Curt Doolittle

Theme: Operationalism

  • “CURT, WILL YOU TAKE ON THE PHYSICS COMMUNITY TOO?”— (via the web site) TL;DR

    —“CURT, WILL YOU TAKE ON THE PHYSICS COMMUNITY TOO?”—

    (via the web site)

    TL;DR version: “No”. 😉 But it’s a good example of how to use testimonialism to test competing theories.

    —“Hi Curt, I have been following you on Facebook for several months and enjoy reading your ideas. I had been gradually moving away from Libertarianism, and Propertarianism clarified my skepticism of the former and connected many dots.”—

    Welcome then. Glad I could help. 😉 We’re all in this together it seems…. lol

    —“However, it became clear to me that you’ve missed a few things, most notably the century of fraud in physics (Quantum Mechanics). As far as I can tell, a particular anti-scientific philosophy (Kant) gave way to the rejection of fundamental scientific principles like absolute space, cause and effect, and identity. A group of mostly German physicists (Bohr, Heisenberg, Mach, Schrodinger etc) weren’t capable of solving the electron classically, and having adopted the aforementioned philosophy, devised the foundations of contemporary physics. Despite discordance with classic laws and experimentation, they invented (justified) their work with nonsense, claiming that classic laws breakdown at the subatomic level and that things could exist and not simultaneously. And they could only predict the behavior of Hydrogen (QM breaks down for everything higher on the periodic table). This has given us about a century of physics bullshit, like the currently fashionable multiverse theory, rampant curve fitting, and string theory. In the late 1980s, Hermann Haus derived the nonradiation condition, which coincidentally addressed a major problem pre-WW1 physicists faced: why electrons didn’t radiate energy under acceleration. One of his students, Randall Mills, was able to solve the electron using exclusively classic physics (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwells equations, special relativity, and Haus’s nonradiation condition). This was a revolution that few people know about to this day. And it permits the classical solution of a variety of other problems (molecular bonding, the unification of all physical forces, behaviors of fundamental particles, where gravity comes from, falsifying the Big Bang since the the universe perpetually oscillates). He also discovered that Hydrogen could go below the “ground state” (not really the ground state) and become one of a variety of nonradiative states he calls Hydrinos. Hydrinos are the Dark Matter that makes up nearly all of the universe. Mills has formed a company, Brilliant Light Power, that is working to commercialize applications of his work, primarily by utilizing Hydrinos as a novel energy source. I mention this because firstly, Mills’ story, and the corruption in physics, neatly adheres to your description of cognitive biases. It’s worth investing time to learn about. Secondly, the technological implications are extraordinary. Assuming he brings something to market soon, this will turn out to be the ultrasound imate black swan event. The end of all conventional energy sources, the end of the prevailing geopolitical order, the end of conventional transportation sources, and potentially the end of government as we know it. From my vantage point, this could be one hell of a plot twist to the revolution you’re predicting. “—

    I’m aware of this of line of argument of course but it is a book length treatment (or more), that I don’t have the time, will, skill or credibility to put together … and I have my own field to deal with… lol

    I falsify scientific work by searching for categories of consistent human error, very much like a psychologist or social scientists looks for examples of cognitive and social bias. If I don’t find those I deflate the argument and test whether the person is making a claim for which the knowledge upon which such a claim, is not dependent. And worse, if I find evidence of deception due to incentives. Most of scientific research that is questionable today consists of problems of statistical difficulty with insufficient preservation of constant relations because of a lack of operational knowledge or understanding, and because of the DENIAL of the OBVIOUS UNDERLYING MODEL.

    The physicists are having a problem (I THINK) because the underlying model is obviously in conflict with the frame of reference necessary to measure their experiments. But I don’t think that’s a particularly uncommon perception. I think they just don’t know what else to do until they stumble (reverse engineer) that model by a lot of trial and error.

    So while there are many competing theories, and I won’t address the one you mention specifically, you are correct (in part) on the origin of the frame of reference (model problem), it’s amplified even more so by the Mathiness Problem (mathematical idealism), and because of math the set problem, and together by the series of formulae they use that DO predict MOST. So I see them as prisoners from multiple dimensions, the philosophical one being the most distant – and I just dont think I can hold those people off in an argument they way I can theologians, philosophers, mathematicians, economists, jurists, and political scientists. I mean, it’s going to take someone with more of a vested interest in it than I am to work through that problem. And it is not a problem of ‘deceit’ as it is in economics, politics, and law. Just … well… a waste of a lot of pencils.

