Source: Twitter X

  • “Either way, complicating an argument willingly is still not good, isn’t it?”–

    –“Either way, complicating an argument willingly is still not good, isn’t it?”–

    The opposite is true. Since it’s falsification that determines the truth content of a set of claims, and that justification like conflation determines the deceptive content of a set of claims, we can only falsify the set of alternatives sufficiently to leave a claim standing, which requires a breadth of supporting arguments necessary to do so.

    Since all but a fraction of humans have difficulty with other than single cause sequences, and no one below a certain threshold is capable of even one logical reversal, it means that without those of greater konwledge and ability assisting others in a descending hierarchy combined with those in the ascending hierarchy supplying ‘problems’ then the vast majority of people are incapable of significant thought other than mere imitation of what tactical influences that percolate through the commentariat.

    In other words (a) if we cannot agree on existence (b) if we cannot agree on scarcity, (c) if we cannot agree on teh good because of in-time experience vs over-time consequence, (d) if we cannot agree on demonstrated human behavior as self interested and acquisitional (e) if we cannot agree on neoteny, genetic load, natural selection, and its necessity then (f) we cannot possibly agree on anything else because those are the premises upon which all subsequent argument are dependent.

    This is the importance of shared understanding – a system of weights and measures reflecting the group evolutionary strategy of the population in response to others and the environment and the laws of nature – then we cannot seek compromises and trades (cooperation) and we are doomed to authoritarianism, civil war, or separation.

    My suggestion is that we emphasize separation (“Let a thousand nations bloom”) since there is no need to agree or compromise except in proximity within a polity. And as such like europe, the USA is too large to share social and political ambitions, and there is no strategic or economic utility in doing so. LIkewise europe is discovering this now and it’s producing the end of the attempt of the french to create a “USA out of Europe” using incrementalism of the EU, the currency, and policy.

    My job, which I openly state, is to provide those with the ability to engage in questions of such moment with the tools to do so, such that they can provide answers to those less able but just as willing – and so that together they can suppress the industrialization of false promise and deceit that has marked the public discourse of post 1914 western civilization, and the attempt at reproducing soviet authority to produce feminine > abrahamic > marxist > postmodern > feminist > woke uniformity – despite that it’s universally suicidal.

    Affections
    CD

    Reply addressees: @_Itsmrfoxy_ @geekprofessor @LittleMammith


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 15:35:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843314296669007872

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843308920942829996

  • (BTW: “Fancy Talk”, “Word Salad”, “Too many words” (reminiscent of “too many not

    (BTW: “Fancy Talk”, “Word Salad”, “Too many words” (reminiscent of “too many notes” by Emperor Joseph II to Mozart) are simply admissions of your intellectual and moral limitation and nothing more. Either you can construct an argument or you can’t. Your substitution of disapproval and rejection for falsehood and argument is just feminine incompetency in systemization. It’s genetic and you probably cannot overcome it. But you can at least develop a self awareness of it.)

    Reply addressees: @geekprofessor @LittleMammith


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 15:07:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843307079982870528

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843300309927600413

  • Again: attempt at deception: The Feminine > Abrahamic > Marxist > Left > Postmod

    Again: attempt at deception:
    The Feminine > Abrahamic > Marxist > Left > Postmodern strategy of evasion of agreement on premises in order to debate the consistency and correspondence of arguments and their consequences.
    Like I said. Every word spoken by a leftist is most likely a lie – even if they only lie by instinct and indoctrination instead of attempt.

    Context. I never discussed the election in any post. But to directly answer your question if you mean did he lose the election the answer is yes – did he lose the vote – I do not know as I do not possess the knowledge with sufficient certainty to claim otherwise. Nor do you. I am not even sure I suspect one way or the other.

    But then I am an epistemologist that studies human ignorance error bias and deceit with an effort to reform the law to prevent its use. So my standard of measurement is not only far above yours but possibly inconceivable to you.

