Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • The Truth: Making Honest Can't VS Should Arguments


    If you’re making a “CAN’T” argument, then just admit it’s because you can’t. If you’re making a “SHOULD or SHOULDN’T” argument, then state why you should or shouldn’t. But if you’re making a can’t argument while saying it’s because you shouldn’t, then that’s not truth that’s deception.

    It’s true that you CAN’T hold Russia accountable for attacking Ukraine, breaking the postwar consensus, and restarting nuclear proliferation, but that doesn’t me you shouldn’t.

    Truth is true. Lie is Lie. Unknown is Unknown. It’s not complicated.

    CLARITY

    Truth: Testimonial truth. Speaking truthfully.
    Honest: Testimonial truth. Speaking truthfully.
    Under testimonial truth, Honestly and Truthfully are synonymous.

    CONTEXT:
    Diplomats should not posture that they have the capacity to act, and choose not to act under the cover of justifications, when they have no capacity to act. This is dishonest. Politics is a dishonest business.

    ———-
    –“THE TRUTH: MAKING HONEST CAN’T VS SHOULD ARGUMENTS–

    If you’re making a “CAN’T” argument, then just admit it’s because you can’t. If you’re making a “SHOULD or SHOULDN’T” argument, then state why you should or shouldn’t. But if you’re making a can’t argument while saying it’s because you shouldn’t, then that’s not truth that’s deception.
    It’s true that you CAN’T hold Russia accountable for attacking Ukraine, breaking the postwar consensus, and restarting nuclear proliferation, but that doesn’t me you shouldn’t.

    Truth is true. Lie is Lie. Unknown is Unknown. It’s not complicated.
    ———–

    Caine conveniently reduced the scope of the argument to the first sentence in order to remove the information necessary to render the argument correspondent with reality. (Usually this is merely the error of novices, or people who don’t read the entire argument; but it falls under the category of either a fallacy -straw man- or a deception – selective inclusion of information in the argument. I assume that this is merely the error of a novice. As such cain is applying the technique of formal languages to correspondent and natural languages. This is a common error of ‘logicism’ (that is the word Max was looking for). I categorize all these kinds of errors as ’empty verbalisms’. But Max was attempting to say the same thing. (I am more patient – the curse of aspie-ness.)

    —” If one can not do something (it is not reasonably possible)” is no different from “shouldn’t” in the vast majority of cases when people utter those words.—-

    This is yet another fallacy given that the counter argument that Cain put forward was a fallacy of formal language, minus the information necessary for it to be correspondent – then you Greg, counter with an argument to normative speech.

    So now we have gone from a correspondent argument, to an internally consistent argument to a normative usage argument. Now, I suspect that in the end, Neither Cain nor Greg is probably aware of the different properties of these systems and you are justifying intuition not formal criticism.

    I made a rhetorical statement, because i do not make verbalist statements. I am an active opponent of logicism as psuedoscientific when applied outside of formal bounds. I’m an operationalist
    ———–
    I didnt make an absolute statement now did I?
    ———-

    Nope. No hole there at all. Rock solid.

    NOW LETS LOOK AT YOUR ARGUMENTS

    —If Nuclear war is unacceptable for you then in this context it’s both Can’t and Impossible Max, there he can muse on his Moral Should or not, Be or not to be all day long, 24/7—

    FULLY EXPANDED:
    “If you can conduct nuclear war then
    you cant conduct nuclear war and
    its impossible to conduct nuclear war
    but you prefer not to conduct nuclear war.”

    WELL THAT DOESN”T WORK. LETS BE MORE CHARITABLE

    Nuclear war is unacceptable. (Meaning you prefer not to conduct nuclear war.)
    AND
    You can conduct nuclear war, but you prefer not to.
    OR
    You can’t conduct nuclear war, and it’s immaterial whether you prefer to or not.

    “Can’t physically” != “Prefer not to.”

    WELL THAT DOESN”T WORK. SO LETS SEE WHAT ELSE WE HAVE

    … But really we just get back to the central argument which is that you’re holding a double standard. You allow yourself the laxity of informal language with ‘…in this context…’ but do not allow me the same laxity of informal language given the context. Instead, you pull out a sentence and argue that I made a statement I did not. Then, you go and make the statements I just illustrated were nonsense above.

