(FB 1550764294 Timestamp) WHY NOT DEBATE THE FAITHFUL? (1 – I don’t debate ‘the faithful’ because reason, empiricism, operationalism, science and law are incommensurable with faith. Moreover, I debate in writing because abrahamic sophism and GSRM is easier to expose, and analytic prose more than the faithful can follow by intuition.) (2- So just as ‘Do not debate with women, they argue by intuition, and proportionality while men argue by testimony and reciprocity’ the faithful rely on the tactic of females: outcasting those who will not conform to myth, vs men outcasting those who will not conform to Truth.) ( 3 -The only reason the faithful have political value is remaining numbers. So rejection of cooperation in exchange for tolerance of circumventing testimony is still possible.Otherwise not.The faithful are historically allies of the enemy, and only joined the ‘right’ after ww2.) (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.) ( 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.) ( 6 – Since we have spent 1500 years germanicizing this semitic religion, it is defended by the aristocratic(law) class on tradition and kinship interest alone. However, the faithful will prevent the martial class from defeating this new pseudoscientific set of religions.) (7-And while I have found a method of using the law and testimony to end these competitors our ‘traditional’ faithful,those faithful are clearly unwilling to trade “Faith for the Spiritual, and Law for Reality” in matters of public speech -which is necessary to end competition. ) (8 – As such the only possibility going forward is mass appeal to the material interests of the majority of the population, whom under pressure of subjugation and genocide by the new pseudoscientific cults, will follow their material interest. ) (9 -This means we simply write the law without compromise and let the interests of faith compete with everyone’s material interests; and as such we cannot restore education and state support to the churches, which they desperately need for their survival and political influence. (10- And you .. amatures .. interpreted my experiment (survey) as an attack on the faith, rather than a test of whether it is possible for the faithful to tolerate such a constitution when my objective was to determine if it was possible to return the church to its central role.) (11 – Because my first draft restored the church to central functions of education, and cut public schools, post offices, title registries, banking and credit, and returned those functions to the church. thus ensuring its survival, and the starvation of competing cults.) (12 – But this solution requires that the spectrum of ‘churches’ serve the interests of our people from devoted to disinterested to (as I do) those who prefer our native rather than alien religions of community, ancestors and nature.) (13 – But there is no reasoning with faith. Faith is designed to resist reason. And the calibre of people to discourse with on the ‘alternative right’ is not exactly that which assists in anything other than surveying the range of positions of those lacking agency.) (14 – Hence in any discourse with ‘the faithful’ one is forced to state the truth, that one cannot debate with those who practice the methods of argument evolved precisely to deny means motive and opportunity to reason. And ergo one must resort to ‘calling out’ abrahamic sophism. (15- Which is true, but useless with the faithful who deny reality and the tools by which we warranty our speech is consistent, corespondent and coherent with actionable reality: reason, empiricism, operationalism and science. – Cheers.)
Theme: Operationalism
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551332544 Timestamp) —“This technique forces you to speak in âisâ rather than âoughtâ.”–Oliver Croke
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551332544 Timestamp) —“This technique forces you to speak in âisâ rather than âoughtâ.”–Oliver Croke
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551572497 Timestamp) NO MORE LIES —“@Curt Doolittle If I have an idea, a theory, yet don’t have the evidence yet–it still might be true. The Higgs Boson comes to mind. It was an idea, a theory, there were no facts yet to prove it, it fit in with the standard model, itself a theory, and solved some problems in quantum mechanics, but it wasn’t until the particle was actually discovered by the LHC that we could call it true. So was it a lie before then? You can’t always exactly know what’s true. Some questions are unsettled. So we make assumptions to try things out. It’s not exactly faith but it’s like it. It requires that we temporarily believe in it to test it, to question it, to try and figure it out. All part of reasoning. Maybe you didn’t mean what you said to this depth, what you wrote seems to make perfect sense on the surface, but through a little questioning, seeking to drill down, to get to the essence and the fundamentals of things, it seemed to me to be a little imprecise. This is not to simply be disputatious, to be contrary, not to be mean or anything, your statement was a fine, stimulating, sentiment, but to honestly question.┗ Mark Wright We do not have faith or temporarily believe in anything. We seek only to discover by testing that which is testable. And we limit ourselves to that limit. 1) such things are testable and falsifiable. 2) such things preserve the parsimony of naturalism, 3) such things are not counter to all of historical evidence, nor commensurate with the long history of ignorance error, fraud, and deceit
4) such things serve as no premise for consequent inference likewise for fraud and deceit, 5) such things are not dependent on verbal pretense or sophism, 6) such things are not claimed true only speculative,
7) such things have no malincentive to lie, or preserve a lie.