    —“As a side note, why did you put ads on your website? They look terrible and cause the site to regularly reload, interrupting the reader. Get rid of them ASAP. They’re making you look bad.”—

    I did not put ads on the site. It is because of the free hosting program forces them into the site. I have reasons for doing what I do. And no I don’t like it either. But for the present moment when I need to be able to move everything instantly, this is the most efficient method. I prefer to keep everything offshore. It’s just hard to do that at the moment for a host of reasons.

    Thank you very much for the thoughtful idea.

    Let’s keep fighting the good fight.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-28 18:49:00 UTC

  • Operations (real) vs Sets (ideal)

    October 28th, 2018 8:43 AM AGAIN: OPERATIONS (REAL) VS SETS (IDEAL) – CANTOR AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEM IN MATHEMATICS AND BY EXTENSION EVERYTHING.

    —“Ok but Cantor’s work is specifically set-theoretic, not analytical. Also, an infinite sum is by definition a sum over a countable set. So cantor’s notions are in fact relevant for this.”—Alex Pareto

    [Y]es it is a sacred cow because people who are (knowingly or unknowingly) mathematical platonists are just as indoctrinated into superstitious nonsense as people who are indoctrinated into platonism proper, and people indoctrinated into theology. They know how to DO what they do (meaning make arguments with the objects, relations, and values of their vocabulary and grammar) but they don’t know how and why what they do functions. Frequencies are the scientific description and infinities (sizes) the fictional (imaginary) description. The difference is that those of us who work in the sciences, where we CANNOT engage in Platonism, because that is the purpose of science: to prevent such ‘magical’ speech, and instead force us to undrestand the causal relations between reality and our speech. So in this case a number consists of nothing more than the name of a position. That’s it. Mathematics consists of the vocabulary and grammar of positional names. Nothing more. Period. We generate positional names by the process of positional naming. We can scientifically describe that process as did Babbage, Turing, and Computer Science (consisting of nothing but addition), with gears, or the positional equivalent of gears (positional names), or the electronic-switch(memory) of positional names, and use these gears to produce positional names and operations on positional names at varying speeds. We can also tell a ‘story’ about those things (a fiction) which is what we do with literary, symbolic, and set mathematics. And then we can tell a fairy tale about sets, as if they are an equivalent to red riding hood. But no matter what we do, operationally, (scientifically) all we can do is produce a series of positional names faster or slower than another series of positional names. Ergo, there exists only one name “infinity” for “unknown limit of operations” and different rates (frequencies) by which we generate positional names, using any set of operations with which we produce positional names. This is why mathematics ‘went off the rails’ into fictionalism despite Poincare’s and others efforts at the beginning of the 20th century. Math is just the use of positional names which have only one property: position, and therefore only ONE constant relation: position. All logic consists of the study of constant relations, and as such mathematics provides the most commensurable language of constant relations, since it has only ONE constant relation: position.

  • Operations (real) vs Sets (ideal)

    October 28th, 2018 8:43 AM AGAIN: OPERATIONS (REAL) VS SETS (IDEAL) – CANTOR AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEM IN MATHEMATICS AND BY EXTENSION EVERYTHING.

    —“Ok but Cantor’s work is specifically set-theoretic, not analytical. Also, an infinite sum is by definition a sum over a countable set. So cantor’s notions are in fact relevant for this.”—Alex Pareto

