Source: Original Site Post

  • “My goal of course is to expand the law so that false promise of freedom from ph

    “My goal of course is to expand the law so that false promise of freedom from physical, natural and evolutionary law, by baiting people into hazard is as illegal in political fraud as the same strategy is in commercial fraud.” – CD

  • Key Posts on The Abortion Issue

    Key Posts on The Abortion Issue https://t.co/PmCbVaKQIP

  • Key Posts on The Abortion Issue

    Abortion like religion is one of the few hard problems in the law. Net: Yes abortion is a killing, yes it is intentional so it is murder. We murder people all the time for a variety of reasons. Women have murdered more children than men have one another. In these matters of conflict we measure costs. At present the decision is made by costs. This is not my opinion or preference it is a statement of fact. Abortion then is a political (local) not judicial issue (universal). Here are posts in reverse order. Closure on Abortion https://propertarianinstitute.com/2020/05/28/closure-on-the-abortion-discussion/ More Closure On Abortion. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2020/05/24/more-closure-on-the-abortion-discussion/ https://propertarianinstitute.com/2020/05/28/103358/ https://propertarianinstitute.com/2020/05/24/101131/ One Immoral Trade for the other. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2019/09/17/abortion-ok-one-immoral-trade-for-another/ Abortion (simple) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/09/13/abortion/ Ireland. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2018/05/15/curt-on-irelands-referendum-your-position-on-abortion/ Most controversial issue https://propertarianinstitute.com/2019/03/28/curt-doolittle-updated-his-status-238/ Eugenics https://propertarianinstitute.com/2019/11/02/eugenics-in-p-law/

  • Key Posts on The Abortion Issue

    Abortion like religion is one of the few hard problems in the law. Net: Yes abortion is a killing, yes it is intentional so it is murder. We murder people all the time for a variety of reasons. Women have murdered more children than men have one another. In these matters of conflict we measure costs. At present the decision is made by costs. This is not my opinion or preference it is a statement of fact. Abortion then is a political (local) not judicial issue (universal). Here are posts in reverse order. Closure on Abortion https://propertarianinstitute.com/2020/05/28/closure-on-the-abortion-discussion/ More Closure On Abortion. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2020/05/24/more-closure-on-the-abortion-discussion/ https://propertarianinstitute.com/2020/05/28/103358/ https://propertarianinstitute.com/2020/05/24/101131/ One Immoral Trade for the other. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2019/09/17/abortion-ok-one-immoral-trade-for-another/ Abortion (simple) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2017/09/13/abortion/ Ireland. https://propertarianinstitute.com/2018/05/15/curt-on-irelands-referendum-your-position-on-abortion/ Most controversial issue https://propertarianinstitute.com/2019/03/28/curt-doolittle-updated-his-status-238/ Eugenics https://propertarianinstitute.com/2019/11/02/eugenics-in-p-law/

