(from Quora)
—“What are the most common lies women tell men?”—
Women do not speak in truth or even grasp it’s value, for the simple reason that truth requires an intertemporal (long term) contract. Women instead, speak in conveniences, for the simple reason that they never hold to contracts, only conveniences. If you want to understand the difference between the ethics of the sexes, this is largely it: male long term loyalty and truth, female short term and consensus-preservation and convenience. Pack vs Community. Comfort with conflict vs terror at the possibility
Theme: Deception
-
(from Quora) —“What are the most common lies women tell men?”— Women do not
(from Quora) —“What are the most common lies women tell men?”— Women do not speak in truth or even grasp it’s value, for the simple reason that truth requires an intertemporal (long term) contract. Women instead, speak in conveniences, for the simple reason that they never hold to contracts, only conveniences. If you want to understand the difference between the ethics of the sexes, this is largely it: male long term loyalty and truth, female short term and consensus-preservation and convenience. Pack vs Community. Comfort with conflict vs terror at the possibility -
Curt Is On 30 Day Ban For His Anti-Racist Anti-Pedophile Post, And The (((Submitter))) Was A Stalker.
From Curt: Here is the argument the post made: – Despite all the attributions of pedophilia to different groups, the truth is that all groups demonstrate it. It’s not group specific. – All asymmetry of power between the sexes is bad no matter what the age. – In general the AGE/2,+7 Rule Tests for Asymmetry. – But that rule applies where economies, knowledge, and institutions have made such limits possible. In other societies age differences are a factor of practical economics, practical retention of lands and assets, and practical survival. – Ergo we must all conduct voluntary trades. The question is always (which is my main message) whether reciprocity has been provided or not. Now, was that same message written in “language the hard right would understand?” Yes. Because you speak to people in their own language if you want to RESPECT THEM. I treat the right with RESPECT. I treat anyone who argues ratio-scientifically with me, with respect, and I treat anyone who doesn’t, with disrespect. Because the only possible means of reciprocity in debate, is RATIO-SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT. Unfortunately, the average FB editor neither has the time nor the ability to understand anything above sixth grade level. -
Curt Is On 30 Day Ban For His Anti-Racist Anti-Pedophile Post, And The (((Submitter))) Was A Stalker.
From Curt: Here is the argument the post made: – Despite all the attributions of pedophilia to different groups, the truth is that all groups demonstrate it. It’s not group specific. – All asymmetry of power between the sexes is bad no matter what the age. – In general the AGE/2,+7 Rule Tests for Asymmetry. – But that rule applies where economies, knowledge, and institutions have made such limits possible. In other societies age differences are a factor of practical economics, practical retention of lands and assets, and practical survival. – Ergo we must all conduct voluntary trades. The question is always (which is my main message) whether reciprocity has been provided or not. Now, was that same message written in “language the hard right would understand?” Yes. Because you speak to people in their own language if you want to RESPECT THEM. I treat the right with RESPECT. I treat anyone who argues ratio-scientifically with me, with respect, and I treat anyone who doesn’t, with disrespect. Because the only possible means of reciprocity in debate, is RATIO-SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT. Unfortunately, the average FB editor neither has the time nor the ability to understand anything above sixth grade level. -
Untitled
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-06 21:38:00 UTC
-
Argumentation Ethics, Dialectic, Piplul (Lying)
Argumentation Ethics = Pilpul > Dialectic > Obscurantism + Suggestion + Redaction + Fiction > Fictionalism (conflation) > abrahamism > marxism-postmodernism. – Argumentation and non-contradiction originate in legal justification post-cooperation, not in constraints prior to cooperation. The first question of cooperation is ‘why don’t I kill you and take your stuff’, and only once we enter into an agreement do we justify our words and deeds within that agreement – thereby relying upon internal consistency (non-contradiction). Prior to that fact, no cooperation and nor moral constraint exists – it is only desired. Moreover, the logic of cooperation is not binary. We live in an amoral world of violence, theft, conspiracy and deception, and while we can construct cooperation, we construct cooperation at will given the costs and returns. And our choices at any time are to: (a) preserve the options of violence, theft, deception and conspiracy until opportunity avails to use it, (b) agree not to aggress but not to cooperate either (c) cooperate when useful preserving future opportunity for cooperation (d) cooperate whenever possible, expecting the same, (e) cease any level of cooperation and retreat to a prior level. So, contradiction is a test for a judge in matters of dispute resolution. It is not a necessary property of cooperation. We can test violations of reciprocity (cooperation) during disputes but no such dependence upon internal consistency exists prior to establishing a agreement (contract) for cooperation. -
