Oct 7, 2019, 7:27 PM (important)(canon) The Stupid Male Trick – Male GSRRM – I don’t understand, you’re wrong. The Stupid Female Trick – Female GSRRM – I disapprove, you’re bad. The male method: Cast an accusation and cause the author to defend himself, rather than allow the falsehood to spread. The female method is to substitute disapproval for truth. The masculine method is to force the author to educate the critic on his terms rather than do the work, or rather than admit his ignorance or status simply asking the question. Either you can ask a question if you have little knowledge, you can make a criticism on the terms implied if you have more, or you can explain what you disagree with and ask why you err. If I criticize thinkers it’s after understanding their work. In most cases thinkers have only one or two fundamental insights that all their additional prose explains the application of it to a host of contexts. Most critics on the other hand have no ideas, only a field of ignorance error bias, and deceit. This is the difference between producers and rent seekers. Some of us produce ideas. The rest consume, or rent seek. Male posers are rent seekers. I have no critics that I know of that are not mere rent-seekers.
Theme: Deception
-
Masculine Gsrrm versus Female Gsrrm
Oct 7, 2019, 7:27 PM (important)(canon) The Stupid Male Trick – Male GSRRM – I don’t understand, you’re wrong. The Stupid Female Trick – Female GSRRM – I disapprove, you’re bad. The male method: Cast an accusation and cause the author to defend himself, rather than allow the falsehood to spread. The female method is to substitute disapproval for truth. The masculine method is to force the author to educate the critic on his terms rather than do the work, or rather than admit his ignorance or status simply asking the question. Either you can ask a question if you have little knowledge, you can make a criticism on the terms implied if you have more, or you can explain what you disagree with and ask why you err. If I criticize thinkers it’s after understanding their work. In most cases thinkers have only one or two fundamental insights that all their additional prose explains the application of it to a host of contexts. Most critics on the other hand have no ideas, only a field of ignorance error bias, and deceit. This is the difference between producers and rent seekers. Some of us produce ideas. The rest consume, or rent seek. Male posers are rent seekers. I have no critics that I know of that are not mere rent-seekers.
-
Ending the Legacy of Pilpul and Sophism
Ending the Legacy of Pilpul and Sophism https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/ending-the-legacy-of-pilpul-and-sophism/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 18:02:00 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265704822524612610
-
Ending the Legacy of Pilpul and Sophism
Oct 7, 2019, 8:07 PM
—“Logic without evidence may very well leave you with uncogent/unsound arguments. It is quite possible to create uncogent/unsound arguments that are technically correct in their formulation. Logical arguments with premises that are unproven are no better than bad logical arguments.”—Clifton Knox
Lots of things may leave you with unsound arguments. That tells us nothing. In fact, i bet you can’t define a ‘sound argument’ just like you can’t define ’empirical’ vs ‘logical’ vs ‘operational’, vs ‘rational’. Here is a sound argument: one that survives falsification by tests of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, operational possibility in operational language, and if involving humans rational choice, and if involving human interaction, requires tests of reciprocity (morality). If an argument survives such a series of criticisms it is a truth candidate. But other than the tautological and trivial any statement must survive every dimension of those criticisms in order to make a truth claim of it. There is no living philosopher of merit that will be able to defeat this other than by debate over the term ‘trivial’. Hoppe poses the false dichotomy between justificationism and empiricism (which he calls positivism) whereas we can test propositions (theories, promises) by every single dimension that is included in the statement. (identity, logic, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal). Now, You still havent’ answered how a logic requires evidence, and that no a priori exists, yet hoppe bases his edifice on the a priori. So how can you then advocate hoppe? You state that hoppe engages in evidence but he doesn’t, his entire work effort from argumentation upward relies on the a priori. And I’m not sure he knows (i think he doesn’t) undrestand how to convert the a priorism into scientific terms, or falsification, or that its’ the competition between the methods: logical, empirical, operational, rational that falsifies (testes the survival of) our theories. I mean, you are awfully far out of your league munchkin. You need at least mathematical philosophy, formal logic, and the philosophy of science before you can stop making so many sophomoric arguments. So you know, you haven’t the faintest idea what you’re talking about other than throwing around a few big words and phrases you think you understand but do not whatsoever understand.
