Theme: Deception

  • Most scientists specialize in the elimination of error, bias, wishful thinking,

    Most scientists specialize in the elimination of error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit from our free association.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-19 11:26:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/711151979242889216

    Reply addressees: @JonHaidt @sapinker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/711150124861362176


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @JonHaidt @sapinker Sadly, the distribution of philosophers is worse than that of psychologists prior to Operationism. For the same reason.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/711150124861362176


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @JonHaidt @sapinker Sadly, the distribution of philosophers is worse than that of psychologists prior to Operationism. For the same reason.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/711150124861362176

  • Most philosophers specialize in wishful thinking, loading, framing, overloading,

    Most philosophers specialize in wishful thinking, loading, framing, overloading, obscuring, suggestion and justification


    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-19 11:25:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/711151691354218500

    Reply addressees: @JonHaidt @sapinker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/711150124861362176


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @JonHaidt @sapinker Sadly, the distribution of philosophers is worse than that of psychologists prior to Operationism. For the same reason.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/711150124861362176


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @JonHaidt @sapinker Sadly, the distribution of philosophers is worse than that of psychologists prior to Operationism. For the same reason.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/711150124861362176

  • The NYT hired him precisely because he makes conservatives look dumb by associat

    The NYT hired him precisely because he makes conservatives look dumb by association. – WE ARE THE NEW RIGHT


    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-19 11:06:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/711146938855464960

    Reply addressees: @realDonaldTrump @nytdavidbrooks

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/711042337158340608


    IN REPLY TO:

    @realDonaldTrump

    While I have never met @nytdavidbrooks of the NY Times, I consider him one of the dumbest of all pundits- he has no sense of the real world!

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/711042337158340608

  • The tactic is simple. What are they trying to acquire ? How are they trying to g

    The tactic is simple.

    What are they trying to acquire ?

    How are they trying to get a discount?

    Why are they avoiding an exchange instead of engaging in Fraud?

    What would our team trade them in exchange for what they want?

    Prosecute them for their lying and theft.

    Put them on the defensive.

    This is what I do.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-18 17:12:00 UTC

  • VS SCIENCE FICTION Socialism and Communism are best though of as a pseudoscienti

    https://www.quora.com/Is-socialism-dangerous/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv&share=18cd6a81SOCIALISM VS SCIENCE FICTION

    Socialism and Communism are best though of as a pseudoscientific literary movement for christian lower classes, where science fiction and fantasy are best though of as a pseudoscientific literary movement for pagan and aristocratic classes.

    Science relies upon rule of law, banking, credit and finance, and macro economics.

    It’s the losers who dream.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-18 11:07:00 UTC

  • What Is Libertarian Communism?

    Like “meritocratic communism” it is either an impossibility, or a lie. Most likely a lie to cover an impossibility. Most such lies are created in order to perpetuate fraud by political means by making false moral appeals in an effort to avoid exchanging behavioral limitations for material rewards.

    Libertarianism: universal individual ownership of property, and voluntarily constructed commons.

    Socialism: Universal state ownership of property, and the involuntarily constructed commons, where bureaucratic or authoritarian leaders determine the assignments of work and the distribution of proceeds from the work – (which usually don’t end up existing)  Socialism is a failed experiment.

    Mixed economy: Involuntary organization of the production of commons using representatives who appropriate the proceeds of production.  Plus the voluntary organization of production of goods and services which generates the proceeds that are later redistributed as commons. This is in practice the western model since voters demonstrably do not vote for policy but ideology.

    Direct Economic/market Democracy: The voluntary organization of the production of commons by voting for desired commons with the contributions that one has produced.  Combined with the voluntary organization of production of goods and services which generates the proceeds some portion of which are used to produce commons.  In this model competitive commons are possible, and no monopoly commons are necessary.  But competitive commons are class-weighted.  This is an unlikely experiment except in small, very wealthy communities.

    Direct Redistributive/Shareholder Democracy:  The voluntary organization of the production of commons by voting a SHARE of the proceeds from a mixed economy. Combined with the voluntary organization of production of goods and services, which generates the proceeds some portino of which are used to produce commons.  This means meritocratic contribution to commons but egalitarian decision  of commons. In this model competitive commons are possible, and no monopoly commons are necessary. This is a likely next generation of Government since it eliminates the unnecessary conflcit of monopoly commons and eliminates the existence of politicians who engage in corruption.

