Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • If Only We Did Not Lie

    [I] see two constant themes of late when I try to discuss truth: (a) conflation of testimony to one’s knowledge (Speaking Truthfully) and description of correspondence(Truth) (b) the false assumption that most people are not only justifying, but are in fact lying. It is one thing for the philosophy of science to correct errors, but I am not so interested in correcting errors as I am deceptions and thefts. CR does not address this issue. Construction does. Which is why scientists who are honest publish their methods and their data and those that are not honest do not.

  • Sometimes I wish I could tell people what they want to hear, but that’s immoral.

    Sometimes I wish I could tell people what they want to hear, but that’s immoral. You get away with that only once. So just tell people the truth.

    Love you man. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-26 08:08:00 UTC

  • We Can Prevent Lies Easily If The Normative Commons Is Common (Shareholder) Property

    [S]o, under freedom of speech, libel, slander, defamation, are acceptable to you? So are Keynesian economics, Marxism upon which it is based, Freudian Psychology, Cantor’s sets, Mises’ Praxeology, Rothbard’s Ethics, The Frankfurt School, Feminism (feminist socialism), Boasian Pseudo-Anthropology, Postmodernism (the attack on truth), the marxist attack on education, the marxist attack on art? All of which were constructed of pseudoscientific arguments and all of which were permissible under free speech, but none of which would have been possible if individuals possessed the right of standing to require truth in free speech. It is ok I suspect to pollute the physical commons but not the normative commons? Do you have some evidence that such constraints place such limits on progress rather than improve progress? Or even a rational argument to demonstrate why (because you can’t, which is Bridgman’s position). Calling a woman a whore under anglo saxon law was equivalent to attempted murder that exposed the skull. Words have consequences. Why would some people prefer that words NOT have consequences unless they feared being held accountable for their consequences? THE PEOPLE WHO TAUGHT US TO LIE

  • We Can Prevent Lies Easily If The Normative Commons Is Common (Shareholder) Property

    [S]o, under freedom of speech, libel, slander, defamation, are acceptable to you? So are Keynesian economics, Marxism upon which it is based, Freudian Psychology, Cantor’s sets, Mises’ Praxeology, Rothbard’s Ethics, The Frankfurt School, Feminism (feminist socialism), Boasian Pseudo-Anthropology, Postmodernism (the attack on truth), the marxist attack on education, the marxist attack on art? All of which were constructed of pseudoscientific arguments and all of which were permissible under free speech, but none of which would have been possible if individuals possessed the right of standing to require truth in free speech. It is ok I suspect to pollute the physical commons but not the normative commons? Do you have some evidence that such constraints place such limits on progress rather than improve progress? Or even a rational argument to demonstrate why (because you can’t, which is Bridgman’s position). Calling a woman a whore under anglo saxon law was equivalent to attempted murder that exposed the skull. Words have consequences. Why would some people prefer that words NOT have consequences unless they feared being held accountable for their consequences? THE PEOPLE WHO TAUGHT US TO LIE

  • HELP REQUEST : MOST DISHONEST NATIONS DATA There is some data floating around fr

    HELP REQUEST : MOST DISHONEST NATIONS DATA

    There is some data floating around from the hotel industry that tracks thefts by country of origin. Nigerians and Chinese are the worse, Danish the best. Ironically, Canadians are pretty bad, as are brits. (Brit culture ‘knicking’ is a bad habit.)

    If anyone knows where I can get this data, can you let me know? THanks

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 12:32:00 UTC

  • WE CAN PREVENT LIES PRETTY EASILY IF THE NORMATIVE COMMONS IS COMMON PROPERTY. S

    WE CAN PREVENT LIES PRETTY EASILY IF THE NORMATIVE COMMONS IS COMMON PROPERTY.

    So libel, slander, defamation, are acceptable to you, I ‘m sure. So are Keynesian economics, Marxism upon which it is based, Freudian Psychology, Cantor’s sets, Mises’ Praxeology, Rothbard’s Ethics, The Frankfurt School, Feminism (feminist socialism), Boasian Pseudo-Anthropology, Postmodernism (the attack on truth), the marxist attack on education, the marxist attack on art, all of which were constructed of pseudoscientific arguments and all of which were permissible under free speech, but none of which would have been possible if individuals possessed the right of standing to require truth in politics law and commerce.

    It is ok I suspect to pollute the physical commons but not the normative commons?

    Do you have some evidence that such constraints place such limits on progress rather than improve progress? Or even a rational argument to demonstrate why (because you can’t, which is Bridgman’s position).

    Calling a woman a whore under anglo saxon law was equivalent to attempted murder that exposed the skull.

    Words have consequences. Why would some people prefer that words NOT have consequences unless they feared being held accountable for their consequences?

    THE PEOPLE WHO TAUGHT US TO LIE

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 10:32:00 UTC

  • We Can Prevent Lies Easily If the Normative Commons is Common Property

    [S]o libel, slander, defamation, are acceptable to you, I ‘m sure. So are Keynesian economics, Marxism upon which it is based, Freudian Psychology, Cantor’s sets, Mises’ Praxeology, Rothbard’s Ethics, The Frankfurt School, Feminism (feminist socialism), Boasian Pseudo-Anthropology, Postmodernism (the attack on truth), the marxist attack on education, the marxist attack on art, all of which were constructed of pseudoscientific arguments and all of which were permissible under free speech, but none of which would have been possible if individuals possessed the right of standing to require truth in politics law and commerce. It is ok I suspect to pollute the physical commons but not the normative commons? Do you have some evidence that such constraints place such limits on progress rather than improve progress? Or even a rational argument to demonstrate why (because you can’t, which is Bridgman’s position). Calling a woman a whore under anglo saxon law was equivalent to attempted murder that exposed the skull. Words have consequences. Why would some people prefer that words NOT have consequences unless they feared being held accountable for their consequences? THE PEOPLE WHO TAUGHT US TO LIE

  • We Can Prevent Lies Easily If the Normative Commons is Common Property

    [S]o libel, slander, defamation, are acceptable to you, I ‘m sure. So are Keynesian economics, Marxism upon which it is based, Freudian Psychology, Cantor’s sets, Mises’ Praxeology, Rothbard’s Ethics, The Frankfurt School, Feminism (feminist socialism), Boasian Pseudo-Anthropology, Postmodernism (the attack on truth), the marxist attack on education, the marxist attack on art, all of which were constructed of pseudoscientific arguments and all of which were permissible under free speech, but none of which would have been possible if individuals possessed the right of standing to require truth in politics law and commerce. It is ok I suspect to pollute the physical commons but not the normative commons? Do you have some evidence that such constraints place such limits on progress rather than improve progress? Or even a rational argument to demonstrate why (because you can’t, which is Bridgman’s position). Calling a woman a whore under anglo saxon law was equivalent to attempted murder that exposed the skull. Words have consequences. Why would some people prefer that words NOT have consequences unless they feared being held accountable for their consequences? THE PEOPLE WHO TAUGHT US TO LIE

  • (riffing off Eli) We don’t care about equality as much as truth, and the left do

    (riffing off Eli)

    We don’t care about equality as much as truth, and the left doesn’t care about truth as much as equality. In truth they don’t care about equality. They care about power. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 08:17:00 UTC

  • ELI ON THE LEFT’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARE-TAKING FOR TRUTH —“If arguing with l

    ELI ON THE LEFT’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARE-TAKING FOR TRUTH

    —“If arguing with leftists often seems like banging your head against a brick wall it’s because (in many cases) *the truth simply doesn’t matter to them.*”—

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 04:51:00 UTC