8) Conversely what i argued against was the opposite of all those tests. It is not arrogance but intolerance for the continued use of lies against my people by those in conscious or unconscious league with the ancient enemy of not only my people but all of mankind. No more lies. #post -
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551793063 Timestamp) THE PLACE OF AUSTRIAN (JEWISH) ECON, AND PRAXEOLOGY Well, Testimonialism tells us that if you can’t state an economic proposition in operational (praxeological) language then (a) either you don’t know what you’re speaking of, (b) that you are not engaging in a full accounting and are cherry picking, or (c) that you’re just engaging in fraud. That’s the net result of the austrian method: falsificationary operationalism. No more lies means no more ‘mathinesss’ that obscures the underlying operations.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1551793063 Timestamp) THE PLACE OF AUSTRIAN (JEWISH) ECON, AND PRAXEOLOGY Well, Testimonialism tells us that if you can’t state an economic proposition in operational (praxeological) language then (a) either you don’t know what you’re speaking of, (b) that you are not engaging in a full accounting and are cherry picking, or (c) that you’re just engaging in fraud. That’s the net result of the austrian method: falsificationary operationalism. No more lies means no more ‘mathinesss’ that obscures the underlying operations.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1551794373 Timestamp) TRUE NAMES FOR SCHOOLS OF ECONOMICS https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/09/15/how-about-operational-true-names-for-schools-of-economics/
-
Curt Doolittle shared a link.
(FB 1551794373 Timestamp) TRUE NAMES FOR SCHOOLS OF ECONOMICS https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/09/15/how-about-operational-true-names-for-schools-of-economics/
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552152263 Timestamp) TRAINING in operational prose, logic, and grammar would help all people communicate just like the same operational prose, logic, and grammar help the scientific community communicate – although P-law, in addition covers not just the physical sciences but the human (psychology, sociology, ethics, law, politics, group strategy, and literature) But just as one cannot hope to communicate in mathematics or physics or chemistry or law without training in those disciplines, one cannot hope to communicate in the Human Sciences, and in particular ‘morality’ without training in the language and method of doing so. Ergo, One can train people in the logic of cooperation but one cannot discourse with people unless they are so trained. the reason being that one can never divorce himself from cognitive bias, and accumulated disinformation without that training any more than one can grasp physics without training – Sciences exist because such things are beyond the limits of our personal comprehension without systems of measurement to eliminate our biases and disinformation. So, yes, if you learn the propertarian method you can speak in measurements. Those measurements are not all that complicated really. But it appears to take about six months to two years to learn them today. And, I assume we can cut that to less time with the courses. cheers
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552152263 Timestamp) TRAINING in operational prose, logic, and grammar would help all people communicate just like the same operational prose, logic, and grammar help the scientific community communicate – although P-law, in addition covers not just the physical sciences but the human (psychology, sociology, ethics, law, politics, group strategy, and literature) But just as one cannot hope to communicate in mathematics or physics or chemistry or law without training in those disciplines, one cannot hope to communicate in the Human Sciences, and in particular ‘morality’ without training in the language and method of doing so. Ergo, One can train people in the logic of cooperation but one cannot discourse with people unless they are so trained. the reason being that one can never divorce himself from cognitive bias, and accumulated disinformation without that training any more than one can grasp physics without training – Sciences exist because such things are beyond the limits of our personal comprehension without systems of measurement to eliminate our biases and disinformation. So, yes, if you learn the propertarian method you can speak in measurements. Those measurements are not all that complicated really. But it appears to take about six months to two years to learn them today. And, I assume we can cut that to less time with the courses. cheers