Most of the time, I am either trying to get you to think, or trying to get you to help me to think. It’s not complicated. It’s kinda fun actually. 😉
Source: Original Site Post
-
Target Shooting False Confidence
When shooting (pistol) a moving target, if it’s moving perpendicular to you, and at less than 12′ per second, and it’s wider than the depth of the human torso, then it’s nonsense. If your target is dashing at 12′ per second, is 12″ wide, and at a 15-30 degree angle, that’s realistic. if your target is falling and then crawling at 2′ per second and is torso shaped, then that’s realistic. If your target is shooting BACK at you while moving 6′ or less per second, then that’s realistic. If your target is behind concealment, at a distance, and firing at you every two or thee seconds, and you are scrambling for cover, while trying to find him, that’s realistic. If you think there is any cover indoors you’re wrong. There is only concealment indoors. For all intents and purposes, for modern arms, furniture and walls are little more than crepe paper. Be small, get a shot off, aim a shot, and land that shot. Otherwise be small, and shoot through whatever is in your way. I mean. I know most of this shooty stuff is entertainment, but lets not get overconfident here. It’s hard to shoot people in close quarters. And it’s easy to be shot in the open. The modern US military and teaches combined arms. At present no one on earth is anywhere close to americans in combined arms. (Even if only at present.) But in dirty revolutionary wars, we are talking largely about impeding, destroying, robbing, kidnapping, fire, gasoline, small arms, small numbers, sniping, urban and suburban settings, and utter chaos. And in that case, night, lots of friends, and lots of ammo, lots of fire, lots of smoke, and lots of planned exit routes. -
Target Shooting False Confidence
When shooting (pistol) a moving target, if it’s moving perpendicular to you, and at less than 12′ per second, and it’s wider than the depth of the human torso, then it’s nonsense. If your target is dashing at 12′ per second, is 12″ wide, and at a 15-30 degree angle, that’s realistic. if your target is falling and then crawling at 2′ per second and is torso shaped, then that’s realistic. If your target is shooting BACK at you while moving 6′ or less per second, then that’s realistic. If your target is behind concealment, at a distance, and firing at you every two or thee seconds, and you are scrambling for cover, while trying to find him, that’s realistic. If you think there is any cover indoors you’re wrong. There is only concealment indoors. For all intents and purposes, for modern arms, furniture and walls are little more than crepe paper. Be small, get a shot off, aim a shot, and land that shot. Otherwise be small, and shoot through whatever is in your way. I mean. I know most of this shooty stuff is entertainment, but lets not get overconfident here. It’s hard to shoot people in close quarters. And it’s easy to be shot in the open. The modern US military and teaches combined arms. At present no one on earth is anywhere close to americans in combined arms. (Even if only at present.) But in dirty revolutionary wars, we are talking largely about impeding, destroying, robbing, kidnapping, fire, gasoline, small arms, small numbers, sniping, urban and suburban settings, and utter chaos. And in that case, night, lots of friends, and lots of ammo, lots of fire, lots of smoke, and lots of planned exit routes. -
Marriage Is A Fairly Simple Contract
Marriage is replaceable by: (a) formation of a partnership or llc, where the partnership agreement lays out all terms of construction and dissolution. (b) grant of full reciprocal power of attorney. Either make a contract, or assume the contract the state has made for you. And then fight to ensure that the state enforces your explicit contract rather than the normative one. -
Marriage Is A Fairly Simple Contract
Marriage is replaceable by: (a) formation of a partnership or llc, where the partnership agreement lays out all terms of construction and dissolution. (b) grant of full reciprocal power of attorney. Either make a contract, or assume the contract the state has made for you. And then fight to ensure that the state enforces your explicit contract rather than the normative one. -
SAYING “SCIENTIFIC PROOF” OF A POSITIVE JUST MEANS YOUR STUPID. –“Scientific Pr
SAYING “SCIENTIFIC PROOF” OF A POSITIVE JUST MEANS YOUR STUPID. –“Scientific Proof Is A Myth. We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That’s an impossibility for science.”— This is the dumbest bit of idiocy I’ve heard in quite some time. Priests, Philosophers, and lawyers, create JUSTIFICATIONS of compliance with scripture, text, moral pretense, or law. Mathematicians construct PROOFS of the possibility of deducibility using the preservation of constant relations, by the preservation of ratios. Scientists accumulates FALSIFICATIONS. Science doesn’t construct proofs or justifications. It accumulates produces, and provides alternative opportunities for investigation. All non trivial knowledge is contingent. Science collects evidence that tells us what is not true. The purpose of science is to end ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, by the continuous reduction through falsification. Conversely, the purpose of justification is to make excuses for priors. One justifies as one makes excuses for one’s actions. One constructs proofs as a merchant weights goods on a scale. One falsifies as a sculpture chisels away stone. We never know what is true. We just know what is false, or what cannot be claimed to be true. Excuses may be valid but they are only true if they survive all attempts at falsification by deflation (decomposition into constant relations) and measurement (science) Philosophy is more often a vehicle for lying than for truth. Science produces falsehoods and possibilities, but never claims truth except by survival. -