    Reply addressees: @geekprofessor @LittleMammith


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 15:03:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843306085005856768

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843303659108774097

  • RT @Lord__Sousa: @spiritofodin Correct, they systematised feminine warfare at sc

    RT @Lord__Sousa: @spiritofodin Correct, they systematised feminine warfare at scale and that is what @curtdoolittle calls industrialization…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 14:50:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843302904620536038

  • My job is to ‘learn’ how people engage in ignorance error bias and deceit so tha

    My job is to ‘learn’ how people engage in ignorance error bias and deceit so that we may produce a general science of proscription against pretense of knowledge and reason while claiming want’s are truths. In fact in almost all cases, the tendency of the left, progressive, feminine instinct consists of the evasion of responsibilty for self, private, and common, and the claim of oppression, while stating wants are truths and disapprovals are falsehoods.

    If you can understand that you might be worth conversation. But in fact, only a small percentage of the population is capable of self reflective thought to that degree of agency.

    I use, and our organization uses, social media as a research vehicle.

    Hence even in this case it’s rather easy for you to claim knowledge you do not possess by claiming the it matters what people intend when they debate, and instead what they and the audience learn from the darwinian process of it – thus your avoidance of the argument altogether, and avoidance of the demonstration of competency to hold any given position whatsoever – other than animal instinct to justify your least cost of acquisition of resources (preferences).

    I am, we are, the only organization that has ‘scienced’ lying whether by intent or instinct. And it’s necessary in the present age where the industrialization and institutionalization of lying have replaced the mass production of testimonial truth consistent with demonstrated evidence of human behavior.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @geekprofessor @LittleMammith


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 14:50:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843302795950055424

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843300309927600413

  • You are quite clearly neither mature (self regulatory) nor intellectually capabl

    You are quite clearly neither mature (self regulatory) nor intellectually capable enough for this conversation. Good luck.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 13:06:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843276715659018309

    Reply addressees: @matherspolitico @NotKLM @Will63541 @KaleWontSaveYou @LittleMammith

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843251119226789993

  • The point of debating those of bad faith is exposing their bad faith

    The point of debating those of bad faith is exposing their bad faith.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 12:56:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843274193586299260

    Reply addressees: @GamerBrocialist @LittleMammith

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843269852959855033

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @matherspolitico @NotKLM @Will63541 @KaleWontSaveYou @LittleM

    RT @curtdoolittle: @matherspolitico @NotKLM @Will63541 @KaleWontSaveYou @LittleMammith 1. To the OP I have explained the “epistemic” (scien…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 08:50:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843212366072443296

  • 1. To the OP I have explained the “epistemic” (science of) feminine left consumi

    1. To the OP I have explained the “epistemic” (science of) feminine left consuming in-time, masculine right capitalizing over time;

    2. –“Okay but what makes your “theory” more factual than this persons”–
    I answered your use of postmodern sophistry of relativism by stating a fact requires a theory – a hierarchy of theories.
    I provided the foundations of the theory of political differences as largely genetic, or like religion, by indoctrination.
    I suspect the depth of those two statements might be non obvious to you and require explanation.

    3. –“… use ad homin attacks and appeal to intellect …”–
    Because you begin with false premises of wants and your opposition begins with the masculine premise of demonstrated behavior, both of you think the other is lacking in intelligence, while you think them oppressive and they think you thieves (parasites). (BTW: no criticism, but it’s ad hominem, oft shortened to ad hom.)

    In summary its easy to call one another stupid when ones premises about the universe and mankind are polar opposites.

    However conservatives are demonstrably correct in human behavior, the four sets of laws of the universe, economics, and Law. Progressives are only correct about ambitions and feelings. Why? masculine systematizing over time vs feminine empathizing in time.

    ie: genetics.

    Reply addressees: @matherspolitico @NotKLM @Will63541 @KaleWontSaveYou @LittleMammith


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 08:50:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843212168285548545

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843205340352938170

  • Non argument. Your evasion of it

    Non argument. Your evasion of it: https://t.co/BKSCQlQOi5


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 08:28:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843206705469075473

    Reply addressees: @SavvySpark @russianbotulism @LittleMammith

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843119589544345991