  • A scientist testifies

    A scientist testifies https://t.co/MQWJlbI2tq

  • A scientist testifies

    A scientist testifies A philosopher opines A theologian recites Testimony: The secret of western civilization. === Andrew M Gilmour So what are the prerequisites for honest/truthful testimony? Ontic: Realism (Domain, Category, property/quality, Genea) Epistemic: Empirical (external verification) Logical: correspondent (comparison, relational) Grammatical: Etymologically consistent Rhetorical: Honesty (witnessing, due diligence) I think i’m getting closer. === Andrew ; you’re getting stuck because you’re trying to map law (realism, action ) to philosophy (idealism, words) and philosophy is insufficient for the task. TRY THIS: Metaphysics: Premises (Action, Actionability) … Ontology: realism/naturalism, soft determinism, three faculties: physical, intuition, and reason, and mind as motion (no name for it in philosophical terms: experience consists of continuous recursive hierarchical temporal memory – memory of memory continuously constructed by continuous prediction from sequences of sense perception.) the problem is getting people from the observer to perception consisting of change (action) not state. Grammars: Communication, Speech: (Actions) … Meaning, … Stories, Explanation, Justification, … [List: Deflationary, Descriptive, Inflationary Grammars] Epistemology: Adversarialism (Actions) … Falsification, Due Dilligence … Three phases, … … 1 – discovery, … … 2 – due diligence, … … 3 – testimony: … 1. Epistemology – Discovery process): … Free association > Test ( Reason) > NextOrFail … … Hypothesis > Test (Calculation) > NextOrFail … … … Theory > Test (Action) > NextOrFail … … … … Theory > Test (Market) > NextOrFail … … … … … Law > Fail … 2. Epistemology – Due Diligence process) … Adversarial Survival by tests of … … Complete Sentences … … In promissory form … … In operational vocabulary (as actions) … … absent the verb to-be (is, are, was, were…) … … including all changes in state … … including all consequences of change in state … … from an observer’s point of view … … producing a series of testable transactions. … Where the Criteria for Truthful Speech Is: … Coherence Across the Dimensions Testifiable by Man, … in The Series: … … Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary, Differences) … … Internally Consistent (Logical) … … Externally Correspondent (Empirical) … … Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable) … … Rational Choice (Consisting of Rational choice, in available time frame) … … Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice) … With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry picking and inflation) … Warrantied … … (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions; … … (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility; … … (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for. As a Defense Against the Series: … Ignorance and Willful Ignorance; … Error and failure of Due Diligence; … Bias and Wishful Thinking; … And the many Deceits of: … … (a) Loading and Framing; … … (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading and Propaganda; … … (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism; … … (d) and outright Fabrications (fictions). … In Defense or Advocacy Of: … Any transfer that is not reciprocal, the tests of: … … (a) productive … … (b) fully informed, fully accounted … … (c) warrantied and within the limits of liability … … (d) voluntary … … (e) free of externality of the same criteria … Including but Not Limited To … The Series of: … … (a) murder, … … (b) harm, damage, theft, … … (c) fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection,baiting into hazard … … (d) free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, … … (e) rent seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism, … … (f) conversion(religion/pseudoscience), … … (g) displacement(immigration/overbreeding), … … (h) conquest (war). … 3. Epistemology – Testimony process. … … Adversarial competition between Search and Test. … … Search Criteria … … … Narrative … … Test Criteria … … … Operationalism: Actions … … … … Testimony in operational terms (one continuous consistent commensurable system of falsifiable measurement, consisting of a fully accounting, of a series of transactions (stories) of changes in state.)

  • A scientist testifies

    A scientist testifies A philosopher opines A theologian recites Testimony: The secret of western civilization. === Andrew M Gilmour So what are the prerequisites for honest/truthful testimony? Ontic: Realism (Domain, Category, property/quality, Genea) Epistemic: Empirical (external verification) Logical: correspondent (comparison, relational) Grammatical: Etymologically consistent Rhetorical: Honesty (witnessing, due diligence) I think i’m getting closer. === Andrew ; you’re getting stuck because you’re trying to map law (realism, action ) to philosophy (idealism, words) and philosophy is insufficient for the task. TRY THIS: Metaphysics: Premises (Action, Actionability) … Ontology: realism/naturalism, soft determinism, three faculties: physical, intuition, and reason, and mind as motion (no name for it in philosophical terms: experience consists of continuous recursive hierarchical temporal memory – memory of memory continuously constructed by continuous prediction from sequences of sense perception.) the problem is getting people from the observer to perception consisting of change (action) not state. Grammars: Communication, Speech: (Actions) … Meaning, … Stories, Explanation, Justification, … [List: Deflationary, Descriptive, Inflationary Grammars] Epistemology: Adversarialism (Actions) … Falsification, Due Dilligence … Three phases, … … 1 – discovery, … … 2 – due diligence, … … 3 – testimony: … 1. Epistemology – Discovery process): … Free association > Test ( Reason) > NextOrFail … … Hypothesis > Test (Calculation) > NextOrFail … … … Theory > Test (Action) > NextOrFail … … … … Theory > Test (Market) > NextOrFail … … … … … Law > Fail … 2. Epistemology – Due Diligence process) … Adversarial Survival by tests of … … Complete Sentences … … In promissory form … … In operational vocabulary (as actions) … … absent the verb to-be (is, are, was, were…) … … including all changes in state … … including all consequences of change in state … … from an observer’s point of view … … producing a series of testable transactions. … Where the Criteria for Truthful Speech Is: … Coherence Across the Dimensions Testifiable by Man, … in The Series: … … Categorically Consistent (Non-conflationary, Differences) … … Internally Consistent (Logical) … … Externally Correspondent (Empirical) … … Operationally Consistent (Consisting of Operational Terms that are Repeatable and Testable) … … Rational Choice (Consisting of Rational choice, in available time frame) … … Reciprocal (Consisting of Reciprocally Rational Choice) … With Stated Limits and Fully Accounted (Defense against cherry picking and inflation) … Warrantied … … (i)as having performed due diligence in the above dimensions; … … (ii)where due diligence is sufficient to satisfy the demand for infallibility; … … (iii)and where one entertains no risk that one cannot perform restitution for. As a Defense Against the Series: … Ignorance and Willful Ignorance; … Error and failure of Due Diligence; … Bias and Wishful Thinking; … And the many Deceits of: … … (a) Loading and Framing; … … (b) Suggestion, Obscurantism, and Overloading and Propaganda; … … (c) Fictionalisms of Sophisms, Pseudorationalisms, Pseudoscience, and Supernaturalism; … … (d) and outright Fabrications (fictions). … In Defense or Advocacy Of: … Any transfer that is not reciprocal, the tests of: … … (a) productive … … (b) fully informed, fully accounted … … (c) warrantied and within the limits of liability … … (d) voluntary … … (e) free of externality of the same criteria … Including but Not Limited To … The Series of: … … (a) murder, … … (b) harm, damage, theft, … … (c) fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection,baiting into hazard … … (d) free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, … … (e) rent seeking, monopoly seeking, conspiracy, statism/corporatism, … … (f) conversion(religion/pseudoscience), … … (g) displacement(immigration/overbreeding), … … (h) conquest (war). … 3. Epistemology – Testimony process. … … Adversarial competition between Search and Test. … … Search Criteria … … … Narrative … … Test Criteria … … … Operationalism: Actions … … … … Testimony in operational terms (one continuous consistent commensurable system of falsifiable measurement, consisting of a fully accounting, of a series of transactions (stories) of changes in state.)