SAYING “SCIENTIFIC PROOF” OF A POSITIVE JUST MEANS YOUR STUPID. –“Scientific Pr
SAYING “SCIENTIFIC PROOF” OF A POSITIVE JUST MEANS YOUR STUPID. –“Scientific Proof Is A Myth. We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That’s an impossibility for science.”— This is the dumbest bit of idiocy I’ve heard in quite some time. Priests, Philosophers, and lawyers, create JUSTIFICATIONS of compliance with scripture, text, moral pretense, or law. Mathematicians construct PROOFS of the possibility of deducibility using the preservation of constant relations, by the preservation of ratios. Scientists accumulates FALSIFICATIONS. Science doesn’t construct proofs or justifications. It accumulates produces, and provides alternative opportunities for investigation. All non trivial knowledge is contingent. Science collects evidence that tells us what is not true. The purpose of science is to end ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, by the continuous reduction through falsification. Conversely, the purpose of justification is to make excuses for priors. One justifies as one makes excuses for one’s actions. One constructs proofs as a merchant weights goods on a scale. One falsifies as a sculpture chisels away stone. We never know what is true. We just know what is false, or what cannot be claimed to be true. Excuses may be valid but they are only true if they survive all attempts at falsification by deflation (decomposition into constant relations) and measurement (science) Philosophy is more often a vehicle for lying than for truth. Science produces falsehoods and possibilities, but never claims truth except by survival. -
Decidability For Newbs
“Decidability in logic or mathematics means that the information to distinguish between 3 and 4 for example, requires no additional information for comparison. Whereas choice and preference require information external to the argument. I use ‘decidability’ and ‘truth’ very precisely. -
Decidability For Newbs
“Decidability in logic or mathematics means that the information to distinguish between 3 and 4 for example, requires no additional information for comparison. Whereas choice and preference require information external to the argument. I use ‘decidability’ and ‘truth’ very precisely. -
Advice For Young Men (And Women)
TLDR: “Never marry if there is any chance of divorce. You are not special. Either you are socially, emotionally, morally, familially, economically, , compatible or you are not.” Someone asked me for advice on finding a successful relationship that will endure. In propertarian tradition, here is the via negativa advice I would give. Hopefully I’ll add to this list over the coming weeks. This is the evidence of how people act over time. LIST: 1) Men are more sentimental than women. That’s the data. Sorry. 2) For women, men are disposable resources. Children are permanent assets. For men, women and her brood are our asset – until we have adult sons. We and our sons are our resources. 3) We emotionally, intellectually, and physically mature at different rates, and some men peak later than others. This tends to correspond fairly obviously to your body type. Some men peak at 17, some at 25, some at 35, and some at 45. It is easier to peak early, but much better to peak later. 4) Most men are insufficiently adult and independent in their 20’s – too dependent upon women for social circles, and too dependent upon women for entertainment, and too dependent upon them for emotional input. This is to women, the same as a spendthrift woman is to a man. It means you aren’t ready for a mate. 5) – As I understand the data, men of the past two if not three generation are infantilized and this is delaying their maturity significantly – at a time when their marketability is declining due to female economic utility. 6) You do not ‘find’ women directly, but as a byproduct of achievement in physical, social, business, craft, or monetary performance. Build a network of friends, a career, assets, and an inventory of experiences. In other words, accumulate skills and responsibilities on the one hand, or social circles on the other, or assets otherwise. There is no substitute for demonstrated success *no matter how small*. Men are very simple, and have much more agency, but that simplicity is confusing for women. Friends, assets, achievements, and physical fitness are evidence for her to work with. Being fit doesn’t hurt either. Women have a higher sexual market value, but have less control over altering their market value. Men have lower sexual market value but have nearly endless control over altering that value. 