Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • ( 5- So the problem for the faithful is that the tools of persuasion by which th

    ( 5- So the problem for the faithful is that the tools of persuasion by which they construct their internal contact for faith, is used against them, by a COMPETING new religion of pseudoscience evolved to REPLACE THEM.)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 15:18:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098602957359235073

    Reply addressees: @mauritian_strug @DataDistribute

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098553063575572480

    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/1098553063575572480

  • (4-This is because the tools of rallying to a false promise, despite the moral h

    (4-This is because the tools of rallying to a false promise, despite the moral hazard of doing so, and using GSRM, Pilpul and Critique (which my work exists to end), are the tool of communicating the abrahamic religions of the old world, and Marxism, Postmodern, Feminism today.)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 15:16:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098602379988082688

    Reply addressees: @mauritian_strug @DataDistribute

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098553063575572480

    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/1098553063575572480

  • POSTED ON HOWE’S SITE Judge for yourself whether Howe is (a)Stupid, (b)Ignorant

    POSTED ON HOWE’S SITE

    Judge for yourself whether Howe is (a)Stupid, (b)Ignorant and Lazy, (c) Intellectually Dishonest, or (d) All of The Above.

    Compare his definitions of propertarianism, of property, of operationalism, of the means of decidability (testimonialism) and claims made, with posts that are three or more years old.

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10157002703142264

    Even worse, his confusion of justificationism (norm, philosophy, religion), with falsificationism (math, science, law) and that P constitutes an instance of law (decidability in matters of conflict) not justification (suggested or consensual behavior) or that he cannot seem to comprehend the difference between theory (search for opportunities) and recipes-actions (operational transformations) – say the theory of smelting vs the means of smelting different metals under different conditions. Or that the purpose of P is force the speaker to demonstrate he has the knowledge that he makes a truth claim in matters of conflict. Or that the Operationalist/Operational/intuitionistic/Praxeological movement resulted in current scientific prose. Or that Eprime is only used to formally criticize operational speech not ‘speak in it’ – in the same way formal logic is only used to formally criticize set statements. I mean… Howe’s criticism is one stupid ignorant lazy arrogant presumptuous statement after another.

    Ask yourself if it was even vaguely possible to make the above podcast if you had even taken a cursory read of the material, and even a trivial understanding of it. Especially given that we tend to make definitions in series and he doesn’t use a single one. I mean, would you misrepresent the definition of P if it’s on the home page of the site? Would you misrepresent the definition of property and it’s means of construction? Would you misrepresent the operational and ePrime movements by criticism of the personalities of the time, or whether they performed as claimed? I mean, would you? Does the OED contain false definitions because they were written by a man, insane, and in an asylum?

    Then ask yourself that given that little understanding, that much straw manning, the claim that it’s not personal compared to the gossiping he does at the end whether. And you’ve called my wife, who I met on my second day in Ukraine, a whore and me a sex tourist. And this is because the last time you came after me I did a pretty thorough destruction of apriorism – not that I had to since it’s pretty common knowledge among the educated (even someone like Rand) that this kantian nonsense was just an attempt at secular preservation of authority of the church and state.

    Yes we are getting popular. In our popularity we are leaving behind people with malinvestments in failed intellectual, economic, and political movements. We might fail in our mission. That said WASTING MY TIME and POLLUTING THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS with stupid, ignorant, intellectually dishonest pretense does nothing to advance anything except a polluted commons, and to prohibit good people with good intentions, seeking a POSSIBLE solution to the problem of leftist usurpation of propaganda from paying the rather high cost of investing in learning how to do so.

    Which is precisely what P is designed to do.

    Dishonest, lazy ignorant, stupid, self interested shills. The world needs fewer of you. You’re just as cancerous to our people as the leftists.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 13:45:00 UTC

  • IT’S MOSTLY CHRISTIAN TROLLS THIS TIME —“We’re getting a lot more trolls latel

    IT’S MOSTLY CHRISTIAN TROLLS THIS TIME

    —“We’re getting a lot more trolls lately”–

    It’s just (a) the christians (b) those falling behind the window, (c) because we are getting a lot of attention, (d) because john mark is talking about the solution rather than the methodology.

