Theme: Deception

  • This Hole we reside in exists because the inventors of judaism, christianity, an

    This Hole we reside in exists because the inventors of judaism, christianity, and islam, once confronted by Darwin and Eugenics, revised from supernatural sophism to pseudoscientific sophism and created marxism, feminism, postmodernism and denialism. It’s just Christianity V2.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-04 18:40:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180190983100796928

    Reply addressees: @EvolaJesus @PoseidonAwoke @JohnMarkSays @Algernon_Sydney @nl7719 @StefanMolyneux @philosophicart @MrsMMissy @WorMartiN @alaindwight @ThruTheHayes @MartianHoplite

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180178224258654208


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1180178224258654208

  • Why? Because we know people lie and why. In fact, the majority of work in legal

    Why? Because we know people lie and why. In fact, the majority of work in legal cases ( like the majority of work I do counter lies by sophism, pseudoscience, and supernaturalism) is lie detection by the incremental disambiguation of context and deduction of incentives.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-04 01:16:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179928186605461504

    Reply addressees: @freedomismoral

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179927652536336387


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @freedomismoral Do humans have the ability imitate (physical), empathize(emotional), sympathize (intellectual), of course, that’s why we are able to cooperate. Do juries test consistency, correspondence, rational incentive, and reciprocity, means, motive, opportunity, and intent? Yes.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1179927652536336387


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @freedomismoral Do humans have the ability imitate (physical), empathize(emotional), sympathize (intellectual), of course, that’s why we are able to cooperate. Do juries test consistency, correspondence, rational incentive, and reciprocity, means, motive, opportunity, and intent? Yes.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1179927652536336387

  • Do humans have the ability imitate (physical), empathize(emotional), sympathize

    Do humans have the ability imitate (physical), empathize(emotional), sympathize (intellectual), of course, that’s why we are able to cooperate. Do juries test consistency, correspondence, rational incentive, and reciprocity, means, motive, opportunity, and intent? Yes.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-04 01:14:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179927652536336387

    Reply addressees: @freedomismoral

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179913987762216961


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179913987762216961

  • So not only are your fantasies indistinguishable from lying, it’s pretty settled

    So not only are your fantasies indistinguishable from lying, it’s pretty settled science that what people report they believe is rarely demonstrated in their actions – particularly if it impinges upon their self image. Hence the increasingly poor quality of polls.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-04 00:51:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179921979014549505

    Reply addressees: @freedomismoral

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179921646041403397


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @freedomismoral But in matters of argument, competition, conflict, or ir-reciprocity(criminal, unethical, immoral) your imagination makes no difference. Lying to yourself makes no difference. Lying to preserve a delusion makes no difference. Only action does. And actions demonstrate truth.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1179921646041403397


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @freedomismoral But in matters of argument, competition, conflict, or ir-reciprocity(criminal, unethical, immoral) your imagination makes no difference. Lying to yourself makes no difference. Lying to preserve a delusion makes no difference. Only action does. And actions demonstrate truth.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1179921646041403397

  • But in matters of argument, competition, conflict, or ir-reciprocity(criminal, u

    But in matters of argument, competition, conflict, or ir-reciprocity(criminal, unethical, immoral) your imagination makes no difference. Lying to yourself makes no difference. Lying to preserve a delusion makes no difference. Only action does. And actions demonstrate truth.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-04 00:50:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179921646041403397

    Reply addressees: @freedomismoral

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179921280352563202


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @freedomismoral Metaphysics must means paradigm and paradigm just means a set of constant relations, but whether those constant relations correspond to reality, your imagination, your imagination of what you might do, is either demonstrable or not. It doesn’t matter when it’s just in your head.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1179921280352563202


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @freedomismoral Metaphysics must means paradigm and paradigm just means a set of constant relations, but whether those constant relations correspond to reality, your imagination, your imagination of what you might do, is either demonstrable or not. It doesn’t matter when it’s just in your head.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1179921280352563202

  • Evidence is evidence, and without warranty, humans report the opposite of their

