RE: (from previous post) “One does not argue from preferences, beliefs or principles but from truth or falsehood, possibility or impossibility, gain or loss, volition or non-volition, reciprocity or non-reciprocity.”
—“Are my questions or experience less important because your education level and living standards are better than mine? Does that make me a lesser person because or is my ignorance irrelevant and therefore my principles irrelevant.”– A Friend.
I don’t make theological, ideal, or pseudo moral arguments, and that is what you have (unintentionally) done.
So… γ
Let me translate your “question” into propertarian language: “I have endeavored to be an ethical and moral man, and therefore born a cost on behalf of the polity, the civilization, and mankind, and therefore I feel reciprocity is due me; and that you owe me a debt and should bear the cost of answering my questions and educating me; and that my concerns should influence other’s actions; and do so despite the fact that I demand my level of knowledge and compliance serve as a means of decidability, rather than some objective measure that is not so dependent upon my levels of knowledge and ability.”
Well, in the family that argument works, and in a small organization that might work, but in a polity and across polities there are no such obligations, and questionable value to them.
What I said was that one’s self is a measure of nothing true – only one’s ability, ignorance and knowledge. And that arguments to principle, belief, and preference tell us nothing other than “i want…” or “i demand…. in exchange for my cooperation”.
And so that instead we ask FIRST whether questions consist of truth or falsehood, possibility or impossibility, gain or loss, volition or non-volition(rational), reciprocity or non-reciprocity(moral). AND THEN determine if they are preferable AFTERWARD. And we search for true, possible, gainful, volitional, and moral answers until we find one that suits one’s preferences – or determine doing so is impossible.
And in this search for a true, possible, gainful, volitional, and moral solution, one learns how to discourse truthfully, possibly, gainfully, volitionally, and morally.
I would say, that in defense of reciprocity, that if you will discourse honestly with me, then as long as I am not harmed or otherwise deprived of another opportunity more rewarding, then it is not a loss to cooperate with you for your benefit, and perhaps mine – and perhaps the net result might be some (very) minor civic good.
And so, given that my present choice is to bang my head on the virtual wall of my current tome in order to determine how to demonstrate that all grammars function as instruments of measurement, I choose to discourse with you, rather than bank my head on the virtual wall – in the hope that it will do some civic (and moral) good.
π
Theme: Agency
-
THE DEAD DON’T FEEL If emotional experiences are a problem – an impediment to ex
THE DEAD DON’T FEEL
If emotional experiences are a problem – an impediment to excellence, competition, transcendence, – then it is an easy problem to solve: the dead don’t feel, now do they? π
( Emotions are not a test of anything. )
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-14 15:34:00 UTC
-
The Dead Don’t Feel
If emotional experiences are a problem – an impediment to excellence, competition, transcendence, – then it is an easy problem to solve: the dead don’t feel, now do they? π ( Emotions are not a test of anything. ) -
The Dead Don’t Feel
If emotional experiences are a problem – an impediment to excellence, competition, transcendence, – then it is an easy problem to solve: the dead don’t feel, now do they? π ( Emotions are not a test of anything. ) -
TRUTH: OUR MINDFULNESS —“Pushing the truth agenda discards the social one – ev
TRUTH: OUR MINDFULNESS
—“Pushing the truth agenda discards the social one – even if it means the social isolation of the source of that truth: the truth-speaker. For the autistic male, this is no dilemma. We keep the crazies outside, sanity and peace inside.”— William L. Benge
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-14 09:26:00 UTC
-
Truth: Our Mindfulness
—“Pushing the truth agenda discards the social one – even if it means the social isolation of the source of that truth: the truth-speaker. For the autistic male, this is no dilemma. We keep the crazies outside, sanity and peace inside.”— William L. Benge -
Truth: Our Mindfulness
—“Pushing the truth agenda discards the social one – even if it means the social isolation of the source of that truth: the truth-speaker. For the autistic male, this is no dilemma. We keep the crazies outside, sanity and peace inside.”— William L. Benge -
ABORTION Abortion, like all violence, is neither intrinsically good nor intrinsi
ABORTION
Abortion, like all violence, is neither intrinsically good nor intrinsically bad, but helpful or harmful.
It is helpful or harmful to the individuals, or helpful or harmful to the polity, or helpful or harmful to mankind.
In other words, abortion in the upper 20% is harmful to society and to man, and abortion in the lower 50% is beneficial to society and to man, and for everyone else it’s merely helpful or harmful to the individual.
Likewise reproduction in the lower 50% is harmful to individuals, to society, and to man. Reproduction in the upper 20% is helpful to society and to man. And for everyone else, reproduction is merely helpful or harmful to the individual.
Really. It’s that’s simple. That’s the answer, and there is no other answer that I know of. It’s not only simple it’s patently obvious. The only reason it’s an even vaguely interesting question is the strange cognitive bias that the question applies equally to all, rather than differently to each.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-13 15:12:00 UTC
-
Abortion
Abortion, like all violence, is neither intrinsically good nor intrinsically bad, but helpful or harmful. It is helpful or harmful to the individuals, or helpful or harmful to the polity, or helpful or harmful to mankind. In other words, abortion in the upper 20% is harmful to society and to man, and abortion in the lower 50% is beneficial to society and to man, and for everyone else it’s merely helpful or harmful to the individual. Likewise reproduction in the lower 50% is harmful to individuals, to society, and to man. Reproduction in the upper 20% is helpful to society and to man. And for everyone else, reproduction is merely helpful or harmful to the individual. Really. It’s that’s simple. That’s the answer, and there is no other answer that I know of. It’s not only simple it’s patently obvious. The only reason it’s an even vaguely interesting question is the strange cognitive bias that the question applies equally to all, rather than differently to each. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
What Are The Hard Truths That People Don’t Like To Admit About Themselves?
- 80% of people are in the bottom 80% of people.
- <20% of people organize the bottom 80%.
- <1% of people organize the remaining top 20%.
- <.1% of people are βimportantβ to organizing the top 1%.
- People are not intrinsically valuable, because labor is not intrinsically valuable.
- We are compensated by others for our ability to use incentives to organize increasing numbers people.
- About 1/3 of people at the bottom are a dead weight on the remaining 2/3 of people.
- In other words, with rare exceptions, you are important only to the degree you do not harm or interfere with the 20% of people that matter.
- the people that matter most are those that prevent everyone from impeding, acting parasitically upon, or preying upon, others: the sheriffs the judges – without whom the competition between parasitism and cooperation balances in favor of corruption.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-hard-truths-that-people-dont-like-to-admit-about-themselves