-
Ending the Legacy of Pilpul and Sophism
Oct 7, 2019, 8:07 PM
—“Logic without evidence may very well leave you with uncogent/unsound arguments. It is quite possible to create uncogent/unsound arguments that are technically correct in their formulation. Logical arguments with premises that are unproven are no better than bad logical arguments.”—Clifton Knox
Lots of things may leave you with unsound arguments. That tells us nothing. In fact, i bet you can’t define a ‘sound argument’ just like you can’t define ’empirical’ vs ‘logical’ vs ‘operational’, vs ‘rational’. Here is a sound argument: one that survives falsification by tests of identity, internal consistency, external correspondence, operational possibility in operational language, and if involving humans rational choice, and if involving human interaction, requires tests of reciprocity (morality). If an argument survives such a series of criticisms it is a truth candidate. But other than the tautological and trivial any statement must survive every dimension of those criticisms in order to make a truth claim of it. There is no living philosopher of merit that will be able to defeat this other than by debate over the term ‘trivial’. Hoppe poses the false dichotomy between justificationism and empiricism (which he calls positivism) whereas we can test propositions (theories, promises) by every single dimension that is included in the statement. (identity, logic, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal). Now, You still havent’ answered how a logic requires evidence, and that no a priori exists, yet hoppe bases his edifice on the a priori. So how can you then advocate hoppe? You state that hoppe engages in evidence but he doesn’t, his entire work effort from argumentation upward relies on the a priori. And I’m not sure he knows (i think he doesn’t) undrestand how to convert the a priorism into scientific terms, or falsification, or that its’ the competition between the methods: logical, empirical, operational, rational that falsifies (testes the survival of) our theories. I mean, you are awfully far out of your league munchkin. You need at least mathematical philosophy, formal logic, and the philosophy of science before you can stop making so many sophomoric arguments. So you know, you haven’t the faintest idea what you’re talking about other than throwing around a few big words and phrases you think you understand but do not whatsoever understand.
-
Math was made mysterious so that the people could treat it like a mystery cult
Math was made mysterious so that the people could treat it like a mystery cult https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/math-was-made-mysterious-so-that-the-people-could-treat-it-like-a-mystery-cult/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 17:52:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265702493499133958
-
No More Ancap Lies
No More Ancap Lies https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/27/no-more-ancap-lies/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-27 17:48:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265701514015846400
-
No More Ancap Lies
Oct 11, 2019, 11:31 AM
—“First AnCaps are not free riders because AnCaps are not demanding or relying on any resources created by others. You say that it is some kind of fairy-tale village on the frontier which is protected by the federal cavalry when in trouble, but that is Y…”— Gunther Schadow
ERROR #1 – AN ANARCHIC POLITY CAN OBTAIN PROPERTY, ATTRACT POPULATION, CONSTRUCT A POLITY (ORDER) AND THEN SURVIVE COMPETITION FOR TERRITORY AND POPULATION ON HOPPEIAN OR ROTHBARDIAN TERMS. Assertion: This isn’t possible without dependency upon external revenues, population, and governance. Evidence: it never has succeeded – ever. (see Crusoe’s island fallacy for why). a) I can produce no plan by which such an order is possible. b) I can find no evidence in history by which such an order is possible. c) I can discover no incentives under which such an order is possible. d) Every order that has tried has been exterminated by competitors because it has become a haven for criminals who use it as a staging ground for parasitism against polities that produce commons. You are welcome to falsify these falsifications. I cannot. LIE #1 – MISREPRESENTATION OF LACK OF COMPREHENSION OR ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT AN ARGUMENT AS COMPREHENSION
—“Doolittle doesn’t have debates with anyone who might disagree too much…”—
I’ll debate anyone who:
– has the knowledge to. – has the ability to. – is intellectually honest – and is willing to. This dramatically limits the number of people worth debating to fellow researchers (academics). If one cannot conduct an argument on the opponent’s terms then one does not comprehend those terms. The only system of measurement for incommensurable terms is operations – a sequence of actions testing the possibility of the propositions. The leading people will not debate me for a variety of reasons,
a) the most prevalent of which is my intolerance on one hand, b) and that I haven’t published a work they can dissect on another – which is the price of entry into the academy’s circle of discourse; c) i’m a hostile that they don’t want to feed attention to. d) they are afraid I would win. This is why I want to publish, but maintain presence online, which generates demand for the publication, and assists me in simplifying the arguments so that they are more digestible for less specialized people. LIE #2 – INABILITY TO RECIPROCALLY CONDUCT AN ARGUMENT ON THE OPPONENT’S TERMS DEMONSTRATING KNOWLEDGE OF THE OPPONENT’S TERMS You can’t. You don’t. You pretend you do. Yet you can’t demonstrate it. Yet you pretend to. LIE #3 (THEFT) – USING MALE GSRRM TO STRAW MAN THE OPPOSITION BEFORE MASTERY OF THE MATERIAL. Meaning you’re too lazy to do the work so you cast unsubstantiated criticism and insults in an attempt to force the opponent to educate you and debate you rather than asking questions or doing the research yourself. (theft by fraud). LIE #4 – OBJECTIVE IS TO CONFIRM BIASES NOT DISCOVER TRUTHS You aren’t searching for truth you’ve made up your mind that what you already consider the good (which as far as I can tell is purely habituated intuition ). CLOSING So man up and provide a solution ERROR #1, while not engaging in LIES #1,#2,#3,#4. If you can provide a solution to ERROR #1 then we have used operational terms to ameliorate differences in our arguments. Because so far you’re just pulling nonsense out of the air. This sort of goes along with my statement that if you can’t produce a constitution you’re talking smack. Well, same goes for the rest of the polity. The starting point being “how do I get a territory where I can determine the law”.
