Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • HOW TO ARGUE AGAINST MORAL POSTURING UNDER PRETENSE OF VALUE, EQUALITY OR KINSHI

    HOW TO ARGUE AGAINST MORAL POSTURING UNDER PRETENSE OF VALUE, EQUALITY OR KINSHIP

    (from elsewhere)

    Did you just make a psychological rather than empirical argument? Oh wait. your first response was a moralism not a scientific one, or one of demonstrated preference. So yes, it’s not surprising that you would make a sentimental distraction rather than a scientific argument yet again.

    Or that you would give freudian evidence of your feminine cognition and lack of evidentiary understanding by using the example of ‘great at parties’ rather than ‘great at business, science, and law.” I mean. Talk about a subconscious confession of animal intuition masked by language using the pretense of reason….. lol.

    Debtors are debtors. Period.

    We aren’t equal, we aren’t allies, we aren’t family, we aren’t friends. Your value to me and mine is only what is our interests, evolution’s interests, and as a consequence, and the future of mankind’s interest.

    All your attempts to create the pretense of equality, value to one another, or social political military obligation due to reciprocity or advantage is just a fraud to create the peacock-tail of value. My only question is whether you are a cost, not a cost, or a contributor to me and mine, evolutionary excellence, and the transcendence of mankind.”

    Your method of ‘argument’ (non-argument, fraudulent positioning) only works if (a) you are kin, and (b) you are a woman and can create future kin. Otherwise you are just an opportunity or a cost.

    A man in rhetorical petticoats has nothing to trade.

    You have no intrinsic value.

    None.

    You are dead weight on humanity’s Transcendence into the gods we imagine – and gods we must be – or be chained to the lifecycle of this rock.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 10:07:00 UTC

  • FORCING THE CATHEDRAL TO DO PENANCE FOR THE CRIME OF YELLING WOLF FOR FUN AND PR

    https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/11/climate-uncertainty-monster-whats-the-worst-case/CLIMATE: FORCING THE CATHEDRAL TO DO PENANCE FOR THE CRIME OF YELLING WOLF FOR FUN AND PROFIT

    (for newbs: Cathedral = Academy, Media, State Complex: the new ‘church’.)

    I was directly involved and know the political end of the AGW movement (and lost a lot of money), and I think (as usual) Harrari’s argument (his book) is typical pilpul (his usual articulate bullshit).

    The people (skeptics) are punishing the academy and state for their handling of the issue. That’s what’s going on. They are forcing the academy and state to do penance for suppressing the counter-research, doing shoddy research, pursuing grant money by fraud, and trying to move to the left in by seizing the opportunity.

    And my opinion is that it should be criminal to act as the academy and state did in this matter, and people should be in jail for it.

    That said, we are getting fairly close to an understanding of what is actually going on in the climate, and it’s not clear that other than converting to nuclear power, and cutting the population to 1/6th, that we can (or should) do anything about it.

    NONE of the predictions, either in the 1970’s with global cooling, or in the 2000’s with AGW, or in the 2010’s with “Climate Change” have played out.

    Every single period in history, usually created by volcanic activity, has created much higher heat retention, which is rapidly corrected. We are nowhere close to it.

    Current variations in the climate are within normal ‘noise’, and the statistical analysis of the temperature readings follows the same errors of the statistical analysis of the stock market (shown by mandelbrot) and that this is just noise not signal.

    All evidence is that very little is going to happen and that all we need to do, if anything, is move to nuclear power, electric vehicles, and cut the population back to 1-3B.

    Worse, we are entering another cooling period. We have to because of the various perturbations of the orbit and axis. And the recent warming period is nearly over.

    I think everyone is largely attention seeking, and that as usually, the scientific community is seeking research dollars, the press attention, the state power, and the people who pay for it the truth.

    The truth is we are affecting the heat retention of the planet. And we have no freaking clue what is going to happen because of it – and we have no freaking clue how the planet will respond to it.

    But one thing is sure given the history of human thought: what’s being said is hyperbole.

    Follow Judith Curry’s web site which is the most accurate (scientific) analysis of the movement and its current status.

    Harrari is just another (((populist))) author selling abrahamic fantasy literature to the weak.

    STATE OF CLIMATE DATA

    If y’all can’t understand this report and how ‘moderate’ any change in the climate will be, then y’all are too ignorant and possibly too stupid to open your collective mouths on the subject.

    https://judithcurry.com/2018/10/11/climate-uncertainty-monster-whats-the-worst-case/

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 09:49:00 UTC

  • Occult: It’s cool, it’s hip, and it’s accessible.

    October 26th, 2018 4:17 PM

    —“Can someone please explain to me why this occult shit is so attractive? I mean, it’s like reading fantasy fiction for the politically frustrated?”— Curt Doolittle

    by Goran Dahl It’s cool, it’s hip, and it’s accessible. You read something like Metaphysics of War, and it’s not that different from The Fellowship of the Ring. Same beautifully constructed sentences, full of poetic words, riddled with lofty nouns that are inevitably capitalized like the philosophical texts of old. One of my favourites is when they capitalize Truth (whatever the fuck that’s supposed to mean). Who the fuck wants to read this “operational”, “via negativa” garbage, whatever that is? It all looks like computer code to me and that stuff is for nerds, right? These kids grew up with this stuff, this poison from Arktos and Counter-Currents. And what’s more, they will never, for the life of them, consider that maybe – just maybe – they shouldn’t trust these jesters and their sources, all of which are rooted in religious texts. You see, atheism or even agnosticism, those aren’t options; those are the tools of the Left. Surely, we cannot espouse the opinions of the Left, so instead, we will regress further and further and become ever more backward until this vile, leftist materialism and its child, despicable Science, are utterly obliterated and replaced with a spiritually transcendent society, which will be guided by religious texts, “perennial truths”, that were totally not written by fools and deceptive human beings, but instead written by people possessed by powerful, metaphysical forces, the names of which are once again capitalized for effect and this perverted stack of lies continues getting higher and higher and higher..

