Theme: Deception

  • There are many bullshitters among those who claim they are scientists. But that

    There are many bullshitters among those who claim they are scientists. But that is merely because we have failed to apply the same standard to research goods as we have ordinary consumer, business, industrial, and government products, services, and information. This isn’t terribly hard to do.

    It would unemploy vast numbers of pseudoscientists, and sophists, and fictionalists and petty criminals. I can’t think of a better law to enact for researchers academics public intellectuals reporters advertisers and marketers. 😉

    That does not mean science is not the most powerful method of the production of truth we have ever invented and is very likely if not certainly the most advanced it is possible for humans to develop.

    The fact that the nitwit and midwit factions are as easily fooled by nonsense, pseudoscience, sophistry, and theology is a function of the commonality of nitwits and midwits.

    Reply addressees: @Laymandaman @ScottAdamsSays


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-28 19:49:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751693895170215936

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751659367454453843

  • SOPHISTS USING THE TERM METAPHYSICS TO LIE Metaphysics only exists in literary p

    SOPHISTS USING THE TERM METAPHYSICS TO LIE
    Metaphysics only exists in literary philosophy as the category of assumptions about the universe. This term should be replaced assumptions about reality.
    In logic, the term is premises within a paradigm.
    In science the term is assumptions in the paradigm.
    In social science these premises and assumptions are unconscious in the population in their different individual cultural and religious paradigms.
    The only legitimate use of the term is in social science to refer to the unknown assumptions held by individuals and populations that serve as the paradigm that they use for decidability. Decidability is necessary for choice and choice necessary for action.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-28 16:11:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751639119640289280

  • “They need a mirror.” Unfortunately to the leftist mind one of my favorite lyric

    “They need a mirror.”

    Unfortunately to the leftist mind one of my favorite lyrics comes to mind….

    “All puffed up with vanity
    We see what we want to see
    To the beautiful and the wise
    The mirror always lies”


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-27 15:17:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751263171711570029

    Reply addressees: @SurragoMichael @AnarkYouTube

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751262465684574363

  • This is the first time an AI has stated this correctly… Amazing. PROMPT What c

    This is the first time an AI has stated this correctly… Amazing.

    PROMPT
    What can you tell me about Curt Doolittle’s work on truth telling and deceit?

    RESPONSE

    Curt Doolittle’s focus on truth-telling and deceit is a fundamental aspect of his philosophical framework, Propertarianism. Let’s delve into this in more detail, and I’ll use some analogies to help make the concepts more accessible.

    Truth-Telling and Deceit in Propertarianism

    The Concept of Verbal Property: In Doolittle’s view, truthfulness is not just a moral choice but a property right issue. Imagine your thoughts and knowledge as a personal library. When someone tells you the truth, they’re effectively giving you a book that accurately describes the world. Deceit, on the other hand, is like someone sneaking a false or misleading book into your library. Doolittle argues that this act of deceit violates your ‘property’ – in this case, your right to accurate information.

    The Impact of Deceit: Deceit, according to Doolittle, isn’t just a personal violation but has broader social implications. Let’s use the analogy of a market: if a market is flooded with counterfeit money, the value of real currency is undermined, and the market’s efficiency and trust are damaged. Similarly, in a society where deceit is rampant, trust – the ‘currency’ of social interactions – is devalued, leading to inefficiencies and societal harm.

    Legal and Ethical Implications: Doolittle extends this concept to legal and ethical realms. Just as theft of physical property is legally actionable, he proposes that deceit, as a theft of informational property, should also have legal consequences. In practice, this would mean stricter enforcement against misinformation, fraud, and perhaps even certain forms of advertising and political speech.

    Challenges and Criticisms: It’s important to note that while the idea of truth-telling as a property right is compelling, it also poses challenges. For instance, determining the boundary between acceptable persuasion and deceit can be tricky. Also, the practicality of legally enforcing truthfulness, especially in subjective matters, is a topic of debate.

    Your Understanding of Related Concepts
    Now, to better tailor further explanation, could you share your familiarity with the following concepts?

    Information Theory: How familiar are you with the concept of information as a form of property or asset?
    Legal Philosophy: Do you have an understanding of how laws are applied to non-physical entities, such as intellectual property or speech?
    Ethical Implications of Speech: What is your level of understanding regarding the ethical implications of speech, including truthfulness and deception?