  • –“Q: Curt, Is There a Secret to Running King of The Hill Games?”–

    –“Q: Curt, Is There a Secret to Running King of The Hill Games?”– https://t.co/zJ92IdhPx5

  • –“Q: Curt, Is There a Secret to Running King of The Hill Games?”–

    Well, first, the reason you do it is (a) it’s participatory, (b) it attracts interest, (c) people will respond with what they really intuit, believe, feel. (d) so you (my case) get to do research on the different positions people hold. people can’t report truthfully. it’s impossible. They can’t NOT defend their moral and cognitive biases. This is why the technique works for research. It’s very hard to lie (mislead) in KOTH games. It’s your genes talking. Second, You’re trying to start a fight. There is a sort of art to it. You have to frame it so that it could be interpreted either way, and it’s going to antagonize the audience no matter what position they hold. After that you try to just ask questions that keep the fight going. In other words, you have to pick a position (flag) that someone wants to defend. So, you’re setting up game. A sport. A competition. In this way you teach the audience by the the audience teaching each other without you really doing much ‘teaching’ at all. The hard part is trying to make sure the audience isn’t sure of which position you hold, so that they argue the idea or each other and not you. I use all three methods: neutral question, positive position, opposite position. And I try to frame the ‘game’ (question) differently each time. Even though I only use like two or three dozen themes. I think of it like running plays in football, running scenarios in paintball, running skirmishes in military training, running mock trials in court, or debating scenarios in MBA courses. Players learn. The Spectators Learn. It’s Adversarialism. How men need and want to learn. Cheers

  • –“Q: Curt, Is There a Secret to Running King of The Hill Games?”–

    Well, first, the reason you do it is (a) it’s participatory, (b) it attracts interest, (c) people will respond with what they really intuit, believe, feel. (d) so you (my case) get to do research on the different positions people hold. people can’t report truthfully. it’s impossible. They can’t NOT defend their moral and cognitive biases. This is why the technique works for research. It’s very hard to lie (mislead) in KOTH games. It’s your genes talking. Second, You’re trying to start a fight. There is a sort of art to it. You have to frame it so that it could be interpreted either way, and it’s going to antagonize the audience no matter what position they hold. After that you try to just ask questions that keep the fight going. In other words, you have to pick a position (flag) that someone wants to defend. So, you’re setting up game. A sport. A competition. In this way you teach the audience by the the audience teaching each other without you really doing much ‘teaching’ at all. The hard part is trying to make sure the audience isn’t sure of which position you hold, so that they argue the idea or each other and not you. I use all three methods: neutral question, positive position, opposite position. And I try to frame the ‘game’ (question) differently each time. Even though I only use like two or three dozen themes. I think of it like running plays in football, running scenarios in paintball, running skirmishes in military training, running mock trials in court, or debating scenarios in MBA courses. Players learn. The Spectators Learn. It’s Adversarialism. How men need and want to learn. Cheers