    [Y]es it is a sacred cow because people who are (knowingly or unknowingly) mathematical platonists are just as indoctrinated into superstitious nonsense as people who are indoctrinated into platonism proper, and people indoctrinated into theology. They know how to DO what they do (meaning make arguments with the objects, relations, and values of their vocabulary and grammar) but they don’t know how and why what they do functions. Frequencies are the scientific description and infinities (sizes) the fictional (imaginary) description. The difference is that those of us who work in the sciences, where we CANNOT engage in Platonism, because that is the purpose of science: to prevent such ‘magical’ speech, and instead force us to undrestand the causal relations between reality and our speech. So in this case a number consists of nothing more than the name of a position. That’s it. Mathematics consists of the vocabulary and grammar of positional names. Nothing more. Period. We generate positional names by the process of positional naming. We can scientifically describe that process as did Babbage, Turing, and Computer Science (consisting of nothing but addition), with gears, or the positional equivalent of gears (positional names), or the electronic-switch(memory) of positional names, and use these gears to produce positional names and operations on positional names at varying speeds. We can also tell a ‘story’ about those things (a fiction) which is what we do with literary, symbolic, and set mathematics. And then we can tell a fairy tale about sets, as if they are an equivalent to red riding hood. But no matter what we do, operationally, (scientifically) all we can do is produce a series of positional names faster or slower than another series of positional names. Ergo, there exists only one name “infinity” for “unknown limit of operations” and different rates (frequencies) by which we generate positional names, using any set of operations with which we produce positional names. This is why mathematics ‘went off the rails’ into fictionalism despite Poincare’s and others efforts at the beginning of the 20th century. Math is just the use of positional names which have only one property: position, and therefore only ONE constant relation: position. All logic consists of the study of constant relations, and as such mathematics provides the most commensurable language of constant relations, since it has only ONE constant relation: position.

  • —“Curt, Will You Take on The Physics Community Too?”—

    October 28th, 2018 6:49 PM —“CURT, WILL YOU TAKE ON THE PHYSICS COMMUNITY TOO?”— (via the web site) TL;DR version: “No”. 😉 But it’s a good example of how to use testimonialism to test competing theories.

    —“Hi Curt, I have been following you on Facebook for several months and enjoy reading your ideas. I had been gradually moving away from Libertarianism, and Propertarianism clarified my skepticism of the former and connected many dots.”—

    Welcome then. Glad I could help. 😉 We’re all in this together it seems…. lol

    —“However, it became clear to me that you’ve missed a few things, most notably the century of fraud in physics (Quantum Mechanics). As far as I can tell, a particular anti-scientific philosophy (Kant) gave way to the rejection of fundamental scientific principles like absolute space, cause and effect, and identity. A group of mostly German physicists (Bohr, Heisenberg, Mach, Schrodinger etc) weren’t capable of solving the electron classically, and having adopted the aforementioned philosophy, devised the foundations of contemporary physics. Despite discordance with classic laws and experimentation, they invented (justified) their work with nonsense, claiming that classic laws breakdown at the subatomic level and that things could exist and not simultaneously. And they could only predict the behavior of Hydrogen (QM breaks down for everything higher on the periodic table). This has given us about a century of physics bullshit, like the currently fashionable multiverse theory, rampant curve fitting, and string theory. In the late 1980s, Hermann Haus derived the nonradiation condition, which coincidentally addressed a major problem pre-WW1 physicists faced: why electrons didn’t radiate energy under acceleration. One of his students, Randall Mills, was able to solve the electron using exclusively classic physics (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwells equations, special relativity, and Haus’s nonradiation condition). This was a revolution that few people know about to this day. And it permits the classical solution of a variety of other problems (molecular bonding, the unification of all physical forces, behaviors of fundamental particles, where gravity comes from, falsifying the Big Bang since the the universe perpetually oscillates). He also discovered that Hydrogen could go below the “ground state” (not really the ground state) and become one of a variety of nonradiative states he calls Hydrinos. Hydrinos are the Dark Matter that makes up nearly all of the universe. Mills has formed a company, Brilliant Light Power, that is working to commercialize applications of his work, primarily by utilizing Hydrinos as a novel energy source. I mention this because firstly, Mills’ story, and the corruption in physics, neatly adheres to your description of cognitive biases. It’s worth investing time to learn about. Secondly, the technological implications are extraordinary. Assuming he brings something to market soon, this will turn out to be the ultrasound imate black swan event. The end of all conventional energy sources, the end of the prevailing geopolitical order, the end of conventional transportation sources, and potentially the end of government as we know it. From my vantage point, this could be one hell of a plot twist to the revolution you’re predicting. “—