    Evidence is evidence, and without warranty, humans report the opposite of their demonstrated preference just to maintain self image or status with others. Constantly. So we have no idea what fantasies you imagine and it’s not clear you do either – until you demonstrate such.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-04 00:47:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179921024558735360

    Reply addressees: @freedomismoral

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179920475046268928


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @freedomismoral Well courts do so every day in governance of human actions. You cannot make a truth claim about that which you cannot Testify. It’s simply not possible. You can find meaning, utility, satisfaction, sedation, you can find faith, but without demonstration you don’t know either.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1179920475046268928


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @freedomismoral Well courts do so every day in governance of human actions. You cannot make a truth claim about that which you cannot Testify. It’s simply not possible. You can find meaning, utility, satisfaction, sedation, you can find faith, but without demonstration you don’t know either.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1179920475046268928

  • Here No More Lies. No More Sophisms, No more Pilpul, No more lies

    Here
    No More Lies.
    No More Sophisms, No more Pilpul, No more lies.
    https://propertarianism.com/2019/02/23/on-truth-complete-core/


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 23:48:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179905998699585540

    Reply addressees: @freedomismoral

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179905226263937024


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @freedomismoral Nope. It’s not testifiable. Can you submit it in court as evidence? Nope. Then it is indistinguishable from lie.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1179905226263937024


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @freedomismoral Nope. It’s not testifiable. Can you submit it in court as evidence? Nope. Then it is indistinguishable from lie.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1179905226263937024

  • Nope. It’s not testifiable. Can you submit it in court as evidence? Nope. Then i

    Nope. It’s not testifiable. Can you submit it in court as evidence? Nope. Then it is indistinguishable from lie.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 23:45:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179905226263937024

    Reply addressees: @freedomismoral

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179904833949585409


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179904833949585409

  • Counsel: Philosophy vs Sophism

    Counsel: Philosophy vs Sophism https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/counsel-philosophy-vs-sophism/


    Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 23:26:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179900576324358148

  • Counsel: Philosophy vs Sophism

    COUNSEL: PHILOSOPHY VS SOPHISM [G]iven any term, always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions. I prefer 8 to 12 whenever I can get them, and english because it has so vast a vocabulary of working, governing, intellectual, logical, and scientific origins is extremely useful for creating constellations of constant relations whether in one series, or a competition between series we call ‘supply and demand curves’. Using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of conflation when using ideal types and fallacies of construction such as ‘principles’. Example: Good < Moral < Ethical < Amoral > Unethical > Immoral > Evil constant relations: 1… change in capital whether positive, neutral, or negative 2… degree of intent, accidental, self interest, other interest 3… degree of informational distance between actors and victims (ethical interpersonal, moral inter social, evil both.) Most sophistry in philosophy consists of: 1… using ideal rather than serialized (enumerated) definitions; 2… using the verb to be (is are was were, be, being) rather than the means of existence; 3… conflating points of view between the observer, actor, and acted upon; 4… and failing to construct complete sentences in testimonial (promissory) grammar, using operational terms. You will find that this is one of the points of demarcation between pseudoscience, theology, philosophy, moralizing, and testimony (what we call science): disambiguation and operationalization into complete promissory sentences will rapidly demonstrate that almost all philosophical questions are sophisms. Witticisms. Nonsense. Puzzles. Riddles. But nothing more. ORIGINS Mathematics has only one constant relation (position) consisting of a single ratio, which provides scale independence, and cost independence which produces fully deterministic and testable descriptions. Yet philosophers since the time of the greeks have be trying to imitate it’s utility to no avail, and instead, have created textual and verbal interpretation under the premise the the triviality of one-dimensional positional logic can provide the same utility in deduction and prediction (induction) as the constant relations of mathematics. Animism > Readings (Divination) > Astrology > Scriptural interpretation > Textual interpretation > legal interpretation > numerology > postmodern linguistic divination all constitute the same: finding what is not there as an appeal to an non-existent authority. The only peer to mathematics in language is serialization: lines that test the constant relations between points (terms), and supply demand curves that test the relationship between lines ( propositions.).