    I made no universal statement. I did not make a statement regarding the necessary membership of sets. I stated that it is dishonest to posture. You may not have understood that. But this is your own hasty reading.

    I then defended my position with an argument over your head.

    And I am back to making the same argument in simple terms.

    NOW LETS SEE ABOUT AD HOMINEM(s)
    —Scholar—
    Well, I don’t see that as an insult. I don’t claim to be an academic. I don’t claim to be any thing. I claim I am correct. Otherwise that would mean I made an appeal to authority, which would be a fallacy. My arguments stand or they don’t, and they stand.

    —Buffoon—
    Says the guy who just made a clown of himself, did so with passion, did so under the cover of ad hominems.

    –Falling back—

    I didn’t make a mistake. My entire argument stands. I am good at what I do. Sorry. Just how it is. Get over it.

    Curt

  • The Truth: Making Honest Can’t VS Should Arguments


    If you’re making a “CAN’T” argument, then just admit it’s because you can’t. If you’re making a “SHOULD or SHOULDN’T” argument, then state why you should or shouldn’t. But if you’re making a can’t argument while saying it’s because you shouldn’t, then that’s not truth that’s deception.

    It’s true that you CAN’T hold Russia accountable for attacking Ukraine, breaking the postwar consensus, and restarting nuclear proliferation, but that doesn’t me you shouldn’t.

    Truth is true. Lie is Lie. Unknown is Unknown. It’s not complicated.

    CLARITY

    Truth: Testimonial truth. Speaking truthfully.
    Honest: Testimonial truth. Speaking truthfully.
    Under testimonial truth, Honestly and Truthfully are synonymous.

    CONTEXT:
    Diplomats should not posture that they have the capacity to act, and choose not to act under the cover of justifications, when they have no capacity to act. This is dishonest. Politics is a dishonest business.

    ———-
    –“THE TRUTH: MAKING HONEST CAN’T VS SHOULD ARGUMENTS–

    If you’re making a “CAN’T” argument, then just admit it’s because you can’t. If you’re making a “SHOULD or SHOULDN’T” argument, then state why you should or shouldn’t. But if you’re making a can’t argument while saying it’s because you shouldn’t, then that’s not truth that’s deception.
    It’s true that you CAN’T hold Russia accountable for attacking Ukraine, breaking the postwar consensus, and restarting nuclear proliferation, but that doesn’t me you shouldn’t.

    Truth is true. Lie is Lie. Unknown is Unknown. It’s not complicated.
    ———–

    Caine conveniently reduced the scope of the argument to the first sentence in order to remove the information necessary to render the argument correspondent with reality. (Usually this is merely the error of novices, or people who don’t read the entire argument; but it falls under the category of either a fallacy -straw man- or a deception – selective inclusion of information in the argument. I assume that this is merely the error of a novice. As such cain is applying the technique of formal languages to correspondent and natural languages. This is a common error of ‘logicism’ (that is the word Max was looking for). I categorize all these kinds of errors as ’empty verbalisms’. But Max was attempting to say the same thing. (I am more patient – the curse of aspie-ness.)

    —” If one can not do something (it is not reasonably possible)” is no different from “shouldn’t” in the vast majority of cases when people utter those words.—-

    This is yet another fallacy given that the counter argument that Cain put forward was a fallacy of formal language, minus the information necessary for it to be correspondent – then you Greg, counter with an argument to normative speech.

    So now we have gone from a correspondent argument, to an internally consistent argument to a normative usage argument. Now, I suspect that in the end, Neither Cain nor Greg is probably aware of the different properties of these systems and you are justifying intuition not formal criticism.

    I made a rhetorical statement, because i do not make verbalist statements. I am an active opponent of logicism as psuedoscientific when applied outside of formal bounds. I’m an operationalist
    ———–
    I didnt make an absolute statement now did I?
    ———-

    Nope. No hole there at all. Rock solid.