    [I]’m aware of this of line of argument of course but it is a book length treatment (or more), that I don’t have the time, will, skill or credibility to put together … and I have my own field to deal with… lol I falsify scientific work by searching for categories of consistent human error, very much like a psychologist or social scientists looks for examples of cognitive and social bias. If I don’t find those I deflate the argument and test whether the person is making a claim for which the knowledge upon which such a claim, is not dependent. And worse, if I find evidence of deception due to incentives. Most of scientific research that is questionable today consists of problems of statistical difficulty with insufficient preservation of constant relations because of a lack of operational knowledge or understanding, and because of the DENIAL of the OBVIOUS UNDERLYING MODEL. The physicists are having a problem (I THINK) because the underlying model is obviously in conflict with the frame of reference necessary to measure their experiments. But I don’t think that’s a particularly uncommon perception. I think they just don’t know what else to do until they stumble (reverse engineer) that model by a lot of trial and error. So while there are many competing theories, and I won’t address the one you mention specifically, you are correct (in part) on the origin of the frame of reference (model problem), it’s amplified even more so by the Mathiness Problem (mathematical idealism), and because of math the set problem, and together by the series of formulae they use that DO predict MOST. So I see them as prisoners from multiple dimensions, the philosophical one being the most distant – and I just dont think I can hold those people off in an argument they way I can theologians, philosophers, mathematicians, economists, jurists, and political scientists. I mean, it’s going to take someone with more of a vested interest in it than I am to work through that problem. And it is not a problem of ‘deceit’ as it is in economics, politics, and law. Just … well… a waste of a lot of pencils.

    —“As a side note, why did you put ads on your website? They look terrible and cause the site to regularly reload, interrupting the reader. Get rid of them ASAP. They’re making you look bad.”—

    I did not put ads on the site. It is because of the free hosting program forces them into the site. I have reasons for doing what I do. And no I don’t like it either. But for the present moment when I need to be able to move everything instantly, this is the most efficient method. I prefer to keep everything offshore. It’s just hard to do that at the moment for a host of reasons. Thank you very much for the thoughtful idea. Let’s keep fighting the good fight.

  • —“Curt, Will You Take on The Physics Community Too?”—

    October 28th, 2018 6:49 PM —“CURT, WILL YOU TAKE ON THE PHYSICS COMMUNITY TOO?”— (via the web site) TL;DR version: “No”. 😉 But it’s a good example of how to use testimonialism to test competing theories.

    —“Hi Curt, I have been following you on Facebook for several months and enjoy reading your ideas. I had been gradually moving away from Libertarianism, and Propertarianism clarified my skepticism of the former and connected many dots.”—

    Welcome then. Glad I could help. 😉 We’re all in this together it seems…. lol

    —“However, it became clear to me that you’ve missed a few things, most notably the century of fraud in physics (Quantum Mechanics). As far as I can tell, a particular anti-scientific philosophy (Kant) gave way to the rejection of fundamental scientific principles like absolute space, cause and effect, and identity. A group of mostly German physicists (Bohr, Heisenberg, Mach, Schrodinger etc) weren’t capable of solving the electron classically, and having adopted the aforementioned philosophy, devised the foundations of contemporary physics. Despite discordance with classic laws and experimentation, they invented (justified) their work with nonsense, claiming that classic laws breakdown at the subatomic level and that things could exist and not simultaneously. And they could only predict the behavior of Hydrogen (QM breaks down for everything higher on the periodic table). This has given us about a century of physics bullshit, like the currently fashionable multiverse theory, rampant curve fitting, and string theory. In the late 1980s, Hermann Haus derived the nonradiation condition, which coincidentally addressed a major problem pre-WW1 physicists faced: why electrons didn’t radiate energy under acceleration. One of his students, Randall Mills, was able to solve the electron using exclusively classic physics (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwells equations, special relativity, and Haus’s nonradiation condition). This was a revolution that few people know about to this day. And it permits the classical solution of a variety of other problems (molecular bonding, the unification of all physical forces, behaviors of fundamental particles, where gravity comes from, falsifying the Big Bang since the the universe perpetually oscillates). He also discovered that Hydrogen could go below the “ground state” (not really the ground state) and become one of a variety of nonradiative states he calls Hydrinos. Hydrinos are the Dark Matter that makes up nearly all of the universe. Mills has formed a company, Brilliant Light Power, that is working to commercialize applications of his work, primarily by utilizing Hydrinos as a novel energy source. I mention this because firstly, Mills’ story, and the corruption in physics, neatly adheres to your description of cognitive biases. It’s worth investing time to learn about. Secondly, the technological implications are extraordinary. Assuming he brings something to market soon, this will turn out to be the ultrasound imate black swan event. The end of all conventional energy sources, the end of the prevailing geopolitical order, the end of conventional transportation sources, and potentially the end of government as we know it. From my vantage point, this could be one hell of a plot twist to the revolution you’re predicting. “—