7) Women who sense eagerness are put off by (a) you are not a scarcity if you are eager and therefore not valuable, and (b) it is harder to ‘see and feel you’. You are always better off being physical, being interesting, providing, expanding the circle of friends, and most importantly funny. Anticipating her wants and needs and demonstrating it now and then generally wins most points. (this is the hardest for us to do. I focus on satisfying her long term wants, and letting her tell me her short term wants.) The same is true for women as well. A woman who puts out too soon or hang’s-on repels the desirable man. The best female strategy is to use biomimicry + proximity. Act like a flower and place yourself in proximity to desired male target so he may “discover”, “find” or “hunt” you. 8) Men must provide limits. There must be things you will not do. This keeps you from failing the sh-t test. Tell her you can and can’t do things, that the two of you will succeed or fail at doing things. Never tell her that her wants are false – she lacks the agency to do anything about them. Women have no agency. We provide agency. That’s what it means to ‘be a man’. We provide agency beyond the Nest. 9) Increase in Male and Female choices increase the viability of a long term marriage. Choices are the result of genetics, upbringing, wealth, education, and social, political, and economic circumstances. Such marriages have fewer opportunities for ‘defecting up’ and fewer stress incentives to do so. Conversely, lack of choices decrease the viability of a long term marriage because of stresses, stresses of compromise because of stresses, and opportunity for defection to relieve those stresses, or obtain better opportunities. 10) NEVER MARRY EARLY OUT OF FEAR OF SINGLENESS, EMOTIONAL, SEXUAL OR FINANCIAL CONVENIENCE. Women under 35 are by and large insane unless they have had brothers, very strong and capable fathers, or three or more children. Marrying early accumulates debt and a divorce wastes a decade, or about 1/3 of your lifetime ‘easy’ performance. Ditch her. Move in with other men who are ambitious. Save money. And trade up to a better less crazy woman when you are ready. Otherwise she will marry you, bear one or more children, ditch you for an upgrade because her children take all her attention and you were just a means of demonstrating to her friends and self that she is marketable, and not left behind, and she will make the next 20 years impossible for you financially, and you will be poor in old age because of her. 11 – MARRIAGE IS A FAIRLY SIMPLE CONTRACT – Marriage isn’t complicated legally – especially under natural law – it’s replaceable by: … (a) formation of a partnership or llc, where the partnership agreement lays out all terms of construction and dissolution. … (b) grant of full reciprocal power of attorney. Marriage is in fact a partnership agreement with normal exit conditions. Either make a contract, or assume the contract the state has made for you. And then fight to ensure that the state enforces your explicit contract rather than the normative one. 12) I suppose I didn’t address the ‘fit’ side of the argument and I probably should do that. However, anyone asking me for advice is probably on the IQ/Openness, and Accommodating side of the bias spectrum. 13) I suppose I didn’t address the “we no longer marry for economic demands but for friend and entertainment demands”. Of emotional fulfillment, access to sex and reproduction, economic value, and old age security, the data says that marriage tends to be one of friendship, sex, and economic cost sharing. The rest of the previous dependencies are gone. (this is far more true in the states than in europe. Europe is still more provincial than the states in familial relations.) 14) I don’t think people have any values different from those that I’m stating here. I think they are just unable to introspectively address and articulate them. 15) Any man asking someone like me for advice is going to be advanced in intellectual maturity (the benefit of delayed emotional maturity). And my advice is fairly constant: to catch a mouse make a noise like cheese – and deliver on the promise. Be a man. Man first, lover second, friend third, and an emotional asset not an emotional burden. The problem is, that some of us are not emotionally ready to be men until we have achieved emotional maturity, and asset maturity, to match our early intellectual maturity. –Edit: Added the following– Propertarianism has taught me that the more synthetic the mind the less introspection is available, and the more intuition is relied upon. In other words, I have never found a case where I cannot reduce the couple’s attraction into propertarian terms. There is much more than I can write on this subject, but I am not trying to via-positiva tell what to do (which is infinitely variable) but via-positiva tell what NOT to do, which is rather consistent. If I wanted to be a popular author I would write about relationships, marriage, sex, business, fashion and art in propertarian langauge. Because that’s what’s most interesting to people. Unfortunately I write about truth, law, institutions, and group evolutionary strategy, which, while very interesting to me, is not so interesting to other people. 😉