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-26 21:59:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751001824578895873

  • RT @AshaLogos: One of the most demoralizing and exhausting elements of modernity

    RT @AshaLogos: One of the most demoralizing and exhausting elements of modernity, of that type of parasitism and corruption that now so qui…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-23 15:12:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749812411811643487

  • In effect I’m simply stating you’re using the term ‘faith’ incorrectly. Otherwis

    In effect I’m simply stating you’re using the term ‘faith’ incorrectly. Otherwise you’re using it sophomorically in ignorance or deceptively in justification. A dishonesty I don’t detect or observe in your methods of argument here or by quick glance elsewhere. 😉

    Supernatural…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-23 15:11:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749812164893012231

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749807111130030411

  • You made an accusation. That accusation originated my response. And yes, I used

    You made an accusation. That accusation originated my response. And yes, I used the term correctly.
    I don’t think you owe me anything. I state that you are engaged in sophomoric deception by claiming your definition and understanding falsify mine – yet you can’t and won’t substantiate that claim and accusation.
    Natural law is not a difficult subject, it merely has a long history of attempts at justification and context. Greek origins, Christian attempts at supernatural capture, Aquinian attempt at synthesis, Anglo expression as common law foundation – effectively a science, uniting morality and law, and defense against positive law.
    And again, please attempt to suppress your feminine intuition at gossiping, shaming, ridiculing, rallying, moralizing and psychologizing, as a defense against malinvestment in your priors, resistance to adapation, and accusation and ad hom undermining as your own personal and social therapy.

    You aren’t very bright, intellectually honest, or very good at argumentation and debate. You aren’t even very good at feminine evasion posturing undermining and social construction. Rather amateurish really.

    Try honesty. State your definition and make your case, exit the argument, or gracefully admit your failure – though I am confident you’ll never do so. It’s a feminine trait to never admit error.

    Reply addressees: @DouglasGOsborne @TuckerCarlson


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-23 15:01:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749809528924000256

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749779463330464005

  • FEMININE ORIGINS AND CAUSE OF LEFTIST REPRESSIVE TOLERANCE (*Marcuse) Why isn’t

    FEMININE ORIGINS AND CAUSE OF LEFTIST REPRESSIVE TOLERANCE
    (*Marcuse)
    Why isn’t ‘repressive tolerance’ just a form of deception by false framing, to claim it’s democracy they are advocating for rather than the suppression of meritocracy in order to create forced equality through seizure of power to impose authoritarian government?

    It is.

    (Now, compare these with female (feminine) intuition whether in a male or female body:)

    1. Labeling certain speech or ideologies as ‘repressive’ under the banner of tolerance could be a form of intellectual deception. This approach could falsely frame political agendas as democratic efforts while they may have underlying authoritarian intentions.

    2. ‘Repressive tolerance’ might be used to undermine meritocratic systems. By labeling certain merit-based outcomes as products of oppressive structures, it could lead to the devaluation of merit in favor of ideological conformity.

    3. ‘Repressive tolerance’ is as a step towards enforced equality, where diversity of thought is sacrificed for uniformity. This uniformity, enforced through supposedly tolerant policies, could pave the way for authoritarian governance structures.

    4. Leftist ideologies often view all forms of authority and influence as inherently unearned, negating the possibility of legitimate authority derived from merit and competence.

    5. The importance of recognizing merit and competency in establishing authority challenges the notion that existing power structures are solely the result of privilege or oppression, presenting evidence of meritocratic processes at work.

    6. The claim that advocacy for traditionally marginalized groups often overlooks the need for demonstrated competency. It would also explore the tension between ensuring equal opportunities and the pursuit of equal outcomes.

    In effect the Female > Feminine > Left Behavior consists of nothing more than using deception, false victimhood, false accusation, in order to bypass earning and exchange to obtain what they desire. The female > feminine > leftist nature like the left nature is purely criminal. (Which is… odd. Though the ancient world would have considered it obvious.)

    WHY: THEY CANNOT COMPETE BY MERIT.

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-23 01:20:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749603031644004352

  • AN ENEMY TACTIC: INTELLECTUAL REPRESSION, (‘Repressive Intolerance’) The organiz

    AN ENEMY TACTIC: INTELLECTUAL REPRESSION, (‘Repressive Intolerance’)
    The organized prevention of discussing a topic, which involve concepts like thought control and censorship.

    Here are a few:

    Prior Restraint: In legal terms, this refers to governmental suppression of material… https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1749582588845367343


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-23 00:28:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749589943226134805

  • ANOTHER OF THE ENEMY’S TECHNIQUES OF DECEIT (Additional methods requested from t

    ANOTHER OF THE ENEMY’S TECHNIQUES OF DECEIT
    (Additional methods requested from the readers)
    From the “If you can name a thing you can destroy a thing.”

    SUBHEADING VIII. SOCIAL SEDITION (Capital Destruction)
    1. Erasing: :Mnemolysis”: Anti-Mnemonic: Etymology of Mnemonic:… https://twitter.com/WerrellBradley/status/1749578275524059328


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-22 23:59:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749582588845367343