    [I]’m aware of this of line of argument of course but it is a book length treatment (or more), that I don’t have the time, will, skill or credibility to put together … and I have my own field to deal with… lol I falsify scientific work by searching for categories of consistent human error, very much like a psychologist or social scientists looks for examples of cognitive and social bias. If I don’t find those I deflate the argument and test whether the person is making a claim for which the knowledge upon which such a claim, is not dependent. And worse, if I find evidence of deception due to incentives. Most of scientific research that is questionable today consists of problems of statistical difficulty with insufficient preservation of constant relations because of a lack of operational knowledge or understanding, and because of the DENIAL of the OBVIOUS UNDERLYING MODEL. The physicists are having a problem (I THINK) because the underlying model is obviously in conflict with the frame of reference necessary to measure their experiments. But I don’t think that’s a particularly uncommon perception. I think they just don’t know what else to do until they stumble (reverse engineer) that model by a lot of trial and error. So while there are many competing theories, and I won’t address the one you mention specifically, you are correct (in part) on the origin of the frame of reference (model problem), it’s amplified even more so by the Mathiness Problem (mathematical idealism), and because of math the set problem, and together by the series of formulae they use that DO predict MOST. So I see them as prisoners from multiple dimensions, the philosophical one being the most distant – and I just dont think I can hold those people off in an argument they way I can theologians, philosophers, mathematicians, economists, jurists, and political scientists. I mean, it’s going to take someone with more of a vested interest in it than I am to work through that problem. And it is not a problem of ‘deceit’ as it is in economics, politics, and law. Just … well… a waste of a lot of pencils.

    —“As a side note, why did you put ads on your website? They look terrible and cause the site to regularly reload, interrupting the reader. Get rid of them ASAP. They’re making you look bad.”—

    I did not put ads on the site. It is because of the free hosting program forces them into the site. I have reasons for doing what I do. And no I don’t like it either. But for the present moment when I need to be able to move everything instantly, this is the most efficient method. I prefer to keep everything offshore. It’s just hard to do that at the moment for a host of reasons. Thank you very much for the thoughtful idea. Let’s keep fighting the good fight.

  • AGAIN: OPERATIONS (REAL) VS SETS (IDEAL) – CANTOR AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEM I

    AGAIN: OPERATIONS (REAL) VS SETS (IDEAL) – CANTOR AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEM IN MATHEMATICS AND BY EXTENSION EVERYTHING.

    —“Ok but Cantor’s work is specifically set-theoretic, not analytical. Also, an infinite sum is by definition a sum over a countable set. So cantor’s notions are in fact relevant for this.”—Alex Pareto

    Yes it is a sacred cow because people who are (knowingly or unknowingly) mathematical platonists are just as indoctrinated into superstitious nonsense as people who are indoctrinated into platonism proper, and people indoctrinated into theology. They know how to DO what they do (meaning make arguments with the objects, relations, and values of their vocabulary and grammar) but they don’t know how and why what they do functions.

    Frequencies are the scientific description and infinities (sizes) the fictional (imaginary) description. The difference is that those of us who work in the sciences, where we CANNOT engage in Platonism, because that is the purpose of science: to prevent such ‘magical’ speech, and instead force us to undrestand the causal relations between reality and our speech.

    So in this case a number consists of nothing more than the name of a position. That’s it. Mathematics consists of the vocabulary and grammar of positional names. Nothing more. Period.

    We generate positional names by the process of positional naming. We can scientifically describe that process as did Babbage, Turing, and Computer Science (consisting of nothing but addition), with gears, or the positional equivalent of gears (positional names), or the electronic-switch(memory) of positional names, and use these gears to produce positional names and operations on positional names at varying speeds. We can also tell a ‘story’ about those things (a fiction) which is what we do with literary, symbolic, and set mathematics. And then we can tell a fairy tale about sets, as if they are an equivalent to red riding hood.