    Devout Libertarians > Ancaps > Christians – they’re the margins which is why they’re here. Note that we get the opposite reaction from police, military, families, laboring, working, lower middle, and middle class who are being screwed by the current condition.

    Our market is those with personal agency but political subjugation. The online community is rife with people of little personal agency. Or as bill says “skin in the game”.

    (PS: I thought trolls were a heathen thing? But we built a lot of bridges in the past century, so we made troll condos everywhere I guess, and there was massive immigration. )

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-21 11:37:00 UTC

  • A legitimate question can a asked by intellectually dishonest person under intel

    A legitimate question can a asked by intellectually dishonest person under intellectually dishonest conditions for intellectually dishonest reasons. No engagement with intellectually dishonest people. So have some honest person ask.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-20 23:43:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098367589020037121

    Reply addressees: @Johnonnn @DataDistribute

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098363405772173313

    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/1098363405772173313

  • We don’t deal with intellectually dishonest people. However answers on FB. We wi

    We don’t deal with intellectually dishonest people. However answers on FB. We will answer anyone else who asks.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-20 23:23:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098362527833116677

    Reply addressees: @Johnonnn @DataDistribute

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098361821097091073

    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/1098361821097091073

  • You Cannot Appropriate P or Climb on P’s Bus in Defense of Your Lying.

    February 20th, 2019 10:31 AM

    —“I think he is saying that you are gossip rallying yourself in this instance and that it is relatively well placed on the irony scale.”—Jay Thompson

    I thought RECIPROCITY was moral. And that ‘he’ is using pilpul to create a false equivalency between argument vs argument and ridicule vs ridicule. Which is sophistry or dishonesty or ignorance, or stupidity. THE ARGUMENTATIVE PROCESS If ridiculed, return it, and then restate the central argument. If that process doesn’t return to argument, repeat. If repetition doesn’t work, the return to violence. Never let GSRRM go unanswered. Identify it. Return it. Restate the central argument. (inform thru repetition) Repeat. Hardly requires restating the central argument with Kinsella. THERE IS NO ROOM ON THE BUS FOR LIES This is why I don’t see hope for y’all. You are all dependent upon the use of avoidance of the central argument like women, jews, and muslims, which demonstrates that christianity is a vehicle for the deceits of women, jews, and muslims and therefore you cannot ‘earn the franchise’ by reciprocity of truthful speech. Every time you make one of these childish bits of nonsense all you do is confirm: you are not able to evolve past that level of infantilism we equate to women and children or that level of dishonesty we call abrahamism. So please stop wasting my time. We cannot cooperate, because we cannot agree to reciprocity, and we cannot agree to reciprocity because we cannot agree to truthful speech that would end abrahamic deception in supernatural, ideal, sophomoric, and pseudoscientific terms, that gave us judaism, christianity, islam, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism, using the very means of fraudulent discourse you are using with me. It’s not complicated. Just not worth talking about. Xians must find a way on their own. I can’t help those who are allies of the enemy. And christians are allies of the enemy of our people. Because christians are more allied to jews, christians, and muslims than they are to their people, their science and their law and their history. Solve your own problem. There is no ride on P for christians in alliance with the enemy on the preservation of lying. Truth is my way and the original way of our people before the dark ages of abrahamic ignorance and submission. Find your own way. There is no way of appropriating P in defense of lying.