    NOW LETS LOOK AT YOUR ARGUMENTS

    —If Nuclear war is unacceptable for you then in this context it’s both Can’t and Impossible Max, there he can muse on his Moral Should or not, Be or not to be all day long, 24/7—

    FULLY EXPANDED:
    “If you can conduct nuclear war then
    you cant conduct nuclear war and
    its impossible to conduct nuclear war
    but you prefer not to conduct nuclear war.”

    WELL THAT DOESN”T WORK. LETS BE MORE CHARITABLE

    Nuclear war is unacceptable. (Meaning you prefer not to conduct nuclear war.)
    AND
    You can conduct nuclear war, but you prefer not to.
    OR
    You can’t conduct nuclear war, and it’s immaterial whether you prefer to or not.

    “Can’t physically” != “Prefer not to.”

    WELL THAT DOESN”T WORK. SO LETS SEE WHAT ELSE WE HAVE

    … But really we just get back to the central argument which is that you’re holding a double standard. You allow yourself the laxity of informal language with ‘…in this context…’ but do not allow me the same laxity of informal language given the context. Instead, you pull out a sentence and argue that I made a statement I did not. Then, you go and make the statements I just illustrated were nonsense above.

    I made no universal statement. I did not make a statement regarding the necessary membership of sets. I stated that it is dishonest to posture. You may not have understood that. But this is your own hasty reading.

    I then defended my position with an argument over your head.

    And I am back to making the same argument in simple terms.

    NOW LETS SEE ABOUT AD HOMINEM(s)
    —Scholar—
    Well, I don’t see that as an insult. I don’t claim to be an academic. I don’t claim to be any thing. I claim I am correct. Otherwise that would mean I made an appeal to authority, which would be a fallacy. My arguments stand or they don’t, and they stand.

    —Buffoon—
    Says the guy who just made a clown of himself, did so with passion, did so under the cover of ad hominems.

    –Falling back—

    I didn’t make a mistake. My entire argument stands. I am good at what I do. Sorry. Just how it is. Get over it.

    Curt

  • The Truth: Making Honest Can't VS Should Arguments


    If you’re making a “CAN’T” argument, then just admit it’s because you can’t. If you’re making a “SHOULD or SHOULDN’T” argument, then state why you should or shouldn’t. But if you’re making a can’t argument while saying it’s because you shouldn’t, then that’s not truth that’s deception.

    It’s true that you CAN’T hold Russia accountable for attacking Ukraine, breaking the postwar consensus, and restarting nuclear proliferation, but that doesn’t me you shouldn’t.

    Truth is true. Lie is Lie. Unknown is Unknown. It’s not complicated.

    CLARITY

    Truth: Testimonial truth. Speaking truthfully.
    Honest: Testimonial truth. Speaking truthfully.
    Under testimonial truth, Honestly and Truthfully are synonymous.

    CONTEXT:
    Diplomats should not posture that they have the capacity to act, and choose not to act under the cover of justifications, when they have no capacity to act. This is dishonest. Politics is a dishonest business.

    ———-
    –“THE TRUTH: MAKING HONEST CAN’T VS SHOULD ARGUMENTS–

    If you’re making a “CAN’T” argument, then just admit it’s because you can’t. If you’re making a “SHOULD or SHOULDN’T” argument, then state why you should or shouldn’t. But if you’re making a can’t argument while saying it’s because you shouldn’t, then that’s not truth that’s deception.
    It’s true that you CAN’T hold Russia accountable for attacking Ukraine, breaking the postwar consensus, and restarting nuclear proliferation, but that doesn’t me you shouldn’t.

    Truth is true. Lie is Lie. Unknown is Unknown. It’s not complicated.
    ———–

    Caine conveniently reduced the scope of the argument to the first sentence in order to remove the information necessary to render the argument correspondent with reality. (Usually this is merely the error of novices, or people who don’t read the entire argument; but it falls under the category of either a fallacy -straw man- or a deception – selective inclusion of information in the argument. I assume that this is merely the error of a novice. As such cain is applying the technique of formal languages to correspondent and natural languages. This is a common error of ‘logicism’ (that is the word Max was looking for). I categorize all these kinds of errors as ’empty verbalisms’. But Max was attempting to say the same thing. (I am more patient – the curse of aspie-ness.)