    But no matter what we do, operationally, (scientifically) all we can do is produce a series of positional names faster or slower than another series of positional names.

    Ergo, there exists only one name “infinity” for “unknown limit of operations” and different rates (frequencies) by which we generate positional names, using any set of operations with which we produce positional names.

    This is why mathematics ‘went off the rails’ into fictionalism despite Poincare’s and others efforts at the beginning of the 20th century. Math is just the use of positional names which have only one property: position, and therefore only ONE constant relation: position.

    All logic consists of the study of constant relations, and as such mathematics provides the most commensurable language of constant relations, since it has only ONE constant relation: position.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-28 08:43:00 UTC

  • —“Curt: Please Define ‘Post-Moral’?”–

    October 27th, 2018 8:42 AM —“CURT: PLEASE DEFINE ‘POST-MORAL’?”–

    —“Can you explain POST-MORAL to a newb?”— Scott Claremont

    [S]o just like we changed from theological(authoritarian) discourse on morals, to philosophical (rational) discourse on morals during the enlightenment, that we have changed from philosophical (rational) discourse on morals, to scientific (measurements) discourse on morals. |Explanation(Model)| traditional(norm) > religious (theology) > rational (moral) > scientific (reciprocity). It means (a) our language consists of reasoning by morality( intuition, habit, norm, tradition) rather than reasoning by reciprocity(measurement),(b) and where morality(intuition, habit, norm, tradition) vary not only between groups, but between individuals, reciprocity does not. (c) as such we can use the language of law (decidability), accounting (directly measurable), and economics ( indirectly measurable) to measure that which removes ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit from our discussion of ‘morality’, and describe human actions scientifically (universally) rather than normatively (colloquially).

  • —“Curt: Please Define ‘Post-Moral’?”–

    October 27th, 2018 8:42 AM —“CURT: PLEASE DEFINE ‘POST-MORAL’?”–

    —“Can you explain POST-MORAL to a newb?”— Scott Claremont

    [S]o just like we changed from theological(authoritarian) discourse on morals, to philosophical (rational) discourse on morals during the enlightenment, that we have changed from philosophical (rational) discourse on morals, to scientific (measurements) discourse on morals. |Explanation(Model)| traditional(norm) > religious (theology) > rational (moral) > scientific (reciprocity). It means (a) our language consists of reasoning by morality( intuition, habit, norm, tradition) rather than reasoning by reciprocity(measurement),(b) and where morality(intuition, habit, norm, tradition) vary not only between groups, but between individuals, reciprocity does not. (c) as such we can use the language of law (decidability), accounting (directly measurable), and economics ( indirectly measurable) to measure that which removes ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit from our discussion of ‘morality’, and describe human actions scientifically (universally) rather than normatively (colloquially).

  • “CURT: PLEASE DEFINE ‘POST-MORAL’?”– —“Can you explain POST-MORAL to a newb?”

    —“CURT: PLEASE DEFINE ‘POST-MORAL’?”–

    —“Can you explain POST-MORAL to a newb?”— Scott Claremont

    So just like we changed from theological(authoritarian) discourse on morals, to philosophical (rational) discourse on morals during the enlightenment, that we have changed from philosophical (rational) discourse on morals, to scientific (measurements) discourse on morals.

    |Explanation(Model)| traditional(norm) > religious (theology) > rational (moral) > scientific (reciprocity).

    It means (a) our language consists of reasoning by morality( intuition, habit, norm, tradition) rather than reasoning by reciprocity(measurement),(b) and where morality(intuition, habit, norm, tradition) vary not only between groups, but between individuals, reciprocity does not. (c) as such we can use the language of law (decidability), accounting (directly measurable), and economics ( indirectly measurable) to measure that which removes ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit from our discussion of ‘morality’, and describe human actions scientifically (universally) rather than normatively (colloquially).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 08:42:00 UTC

  • And if you,or they, had a positive solution (prescription) for a superior social

    And if you,or they, had a positive solution (prescription) for a superior social order that you could put into operational terms, then you would. You don’t. Because if you did, the fraud and theft would be exposed for what it is: sophism for the purpose of institutional theft.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 23:37:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055604316906680320

    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