Source date (UTC): 2018-06-17 18:49:00 UTC
Theme: Deception
-
The Number of Worthless Opinions Has No Bearing
I mean, I don’t put much weight behind the opinions of riders of the intellectual short bus. Opinions don’t matter. Arguments do. And in argument, moralistic, rationalistic, and pseudoscientific don’t matter. Either a critic can make a testimonial (ratio-operational-scientific) argument or one can’t. Most likely a critic can’t make even a trivial one. That’s before we even get to whether he can make one that’s meaningful. We are creatures of habits, and our arguments consist largely of a string of habits. And our impression or pretense of understanding is a false reward to keep us thinking and acting under an illusion of competence despite the evidence to the contrary. There are many dehmanizing truths in intellectual history and the degree to which few humans possess material (marginally different) agency is terrifyingly small. We are well trained apes and while sentience and consciousness exist in almost all of us, agency is still a rarity.
-
The Number of Worthless Opinions Has No Bearing
I mean, I don’t put much weight behind the opinions of riders of the intellectual short bus. Opinions don’t matter. Arguments do. And in argument, moralistic, rationalistic, and pseudoscientific don’t matter. Either a critic can make a testimonial (ratio-operational-scientific) argument or one can’t. Most likely a critic can’t make even a trivial one. That’s before we even get to whether he can make one that’s meaningful. We are creatures of habits, and our arguments consist largely of a string of habits. And our impression or pretense of understanding is a false reward to keep us thinking and acting under an illusion of competence despite the evidence to the contrary. There are many dehmanizing truths in intellectual history and the degree to which few humans possess material (marginally different) agency is terrifyingly small. We are well trained apes and while sentience and consciousness exist in almost all of us, agency is still a rarity.
-
Imprecision, suggestion, and demand for substitution create the impression of co
Imprecision, suggestion, and demand for substitution create the impression of consensus where there is none. If you can’t state something operationally so that it is testable, then you either don’t know what you’re talking about or are engaged in abrahamic sophisms.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-17 12:34:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1008326950304342017
-
“Some of the most obvious ways to ensure opacity of competition rules are religi
—“Some of the most obvious ways to ensure opacity of competition rules are religion, moral, Keynesianism, and legal monopolies. (Production of public goods, a very obnoxious way of slavery for costumers aka people)”—José Francisco Mayora
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-17 10:26:00 UTC
-
MISUSE OF GRAMMARS (FRAUDS)
MISUSE OF GRAMMARS (FRAUDS)
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-17 09:28:00 UTC
-
THE NUMBER OF WORTHLESS OPINIONS HAS NO BEARING I mean, I don’t put much weight
THE NUMBER OF WORTHLESS OPINIONS HAS NO BEARING
I mean, I don’t put much weight behind the opinions of riders of the intellectual short bus. Opinions don’t matter. Arguments do. And in argument, moralistic, rationalistic, and pseudoscientific don’t matter. Either a critic can make a testimonial (ratio-operational-scientific) argument or one can’t. Most likely a critic can’t make even a trivial one. That’s before we even get to whether he can make one that’s meaningful.
We are creatures of habits, and our arguments consist largely of a string of habits. And our impression or pretense of understanding is a false reward to keep us thinking and acting under an illusion of competence despite the evidence to the contrary.
There are many dehmanizing truths in intellectual history and the degree to which few humans possess material (marginally different) agency is terrifyingly small.
We are well trained apes and while sentience and consciousness exist in almost all of us, agency is still a rarity.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-17 08:08:00 UTC
-
WARRIORS AND TONGUE WAGGERS LIBER-TINE/TARIAN-ISM IS DEAD – IT WAS ALWAYS A LIE
WARRIORS AND TONGUE WAGGERS LIBER-TINE/TARIAN-ISM IS DEAD – IT WAS ALWAYS A LIE
Libertarians (libertines) and ancaps are statistically irrelevant. Predisposed to tongue wagging and not to violence necessary to impose rule of law. So the issue here is that libertinism (rothbardianism, ancapism) is dead. And that classical liberalism is largely dead. And that all that can be learned from the failures of the past 350 years, is that markets-in-everything mean that we should have given additional houses to additional classes as they became participatory, and preserved the houses as a market for commons between the classes, and likewise prohibited the production of law (legislation), only contract between the classes under usual contractual terms.
We had the perfect government with the Scandianvian and germanic monarchies under sovereignty (rule of law of reciprocity, universal standing, and universal applicability), with the monarch as the judge of last resort, and able to dispense with bureaucracies or the government at a whim.
THIS MEANS LIBERTARIANISM IN ALL FORMS WAS ALWAYS A LIE…… Both anglo (classical liberal) and jewish (libertine) were both lies. There is only one law and only one means of imposing it: the organized violence of enough men that the state cannot withstand their revolt.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-16 18:23:00 UTC
-
THE LIES OF THE ENLIGHTENMENTS –“[we suffer from] ideological weakness”— Actu
THE LIES OF THE ENLIGHTENMENTS
–“[we suffer from] ideological weakness”—
Actually It’s classical liberal dishonesty combined with malincentives of global empire. There is no possibility of an aristocracy of everyone, nor are we in any way equal. That was just a ruse to sieze power from the landed aristocracy the same way the marxists/socialist/postmodernists have used similar arguments to undermine America – via women’s inclusion in the voting booth. The lie of the bourgeoise society – the theft of aristocratic civilization by classical liberal (middle class) ruse, the way it’s been stolen by the radical (underclass/academic) ruse by claiming oppression.
That lie is what begins it all. There is no such thing as bourgeoise civlization other than the tents of diasporic trade route travelers and pirates, hawking goods in bazaars without liability of warranty.
Aristocracy = Sovereignty. Aristocratic Egalitarians: those who will carry the burden of reciprocal insurance (sovereignty and reciprocity) may join the aristocracy.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-16 18:21:00 UTC
-
Christians Call It “testifying” Because It Sounds Better than “lying.”
Eli Harman June 14, 2017 · Christians call it “testifying” because it sounds better than “lying.” But words actually mean things. And properly speaking one can only “testify” about what is in one’s personal, first hand, knowledge, which never includes stories about life after death and rarely includes those about supposed events, miraculous or mundane, thousands of years ago. Conflating storytelling with testimony is just lying about testifying, and probably lying about the contents of those stories as well. If one says “I believe that virtue in this life will be rewarded in another, in these particular ways” then one is simply testifying about the *beliefs* that motivate ones actions But if one says, as if it is a matter of fact, “Virtue in this life is rewarded in another, and in these particular ways” then one is simply conflating theory with fact. There is no problem with ADOPTING a theory and using it, with or without evidence, as long as the facts available do not contradict it (and sometimes even if they do.) But passing it off as fact, when it is not fact, is to make more of it than one honestly may.