    —” If one can not do something (it is not reasonably possible)” is no different from “shouldn’t” in the vast majority of cases when people utter those words.—-

    This is yet another fallacy given that the counter argument that Cain put forward was a fallacy of formal language, minus the information necessary for it to be correspondent – then you Greg, counter with an argument to normative speech.

    So now we have gone from a correspondent argument, to an internally consistent argument to a normative usage argument. Now, I suspect that in the end, Neither Cain nor Greg is probably aware of the different properties of these systems and you are justifying intuition not formal criticism.

    I made a rhetorical statement, because i do not make verbalist statements. I am an active opponent of logicism as psuedoscientific when applied outside of formal bounds. I’m an operationalist
    ———–
    I didnt make an absolute statement now did I?
    ———-

    Nope. No hole there at all. Rock solid.

    NOW LETS LOOK AT YOUR ARGUMENTS

    —If Nuclear war is unacceptable for you then in this context it’s both Can’t and Impossible Max, there he can muse on his Moral Should or not, Be or not to be all day long, 24/7—

    FULLY EXPANDED:
    “If you can conduct nuclear war then
    you cant conduct nuclear war and
    its impossible to conduct nuclear war
    but you prefer not to conduct nuclear war.”

    WELL THAT DOESN”T WORK. LETS BE MORE CHARITABLE

    Nuclear war is unacceptable. (Meaning you prefer not to conduct nuclear war.)
    AND
    You can conduct nuclear war, but you prefer not to.
    OR
    You can’t conduct nuclear war, and it’s immaterial whether you prefer to or not.

    “Can’t physically” != “Prefer not to.”

    WELL THAT DOESN”T WORK. SO LETS SEE WHAT ELSE WE HAVE

    … But really we just get back to the central argument which is that you’re holding a double standard. You allow yourself the laxity of informal language with ‘…in this context…’ but do not allow me the same laxity of informal language given the context. Instead, you pull out a sentence and argue that I made a statement I did not. Then, you go and make the statements I just illustrated were nonsense above.

    I made no universal statement. I did not make a statement regarding the necessary membership of sets. I stated that it is dishonest to posture. You may not have understood that. But this is your own hasty reading.

    I then defended my position with an argument over your head.

    And I am back to making the same argument in simple terms.

    NOW LETS SEE ABOUT AD HOMINEM(s)
    —Scholar—
    Well, I don’t see that as an insult. I don’t claim to be an academic. I don’t claim to be any thing. I claim I am correct. Otherwise that would mean I made an appeal to authority, which would be a fallacy. My arguments stand or they don’t, and they stand.

    —Buffoon—
    Says the guy who just made a clown of himself, did so with passion, did so under the cover of ad hominems.

    –Falling back—

    I didn’t make a mistake. My entire argument stands. I am good at what I do. Sorry. Just how it is. Get over it.

    Curt

  • The Truth: Making Honest Can’t VS Should Arguments


    If you’re making a “CAN’T” argument, then just admit it’s because you can’t. If you’re making a “SHOULD or SHOULDN’T” argument, then state why you should or shouldn’t. But if you’re making a can’t argument while saying it’s because you shouldn’t, then that’s not truth that’s deception.

    It’s true that you CAN’T hold Russia accountable for attacking Ukraine, breaking the postwar consensus, and restarting nuclear proliferation, but that doesn’t me you shouldn’t.

    Truth is true. Lie is Lie. Unknown is Unknown. It’s not complicated.

    CLARITY

    Truth: Testimonial truth. Speaking truthfully.
    Honest: Testimonial truth. Speaking truthfully.
    Under testimonial truth, Honestly and Truthfully are synonymous.

    CONTEXT:
    Diplomats should not posture that they have the capacity to act, and choose not to act under the cover of justifications, when they have no capacity to act. This is dishonest. Politics is a dishonest business.

    ———-
    –“THE TRUTH: MAKING HONEST CAN’T VS SHOULD ARGUMENTS–

    If you’re making a “CAN’T” argument, then just admit it’s because you can’t. If you’re making a “SHOULD or SHOULDN’T” argument, then state why you should or shouldn’t. But if you’re making a can’t argument while saying it’s because you shouldn’t, then that’s not truth that’s deception.
    It’s true that you CAN’T hold Russia accountable for attacking Ukraine, breaking the postwar consensus, and restarting nuclear proliferation, but that doesn’t me you shouldn’t.