Argumentation Ethics, Dialectic, Piplul (Lying)
Argumentation Ethics = Pilpul > Dialectic > Obscurantism + Suggestion + Redaction + Fiction > Fictionalism (conflation) > abrahamism > marxism-postmodernism. – Argumentation and non-contradiction originate in legal justification post-cooperation, not in constraints prior to cooperation. The first question of cooperation is ‘why don’t I kill you and take your stuff’, and only once we enter into an agreement do we justify our words and deeds within that agreement – thereby relying upon internal consistency (non-contradiction). Prior to that fact, no cooperation and nor moral constraint exists – it is only desired. Moreover, the logic of cooperation is not binary. We live in an amoral world of violence, theft, conspiracy and deception, and while we can construct cooperation, we construct cooperation at will given the costs and returns. And our choices at any time are to: (a) preserve the options of violence, theft, deception and conspiracy until opportunity avails to use it, (b) agree not to aggress but not to cooperate either (c) cooperate when useful preserving future opportunity for cooperation (d) cooperate whenever possible, expecting the same, (e) cease any level of cooperation and retreat to a prior level. So, contradiction is a test for a judge in matters of dispute resolution. It is not a necessary property of cooperation. We can test violations of reciprocity (cooperation) during disputes but no such dependence upon internal consistency exists prior to establishing a agreement (contract) for cooperation. -
ARGUMENTATION ETHICS, DIALECTIC, PIPLUL (LYING) Argumentation Ethics = Pilpul >
ARGUMENTATION ETHICS, DIALECTIC, PIPLUL (LYING)
Argumentation Ethics = Pilpul > Dialectic > Obscurantism + Suggestion + Redaction + Fiction > Fictionalism (conflation) > abrahamism > marxism-postmodernism.
– Argumentation and non-contradiction originate in legal justification post-cooperation, not in constraints prior to cooperation.
The first question of cooperation is ‘why don’t I kill you and take your stuff’, and only once we enter into an agreement do we justify our words and deeds within that agreement – thereby relying upon internal consistency (non-contradiction).
Prior to that fact, no cooperation and nor moral constraint exists – it is only desired. Moreover, the logic of cooperation is not binary.
We live in an amoral world of violence, theft, conspiracy and deception, and while we can construct cooperation, we construct cooperation at will given the costs and returns.
And our choices at any time are to:
(a) preserve the options of violence, theft, deception and conspiracy until opportunity avails to use it,
(b) agree not to aggress but not to cooperate either
(c) cooperate when useful preserving future opportunity for cooperation
(d) cooperate whenever possible, expecting the same,
(e) cease any level of cooperation and retreat to a prior level.
So, contradiction is a test for a judge in matters of dispute resolution. It is not a necessary property of cooperation. We can test violations of reciprocity (cooperation) during disputes but no such dependence upon internal consistency exists prior to establishing a agreement (contract) for cooperation.
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-06 12:49:00 UTC
-
MSNBC fires Sam Seder after ‘alt-right’ group digs up old Polanski joke Sam Sede
MSNBC fires Sam Seder after ‘alt-right’ group digs up old Polanski joke Sam Seder, an MSNBC contributor and podcast host, has been let go by the network in response to the backlash over a 2009 (since-deleted) Tweet satirizing defenders of Roman Polanski. Seder contends that outrage was part of a smear campaign by “alt-right” figure Mike Cernovich designed to get him fired. -
MSNBC fires Sam Seder after ‘alt-right’ group digs up old Polanski joke Sam Sede
MSNBC fires Sam Seder after ‘alt-right’ group digs up old Polanski joke Sam Seder, an MSNBC contributor and podcast host, has been let go by the network in response to the backlash over a 2009 (since-deleted) Tweet satirizing defenders of Roman Polanski. Seder contends that outrage was part of a smear campaign by “alt-right” figure Mike Cernovich designed to get him fired.