  • Crossing the Line Into Legally Actionable

    [L]et’s get something straight. Attack my ideas – please. That’s the only purpose of open discourse. Attack my intellectual ability – fine, I err like everyone else. Attack my character, well I don’t claim to be a person of good character – I’ve got my own piles of mistakes and guilt – I just claim I am correct. Attack my personality – well, I incite that behavior on purpose and it’s good marketing. But attack my biz, or make up nonsense about me that could affect my biz, then try to remember that while not a lawyer, I am a student of, theorist of, and teacher of the law, and can hire practicing lawyers, and it costs me very little time and effort to use the courts for their intended purpose. So far, in the past two weeks, I have a stalker, two actionable claims against the business, and an actionable claim against individuals. At the very least, it will silence you, put you at risk for future silencing, give me and counsel access to your personal life including your digital information, and cost you money. You don’t have to win an action to cost someone money. The process itself is extremely expensive. I’m a grown up. I’ve lived in the grownup world. I’ve spent unimaginable amounts of time in litigation as a cost of doing business. The online right is full of men who have little such experience or achievement. I understand that this means you’re ignorant of such things. So fair warning. I love litigation more than I love sh-t talking with you, argument, and competing in biz. So let’s stick to criticizing my ideas, intellect, and personality in good ‘online’ fashion. I enjoy locker room criticism like anyone else. I enjoy the ‘male means of verbal combat sports’. But signals are signals, online sport is online sport, and money is money, and each requires a different means of defense. So, Zero Tolerance for crossing the line. I don’t do it. Via Reciprocity, don’t do it to me. OK? Good. I’m glad we came to this understanding. Cheers.

  • You Cannot Appropriate P or Climb on P’s Bus in Defense of Your Lying.

    February 20th, 2019 10:31 AM

    —“I think he is saying that you are gossip rallying yourself in this instance and that it is relatively well placed on the irony scale.”—Jay Thompson

    I thought RECIPROCITY was moral. And that ‘he’ is using pilpul to create a false equivalency between argument vs argument and ridicule vs ridicule. Which is sophistry or dishonesty or ignorance, or stupidity. THE ARGUMENTATIVE PROCESS If ridiculed, return it, and then restate the central argument. If that process doesn’t return to argument, repeat. If repetition doesn’t work, the return to violence. Never let GSRRM go unanswered. Identify it. Return it. Restate the central argument. (inform thru repetition) Repeat. Hardly requires restating the central argument with Kinsella. THERE IS NO ROOM ON THE BUS FOR LIES This is why I don’t see hope for y’all. You are all dependent upon the use of avoidance of the central argument like women, jews, and muslims, which demonstrates that christianity is a vehicle for the deceits of women, jews, and muslims and therefore you cannot ‘earn the franchise’ by reciprocity of truthful speech. Every time you make one of these childish bits of nonsense all you do is confirm: you are not able to evolve past that level of infantilism we equate to women and children or that level of dishonesty we call abrahamism. So please stop wasting my time. We cannot cooperate, because we cannot agree to reciprocity, and we cannot agree to reciprocity because we cannot agree to truthful speech that would end abrahamic deception in supernatural, ideal, sophomoric, and pseudoscientific terms, that gave us judaism, christianity, islam, marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism, using the very means of fraudulent discourse you are using with me. It’s not complicated. Just not worth talking about. Xians must find a way on their own. I can’t help those who are allies of the enemy. And christians are allies of the enemy of our people. Because christians are more allied to jews, christians, and muslims than they are to their people, their science and their law and their history. Solve your own problem. There is no ride on P for christians in alliance with the enemy on the preservation of lying. Truth is my way and the original way of our people before the dark ages of abrahamic ignorance and submission. Find your own way. There is no way of appropriating P in defense of lying.

  • So the issue then is defining xianity such that every scumbag scam artist on the

    …. So the issue then is defining xianity such that every scumbag scam artist on the planet doesn’t make up nonsense and call it ‘christian’ to skate the law just as ((())) has been done in this century under marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism to destroy us.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-20 17:50:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098278855574544384

    Reply addressees: @SomeAccountMan @HHBenedictXVII

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1098277059862896640

    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/1098277059862896640