    Truth is true. Lie is Lie. Unknown is Unknown. It’s not complicated.
    ———–

    Caine conveniently reduced the scope of the argument to the first sentence in order to remove the information necessary to render the argument correspondent with reality. (Usually this is merely the error of novices, or people who don’t read the entire argument; but it falls under the category of either a fallacy -straw man- or a deception – selective inclusion of information in the argument. I assume that this is merely the error of a novice. As such cain is applying the technique of formal languages to correspondent and natural languages. This is a common error of ‘logicism’ (that is the word Max was looking for). I categorize all these kinds of errors as ’empty verbalisms’. But Max was attempting to say the same thing. (I am more patient – the curse of aspie-ness.)

    —” If one can not do something (it is not reasonably possible)” is no different from “shouldn’t” in the vast majority of cases when people utter those words.—-

    This is yet another fallacy given that the counter argument that Cain put forward was a fallacy of formal language, minus the information necessary for it to be correspondent – then you Greg, counter with an argument to normative speech.

    So now we have gone from a correspondent argument, to an internally consistent argument to a normative usage argument. Now, I suspect that in the end, Neither Cain nor Greg is probably aware of the different properties of these systems and you are justifying intuition not formal criticism.

    I made a rhetorical statement, because i do not make verbalist statements. I am an active opponent of logicism as psuedoscientific when applied outside of formal bounds. I’m an operationalist
    ———–
    I didnt make an absolute statement now did I?
    ———-

    Nope. No hole there at all. Rock solid.

    NOW LETS LOOK AT YOUR ARGUMENTS

    —If Nuclear war is unacceptable for you then in this context it’s both Can’t and Impossible Max, there he can muse on his Moral Should or not, Be or not to be all day long, 24/7—

    FULLY EXPANDED:
    “If you can conduct nuclear war then
    you cant conduct nuclear war and
    its impossible to conduct nuclear war
    but you prefer not to conduct nuclear war.”

    WELL THAT DOESN”T WORK. LETS BE MORE CHARITABLE

    Nuclear war is unacceptable. (Meaning you prefer not to conduct nuclear war.)
    AND
    You can conduct nuclear war, but you prefer not to.
    OR
    You can’t conduct nuclear war, and it’s immaterial whether you prefer to or not.

    “Can’t physically” != “Prefer not to.”

    WELL THAT DOESN”T WORK. SO LETS SEE WHAT ELSE WE HAVE

    … But really we just get back to the central argument which is that you’re holding a double standard. You allow yourself the laxity of informal language with ‘…in this context…’ but do not allow me the same laxity of informal language given the context. Instead, you pull out a sentence and argue that I made a statement I did not. Then, you go and make the statements I just illustrated were nonsense above.

    I made no universal statement. I did not make a statement regarding the necessary membership of sets. I stated that it is dishonest to posture. You may not have understood that. But this is your own hasty reading.

    I then defended my position with an argument over your head.

    And I am back to making the same argument in simple terms.

    NOW LETS SEE ABOUT AD HOMINEM(s)
    —Scholar—
    Well, I don’t see that as an insult. I don’t claim to be an academic. I don’t claim to be any thing. I claim I am correct. Otherwise that would mean I made an appeal to authority, which would be a fallacy. My arguments stand or they don’t, and they stand.

    —Buffoon—
    Says the guy who just made a clown of himself, did so with passion, did so under the cover of ad hominems.

    –Falling back—

    I didn’t make a mistake. My entire argument stands. I am good at what I do. Sorry. Just how it is. Get over it.

    Curt

  • FALSEHOODS – ASSUMPTIONS – JUSTIFICATIONS Marxists assume people will voluntaril

    FALSEHOODS – ASSUMPTIONS – JUSTIFICATIONS

    Marxists assume people will voluntarily work (if they are honest).

    Libertines (Libertarians) assume people will voluntarily be honest (if they are honest).

    Neocons assume people desire democracy (if they are honest).

    And each of those assumptions is clearly false.