    —“That is the best explanation anyone has ever given me: Fantasy Fiction. Thank you.”— Curt Doolittle

  • “Can someone please explain to me why this occult shit is so attractive? I mean,

    —“Can someone please explain to me why this occult shit is so attractive? I mean, it’s like reading fantasy fiction for the politically frustrated?”— Curt Doolittle

    by Göran Dahl

    It’s cool, it’s hip, and it’s accessible. You read something like Metaphysics of War, and it’s not that different from The Fellowship of the Ring. Same beautifully constructed sentences, full of poetic words, riddled with lofty nouns that are inevitably capitalized like the philosophical texts of old.

    One of my favourites is when they capitalize Truth (whatever the fuck that’s supposed to mean). Who the fuck wants to read this “operational”, “via negativa” garbage, whatever that is? It all looks like computer code to me and that stuff is for nerds, right?

    These kids grew up with this stuff, this poison from Arktos and Counter-Currents. And what’s more, they will never, for the life of them, consider that maybe – just maybe – they shouldn’t trust these jesters and their sources, all of which are rooted in religious texts.

    You see, atheism or even agnosticism, those aren’t options; those are the tools of the Left. Surely, we cannot espouse the opinions of the Left, so instead, we will regress further and further and become ever more backward until this vile, leftist materialism and its child, despicable Science, are utterly obliterated and replaced with a spiritually transcendent society, which will be guided by religious texts, “perennial truths”, that were totally not written by fools and deceptive human beings, but instead written by people possessed by powerful, metaphysical forces, the names of which are once again capitalized for effect and this perverted stack of lies continues getting higher and higher and higher..

    —“That is the best explanation anyone has ever given me: Fantasy Fiction. Thank you.”— Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-26 16:17:00 UTC

  • I am not confused. I work on the evolution of deception and its means of eradica

    I am not confused. I work on the evolution of deception and its means of eradication by law. The technique used by marxists and postmodernists and the abrahamists and platonists before them uses obscurantism to construct a pretense of knowledge, from which to criticize&undermine.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 23:36:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055604065286152192

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558405501452289

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN The main confusion seems to be that you think I’m only talking about intent, I’m not. I’m literally showing how Hicks is misinterpreting the relevant theory and backing it up with sources. Again, you’re not addressing my points. You’re also not making arguments for your case.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558405501452289

  • My accusation is that each of your points “quotes” is a sophistry (lie) to cover

    My accusation is that each of your points “quotes” is a sophistry (lie) to cover the lies and intended thefts that your arguments seek to support. I deflated one of them, and I can (if I wish) deflate the entirety of them, showing the same attempted fraud in each case.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 23:33:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055603165691817985

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558405501452289

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN The main confusion seems to be that you think I’m only talking about intent, I’m not. I’m literally showing how Hicks is misinterpreting the relevant theory and backing it up with sources. Again, you’re not addressing my points. You’re also not making arguments for your case.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558405501452289

  • I am not confused. I’m waiting for you to put together an argument. And since yo

    I am not confused. I’m waiting for you to put together an argument. And since you haven’t, I’m framing the argument as we do (hicks and I), as marxists and postmodernists seeking to construct a fiction using sophistry and pseudoscience to replace the sophistry of religion.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 23:31:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055602738476785664

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558405501452289

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN The main confusion seems to be that you think I’m only talking about intent, I’m not. I’m literally showing how Hicks is misinterpreting the relevant theory and backing it up with sources. Again, you’re not addressing my points. You’re also not making arguments for your case.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558405501452289

  • (e) There is no other reason to do so – which is why Abrahamic Theology, Platoni

    (e) There is no other reason to do so – which is why Abrahamic Theology, Platonic(literary) philosophy, their conflation in the medieval era, and continental reconstruction after anglo empirical falsification of it, was constructed.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 22:21:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055585269964029953

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055565599517167618

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN So are you saying that rigorously interpreting a text is by definition pilpul and therefore bad? How do you read philosophy then?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055565599517167618

  • (c) because the only reason to do so is to justify perpetuate a fraud, commit a

    (c) because the only reason to do so is to justify perpetuate a fraud, commit a falsehood, justify a bias, or admit one’s incompetence at developing sufficient mindfulness (agency) to leave fantasy fiction literature behind.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 22:17:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055584266644537344

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055565599517167618

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN So are you saying that rigorously interpreting a text is by definition pilpul and therefore bad? How do you read philosophy then?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055565599517167618

  • Or in other words, don’t seek, like a numerologist, palm reader, tarot card read

    Or in other words, don’t seek, like a numerologist, palm reader, tarot card reader, scriptural interpreter, rabbi or theologian, to find excuses to justify your prior (pilpul), or construct straw man arguments (critique), in what is ordinary, descriptive, or scientific language.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 21:44:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055575829810417664

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055556675585875968

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @MrKennan1948 @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN The language is very familiar to me. What confuses me is the fact that it’s completely detached from any of my criticisms on the topic.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055556675585875968