-
No More Ancap Lies
Oct 11, 2019, 11:31 AM
—“First AnCaps are not free riders because AnCaps are not demanding or relying on any resources created by others. You say that it is some kind of fairy-tale village on the frontier which is protected by the federal cavalry when in trouble, but that is Y…”— Gunther Schadow
ERROR #1 – AN ANARCHIC POLITY CAN OBTAIN PROPERTY, ATTRACT POPULATION, CONSTRUCT A POLITY (ORDER) AND THEN SURVIVE COMPETITION FOR TERRITORY AND POPULATION ON HOPPEIAN OR ROTHBARDIAN TERMS. Assertion: This isn’t possible without dependency upon external revenues, population, and governance. Evidence: it never has succeeded – ever. (see Crusoe’s island fallacy for why). a) I can produce no plan by which such an order is possible. b) I can find no evidence in history by which such an order is possible. c) I can discover no incentives under which such an order is possible. d) Every order that has tried has been exterminated by competitors because it has become a haven for criminals who use it as a staging ground for parasitism against polities that produce commons. You are welcome to falsify these falsifications. I cannot. LIE #1 – MISREPRESENTATION OF LACK OF COMPREHENSION OR ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT AN ARGUMENT AS COMPREHENSION
—“Doolittle doesn’t have debates with anyone who might disagree too much…”—
I’ll debate anyone who:
– has the knowledge to. – has the ability to. – is intellectually honest – and is willing to. This dramatically limits the number of people worth debating to fellow researchers (academics). If one cannot conduct an argument on the opponent’s terms then one does not comprehend those terms. The only system of measurement for incommensurable terms is operations – a sequence of actions testing the possibility of the propositions. The leading people will not debate me for a variety of reasons,
a) the most prevalent of which is my intolerance on one hand, b) and that I haven’t published a work they can dissect on another – which is the price of entry into the academy’s circle of discourse; c) i’m a hostile that they don’t want to feed attention to. d) they are afraid I would win. This is why I want to publish, but maintain presence online, which generates demand for the publication, and assists me in simplifying the arguments so that they are more digestible for less specialized people. LIE #2 – INABILITY TO RECIPROCALLY CONDUCT AN ARGUMENT ON THE OPPONENT’S TERMS DEMONSTRATING KNOWLEDGE OF THE OPPONENT’S TERMS You can’t. You don’t. You pretend you do. Yet you can’t demonstrate it. Yet you pretend to. LIE #3 (THEFT) – USING MALE GSRRM TO STRAW MAN THE OPPOSITION BEFORE MASTERY OF THE MATERIAL. Meaning you’re too lazy to do the work so you cast unsubstantiated criticism and insults in an attempt to force the opponent to educate you and debate you rather than asking questions or doing the research yourself. (theft by fraud). LIE #4 – OBJECTIVE IS TO CONFIRM BIASES NOT DISCOVER TRUTHS You aren’t searching for truth you’ve made up your mind that what you already consider the good (which as far as I can tell is purely habituated intuition ). CLOSING So man up and provide a solution ERROR #1, while not engaging in LIES #1,#2,#3,#4. If you can provide a solution to ERROR #1 then we have used operational terms to ameliorate differences in our arguments. Because so far you’re just pulling nonsense out of the air. This sort of goes along with my statement that if you can’t produce a constitution you’re talking smack. Well, same goes for the rest of the polity. The starting point being “how do I get a territory where I can determine the law”.
-
Why Is Debating Against P so Unpleasant?
Oct 11, 2019, 11:58 AM Listening to EMJ debate Dutton and Recognizing the profound difference between Argument and Error, vs Prosecution and Lying. So the reason it’s so painful for others to argue with us, is that if you use operational terms you can’t testify to something you claim you can, then you’re lying or engaging in fraud, while if you’re argument in ideal language instead of operational, you’re just making an error. This is why people hate arguing with us. That not only do we eliminate the ability to engage in sophism, but we don’t call it error, we call it lying, fraud, and deceit.