    Why is it that we accept falsehoods?

    Is it nothing more than our genes causing words to come out of our mouths?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-25 01:51:00 UTC

  • Keynesianism -> Restated Marx = “Dishonest Socialism” Rothbardianism -> Restated

    Keynesianism -> Restated Marx = “Dishonest Socialism”

    Rothbardianism -> Restated Hospers = “Dishonest Libertarianism”

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-21 23:07:00 UTC

  • CRITIQUE IS NOT EQUAL TO CRITICISM Critique != Criticism — In Criticism the al

    CRITIQUE IS NOT EQUAL TO CRITICISM

    Critique != Criticism — In Criticism the alternative choice must be defended. In critique the alternative choice must be obscured. The purpose of Criticism is to identify truth. The purpose of Critique is obscurantism: complex deception.

    Critique is deception.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-17 07:00:00 UTC

  • The truth, as in truthful testimony, requires nor tolerates framing, loading or

    The truth, as in truthful testimony, requires nor tolerates framing, loading or overloading.

    So you have to ask the question why someone would accuse you if framing the truth.

    This was one of their tactics.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-13 14:43:00 UTC

  • Rothbardian Libertarians are totalitarian. Because the source of their ideas is

    Rothbardian Libertarians are totalitarian.

    Because the source of their ideas is totalitarian.

    Rothbardian Libertarianism is a cult.

    It is a cult that causes damage tot he brand of liberty.

    Because Rothbardian libertarianism has nothing to do with aristocratic liberty.

    It’s the antithesis of aristocratic liberty.

    Aristocrats create a commons. They make the commons possible.

    The west’s competitive advantage is our high trust enables us to build commons.

    And Rothbardianism is an outright attack on creating commons’.

    Rothbardian Libertarianism is just an elaborate pseudoscientific word game.

    Rothbard’s purpose is to provide justification for immoral libertinism – and nothing more.

    Rothbardianism is an attempt to create a license to lie cheat and steal.

    Totalitarian, cult, libertinism – the very opposite of liberty.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-13 06:59:00 UTC

  • What Are Ethics For An It Professional?

    INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ETHICS

    This is an interesting question in the sense that it’s a clear application of the problem of asymmetry of information, understanding, and power, in the control of a utility (a commons).

    In any niche where one has power and influence over others, because of an asymmetry of knowledge of a common resource that the others cannot  understand without extraordinary personal investment, and where he possesses power over others’ use of a common resource, we encounter the challenges of:

    (a) Free-riding: pretending to work in exchange for payment, while not providing market-value in return, because one is not subject to competition which would discover and cure one’s free-riding.

    (b) Corruption : seeking favors or privileges by granting favors or privileges.

    (c) Privatization : obtaining personal benefit from a common resource that could be consumed by others.

    (d) Punishment : deliberately punishing individuals and groups by virtue of one’s control over the provision of the common resource.

    (e) Harm : Deliberately causing the failure of individuals or groups by virtue of one’s control over the function of the common resource.

    (f) Functioning As An Agent: allowing one’s self to be used to free ride, engage in corruption, privatization punishment or harm.

    Take no personal benefit, give no favors, do no harm, preserve ethical independence from agency,  and make decisions at all times by the business value of the work to be performed.

    Ethical Challenges

    Political hierarchies exist by in all bureaucracies, whether private or public, which operate independently from market competition, which constantly discovers inefficiencies (corruption).

    While one an usually adhere to (a) thru (e) in one’s job, it is very hard in a bureaucracy not to be pressured into (f) (Agency) in a bureaucracy. In fact, the trading of such favors (corruption) is the currency that forms the economy of bureaucracies that are insulated from the market.

    Historical Influences
    In the 20th century, ethical pragmatism (outcome-based ethics)  has replaced ethical absolutism (rule-based ethics) due to the constant pressure of left intellectuals’ attack on western high-trust ethics.  This has allowed the ethical pragmatism of lower trust polities to spread in western culture.  As such it is difficult to operate ethically in private life, commercial life and public life, because such unethical action is beneficial to the individual while harmful to society. 

    This is why westerners are the only people to develop high trust societies. It’s very hard.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-ethics-for-an-IT-professional