    We must organize cooperation (morality)
    We must organize reproduction (family)
    We must organize production (market)
    We must organize commons (government)
    We must organize a monopoly with which to hold our territory (military)

    If you aren’t using these terms then you’re probably engaged in error or lie.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-libertarian-communism

  • What Is Libertarian Communism?

    Like “meritocratic communism” it is either an impossibility, or a lie. Most likely a lie to cover an impossibility. Most such lies are created in order to perpetuate fraud by political means by making false moral appeals in an effort to avoid exchanging behavioral limitations for material rewards.

    Libertarianism: universal individual ownership of property, and voluntarily constructed commons.

    Socialism: Universal state ownership of property, and the involuntarily constructed commons, where bureaucratic or authoritarian leaders determine the assignments of work and the distribution of proceeds from the work – (which usually don’t end up existing)  Socialism is a failed experiment.

    Mixed economy: Involuntary organization of the production of commons using representatives who appropriate the proceeds of production.  Plus the voluntary organization of production of goods and services which generates the proceeds that are later redistributed as commons. This is in practice the western model since voters demonstrably do not vote for policy but ideology.

    Direct Economic/market Democracy: The voluntary organization of the production of commons by voting for desired commons with the contributions that one has produced.  Combined with the voluntary organization of production of goods and services which generates the proceeds some portion of which are used to produce commons.  In this model competitive commons are possible, and no monopoly commons are necessary.  But competitive commons are class-weighted.  This is an unlikely experiment except in small, very wealthy communities.

    Direct Redistributive/Shareholder Democracy:  The voluntary organization of the production of commons by voting a SHARE of the proceeds from a mixed economy. Combined with the voluntary organization of production of goods and services, which generates the proceeds some portino of which are used to produce commons.  This means meritocratic contribution to commons but egalitarian decision  of commons. In this model competitive commons are possible, and no monopoly commons are necessary. This is a likely next generation of Government since it eliminates the unnecessary conflcit of monopoly commons and eliminates the existence of politicians who engage in corruption.

    We must organize cooperation (morality)
    We must organize reproduction (family)
    We must organize production (market)
    We must organize commons (government)
    We must organize a monopoly with which to hold our territory (military)

    If you aren’t using these terms then you’re probably engaged in error or lie.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-libertarian-communism

  • End the lies, end the fallacy, and the fantasy. The west outpaced the rest becau

    End the lies, end the fallacy, and the fantasy. The west outpaced the rest because of a millennia of systemic eugenics.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-17 09:57:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/710404773044953089

    Reply addressees: @DemsRRealRacist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/709961829116735488


    IN REPLY TO:

    @JBurtonXP

    I can cite no more conclusive proof of Trump being a liberal than that my colleagues and I seem completely powerless to thwart his agenda.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/709961829116735488

  • Did you know that Ridicule is a form of lying? It’s an ad hominem

    Did you know that Ridicule is a form of lying? It’s an ad hominem.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-16 08:05:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/710014108486266880

  • Diary. Blocked a long term friend the other day. Who was self impressed with his

    Diary.

    Blocked a long term friend the other day. Who was self impressed with his wit, and forcing me to pay high costs of refutation. Germans practice a religion. They just don’t call it one. Kant worked. So the method of refutation was beyond him. I could no longer afford to entertain him. And I lost the patience to do so.

    Along with this episode, a couple of things have troubled me lately.

    One is the difference in knowledge between the moral biases. One that I understand is necessary. Because longer time frames are harder to express. But I have traded an audience a strong knowledge of institutions with a drastic mis-measure of man for an audience with an accurate measure of man but little knowledge of institutions. I am writing a philosophy for the purpose of construction institutions. Not one of moral vindication.

    Another is populism. I am very excited about a candidate overthrowing the status quo. And more excited about the prospect of opportunity for revolution. But I can’t really serve the popular audience. It’s not my audience. And it’s burdensome. And it’s not a good use of my time.

    Lastly, I am trying to get our product beta launched. So I have less time available.

    The only solution that makes me happy and makes sense is to lower my tolerance for time wasting. I don’t like this because for the past twenty years I have practiced never walking away from a fight. But costs are costs.

    For example. I spent time on this dyer guy. Now. I consider his abuse of philosophy like that most silly people.

    But why did I burn my time on that?

    It’s like working thru libertarian tracts by lester, block, Friedman, Rothbard, mises. Or that horrid waste of time, continental philosophy – literature not science.

    It’s a total waste of my time. This nonsense is tragic.

    Sigh.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-16 08:00:00 UTC