(FB 1552425214 Timestamp) Teaching people GRAMMAR so that they can DECODE speech is not the same as teaching people to speak exclusively in decoded speech. We have been teaching people grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy since the medieval era. Written speech is more rigorous than spoken. contract language more rigorous than written. P-speech more rigorous than contract. And the purpose of this speech is to construct law that is not open to ‘interpretation’ and therefore closed to ‘legislation from the bench’. —“In my experience one only need set about resolving oneself to use honest and clear wording to express one’s points/stance while being as factually based as possible. “— And so what’s the difference other than a formal method for doing so that also defends against error, and bias? And how would I hold you accountable for speaking honestly without some method for testing your speech – rather than just depend on your OPINION as to whether you speak honestly. What you MEAN is that you don’t want to be forced to learn how to do such a thing. And you don’t want such a thing embodied in law, because you don’t want to be accountable for your words. Right?
Theme: Education
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552425604 Timestamp) We would produce a world of much better thinkers if we taught normalization after venn diagrams. And asked people to normalize various statements. sets are trivial. normalizations falsify the problem of sets
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552425214 Timestamp) Teaching people GRAMMAR so that they can DECODE speech is not the same as teaching people to speak exclusively in decoded speech. We have been teaching people grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy since the medieval era. Written speech is more rigorous than spoken. contract language more rigorous than written. P-speech more rigorous than contract. And the purpose of this speech is to construct law that is not open to ‘interpretation’ and therefore closed to ‘legislation from the bench’. —“In my experience one only need set about resolving oneself to use honest and clear wording to express one’s points/stance while being as factually based as possible. “— And so what’s the difference other than a formal method for doing so that also defends against error, and bias? And how would I hold you accountable for speaking honestly without some method for testing your speech – rather than just depend on your OPINION as to whether you speak honestly. What you MEAN is that you don’t want to be forced to learn how to do such a thing. And you don’t want such a thing embodied in law, because you don’t want to be accountable for your words. Right?
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552608800 Timestamp) APPARENTLY TO BE CLASSIFIED AS A PHILOSOPHER YOU MUST MAKE YOUR IDEA ACCESSIBLE TO 5 YEAR OLDS —“Curt is not a philosopher by any means. He cannot even understand his own Confusion in order to boil it down into a simple manner in which common folk can grasp it instantly. If you cannot explain your ideas to a 5 year old child without them understanding them logically – you fail to comprehend yet, you own thoughts and imaginations in order to be able to judge them with discernment and thus avoid making a fool of yourself…”—Nacherel Tav This is a lie right? Can you explain programming to a five year old? The formal logics? Arithmetic, Geometry, Calculus, analysis and algebra? No you can’t. When Propertarianism is indifferent from writing law in a formal logic in a formal syntax, just like programming, with a formal set of types,. I can diagram all of it in about eight slides. But it’s a university degree level discipline. What you mean is I can’t produce an IDEOLOGY. Do you understand Kant, or Heidegger, or Aristotle or even darwin? Well, P is slightly easier than each. Precisely because it is formal. So if those men are philosophers then why am I not?
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553101370 Timestamp) YES YOU CAN USE A FAKE NAME (ALIAS) WITH THE INSTITUTE WHEN TAKING COURSES —“I want to participate in the courses, but I’m a bit concerned that putting in my real name will mean I’ll end up on some list that Antifa publishes after the Institute falls prey to hacking. Perhaps a topic worthwhile addressing on your timeline as well.”— A Friend (a) we don’t want to have to rely on dipshit aliases and user names. Just make up an alias that looks like a real name. Use it to register. (b) if we achieve accreditation then we can always change the name on issuing credits, certifications, and degrees. Ok? See…. 😉 (NOTE: this content added to site FAQ under Home > FAQ’s )
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553099340 Timestamp) SITE UPDATE: BUG ON PURCHASING COURSE FIXED Unfortunately we cannot mix the Store and Course workflows for some reason that is beyond my comprehension. But in trying to do so we blocked course purchases. This bug is fixed. We have a request into the devs (who are slow but strangely they DO fix things we report) to repair the functionality allowing the Courses to use the ‘cart’ functionality. Doing so will allow us to issue discounts etc. At present this doesn’t seem possible. And we think it’s necessary given the financial capacity of different ‘students’.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553095303 Timestamp) IF YOU TAKE THESE COURSES LAW103 – Foundations: The Method, LAW203 – Application: Opinions, Arguments, and Law LAW213 – Reformation: Human Knowledge Reform LAW303 – Reconstruction (and Constitution) By the end of LAW203 You will be able to construct every significant moral issue of the day in rigorous form just as I posed on Pedophilia yesterday. By the end of LAW213 you will understand ‘what’s wrong’ with all the fields including education, and how to repair them. By the end of LAW303 you will be able to write a constitution for your ‘recommended’ (Preferred) form of government. If you also take HIST106 – The History of the European Peoples you will have the narrative structure to explain why. If you also take ECON103 and ECON203 you will understand economics as a social science such that it is much easier to practice NATURAL LAW. This is a METHODOLOGY. it takes a little practice but the methodology can be taught, such that you can write ‘decisions’ and ‘arguments’ in natural law. (PS: FYI: I have condensed Epistemology and Argument into a single course: Foundations: LAW103/6. This was possible because of the simplification of the method once i put the material into class form.)
-
(FB 1553087834 Timestamp) FROM LAW103 – Foundations
(FB 1553087834 Timestamp) FROM LAW103 – Foundations
-
(FB 1553087721 Timestamp) FROM LAW 103 – Foundations
(FB 1553087721 Timestamp) FROM LAW 103 – Foundations
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553101370 Timestamp) YES YOU CAN USE A FAKE NAME (ALIAS) WITH THE INSTITUTE WHEN TAKING COURSES —“I want to participate in the courses, but I’m a bit concerned that putting in my real name will mean I’ll end up on some list that Antifa publishes after the Institute falls prey to hacking. Perhaps a topic worthwhile addressing on your timeline as well.”— A Friend (a) we don’t want to have to rely on dipshit aliases and user names. Just make up an alias that looks like a real name. Use it to register. (b) if we achieve accreditation then we can always change the name on issuing credits, certifications, and degrees. Ok? See…. 😉 (NOTE: this content added to site FAQ under Home > FAQ’s )