political, and military value to others. But yet our uniquely aggressive rate of western evolution in all fields has been possible because of our incremental suppression of violence, theft, and fraud in concert with our rapid advancement in technology, economic, social, political, and military order. Fraud is fraud no matter what excuse we make for it. And while it is one thing to imagine fraud, it is another to speak, advocate, and publish it. 😉 -
—“Please Define Deflationary Grammar”—
—“PLEASE DEFINE DEFLATIONARY GRAMAR”— (also: See the various categories of Truth (including deflationary). Deflationary <-> Inflationary <-> Conflationary <-> Fictionalism DEFLATIONARY: identity(constant relations), Mathematics(positional relations), Logics(sets of relations), Algorithms (States and Transformation of states), Procedures/Recpies(states, transformation of states, by operations), Contracts(exchanges), Survival (from competition) INFLATIONARY: the descriptive narrative. the fiction. CONFLATIONARY: addition of inconstant relations for purposes of association(transfer) or suggestion (deception) FICTIONALISM: supernatural, ideal (especially platonism), pseudoscientific (especially marx, boaz, freud), pseudo-rational (Especially pretense of closure), pseudo historical (especially revisionist history whereupon present knowledge, luxury, and incentive, is attributed to past actors.) GRAMMAR: Rules of continuous disambiguation. SEMANTICS: sets of constant relations. PARADIGM: Networks of sets of constant relations. In other words we have developed deflationary, inflationary, conflationary, and fictionalist (fraudulent) grammars, wherein the possible operations(transformations, comparisons,) and therefore possible paradigms and semantics (constant relations) are increased or decreased in scope in order to test and falsify (deflate by disassociation) or communicate (inflate by association) or mislead (inflate, conflate, and fictionalise) for the purpose of self, and other, fraud, deception, pretense. In other words, anything that is not false or immoral/unethical(involuntary transfer) is a truth candidate, a preference candidate, and a ‘good’ candidate. This exercise is just codifying in scientific terms the 4000 year old empirical law of tort (reciprocity): do whatever you want but don’t display, speak, or perform a fraud no matter how you justify doing so. Ergo, via positiva philosophy is limited to the selection of personal preferences and contactual goods, but otherwise, as far as I know, the subject of truth is complete and now science (as it probably always should and could have been had the Stoics not be suppressed by the eastern empire.) The problem is, we have regulated action, we have regulated production (commerce and trade) we have regulated contract (Promise of performance) but we have not regulated speech, for the simple reason that it has been heretofore too difficult to limit speech to that which is warrantable. Ergo, if it isn’t warrantable, we can’t tell it’s not false or unethical/immoral directly or by externality.. No man wants laws to bound his ambitions for self delusion as to his social, sexual, economic, political, and military market value. No murderer, theft, or fraud wants constraints on his parasitism and predation. Likewise no social climber, virtue-signaller, priest, public intellectual, wants limits on his speech which constrains his ability to defraud himself and others in pursuit of attention, status, and virtue signals that might increase his perceived social, sexual, economic, political, and military value to others. But yet our uniquely aggressive rate of western evolution in all fields has been possible because of our incremental suppression of violence, theft, and fraud in concert with our rapid advancement in technology, economic, social, political, and military order. Fraud is fraud no matter what excuse we make for it. And while it is one thing to imagine fraud, it is another to speak, advocate, and publish it. 😉 -
No, it’s a question about the difference between theology and philosophy on one
No, it’s a question about the difference between theology and philosophy on one hand and science, cognitive science, natural law (reciprocity), economics on the other. In other words, between that which is free of fictionalism and that which is not. The question remains, we can learn from history, biography, science, economics, or we can learn from the narrative, archetypes and plots, or we can learn from religion, philosophy, and the occult. There is reason we identify ‘fictionalisms’ in each discipline (and I have worked on this subject for the past ten years), and that is because they are self referential rather than suffering and surviving the test of falsification by demonstration. As far as I know, assuming that we separate the study of grammar (continuous disambiguation), logic(formal disambiguation), semantics(constant relations), and paradigms (networks of constant relations), that it is very difficult to find a question asked in any philosophy that is not simply avoidance of science(the sciences), natural law (reciprocity), and economics(results of cooperation) for the purpose of avoiding the falsification of what which which values as either immoral, or deflating of status, and self confidence. As such philosophy is currently used for the purpose of self help, which is to provide pseudoscientific or pseudo rational justification of intuitions and priors so that individuals develop the courage to act or tolerate their status: social, sexual, economic, political, and military value. Or it is used to avoid the high cost of learning rationalism over religion, or science over rationalism. -
No, it’s a question about the difference between theology and philosophy on one
No, it’s a question about the difference between theology and philosophy on one hand and science, cognitive science, natural law (reciprocity), economics on the other. In other words, between that which is free of fictionalism and that which is not. The question remains, we can learn from history, biography, science, economics, or we can learn from the narrative, archetypes and plots, or we can learn from religion, philosophy, and the occult. There is reason we identify ‘fictionalisms’ in each discipline (and I have worked on this subject for the past ten years), and that is because they are self referential rather than suffering and surviving the test of falsification by demonstration. As far as I know, assuming that we separate the study of grammar (continuous disambiguation), logic(formal disambiguation), semantics(constant relations), and paradigms (networks of constant relations), that it is very difficult to find a question asked in any philosophy that is not simply avoidance of science(the sciences), natural law (reciprocity), and economics(results of cooperation) for the purpose of avoiding the falsification of what which which values as either immoral, or deflating of status, and self confidence. As such philosophy is currently used for the purpose of self help, which is to provide pseudoscientific or pseudo rational justification of intuitions and priors so that individuals develop the courage to act or tolerate their status: social, sexual, economic, political, and military value. Or it is used to avoid the high cost of learning rationalism over religion, or science over rationalism. -
¿A que nos referimos cuando decimos “ética de guetos”?
La ética del gueto rothbardiana es la ética de un gueto urbano medieval. No es más ni menos que eso Los residentes de un “estado dentro de un estado” pueden conducir intercambios como si fueran actores estatales al respaldarse y apalancarse sobre intercambios y transacciones de alta confianza intra-grupos, toda vez que usan intercambios y transacciones de baja confianza ex-grupo (fuera del grupo). Sin embargo, en cualquier estado, cada uno de nosotros no puede actuar como un “estado” al aplicar la baja confianza con unos y relaciones de alta confianza con otros porque el resultado neto es una sociedad de baja confianza con altísimos incentivos para robar para la gran mayoría. En tales ambientes, la demanda que hay para la existencia del estado y que este intervenga como ente que resuelva disputas entre miembros de la sociedad como sustituto permanece alta, ya que la baja confianza es el uso de la astucia y el engaño para obtener descuentos y primas en las que una de las partes involucradas en el intercambio/transacción no toleraría de forma voluntaria. Dicho de otra forma, la ética de la baja confianza es parasitaria, e impone altos costos de transacción sobre la población. A lo que voy con esto es lo absurdo de usar un modelo de un estado dentro de un estado para abogar por una sociedad en la que el estado no existe. En esa óptica, todo la tesis Rothbardiana es ridículamente ilógica. La aristocracia suprime todas las formas en las que se puede hacer trampa de modo tal que la demanda para la existencia del estado sea baja porque los costos de las transacciones y los conflictos que puedan surgir de estas son minimizados toda vez que la velocidad en la que la producción se da y el intercambio que ésta genera es alto.