Curt Doolittle

Theme: Operationalism

  • Operationally Constructed Law Ends Pilpul and Talmudism

    —“Law that is operationally constructed would end the “spirit/letter” distinction as it eliminates any room for discretion. It would by design be immune to pilpul, leaving no opportunity for rent seeking”—Justin Allred

  • “Law that is operationally constructed would end the “spirit/letter” distinction

    —“Law that is operationally constructed would end the “spirit/letter” distinction as it eliminates any room for discretion. It would by design be immune to pilpul, leaving no opportunity for rent seeking”—Justin Allred

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-30 01:27:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1034975853401317376

  • “Law that is operationally constructed would end the “spirit/letter” distinction

    —“Law that is operationally constructed would end the “spirit/letter” distinction as it eliminates any room for discretion. It would by design be immune to pilpul, leaving no opportunity for rent seeking”—Justin Allred

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-29 21:27:00 UTC

  • Natural Law vs Social Construct

    by John Mark “Xyz is a social construct” carries no testable content. What they mean to say is “Human groups don’t actually need xyz to be successful. People have told us we need xyz but we would be better off without it.” Insert “legislation” or “rule of law based on natural law of reciprocity” for “xyz” and we have a testable statement. As far as I know, rule of law based on natural law of reciprocity with full accounting (of all forms of property) can and would adapt to social conditions – meaning that regardless of what actions people are taking in a polity, such a system of law would provide legal recourse and restitution for individuals or groups who experienced others violating reciprocity in dealings with them.

  • Natural Law vs Social Construct

    by John Mark “Xyz is a social construct” carries no testable content. What they mean to say is “Human groups don’t actually need xyz to be successful. People have told us we need xyz but we would be better off without it.” Insert “legislation” or “rule of law based on natural law of reciprocity” for “xyz” and we have a testable statement. As far as I know, rule of law based on natural law of reciprocity with full accounting (of all forms of property) can and would adapt to social conditions – meaning that regardless of what actions people are taking in a polity, such a system of law would provide legal recourse and restitution for individuals or groups who experienced others violating reciprocity in dealings with them.

  • the relations Different from, superior to, inferior to; and reciprocal, parasiti

    the relations Different from, superior to, inferior to; and reciprocal, parasitic, and predatory are empirically, logically, and operationally testable – whether we like it or not.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-08 00:37:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1026990862922903552

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. (inspired from elsewhere) Since I’m an Operat

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (inspired from elsewhere)

    Since I’m an Operationalist I only consider operational ideas as more than fantasy, and therefore worthy of thinking about. Fantasy is just daydreaming. And sure, I agree with our collective fantasies. The question is, how would we bring about such fantasies as an outcast minority?

    We cannot work with wanting people to believe in our fantasies and possessing our values *we have nothing to sell the feminine males and the feminine underclasses*. Aristocracy (meritocracy) does not sell it rules. It must. Property rights, meritocracy, markets, voluntary exchange, and truth to power are undesirable for the majority. If we cannot convince or sell them, the only thing left then is buying them off or violence, or both.

    So I am only concerned with how to buy them off, or how to use violence, since what we do once we get there is not a matter of dispute. We all agree. Agreement isn’t necessary. A plan of action is.

    I don’t care about what you’d like. We all share the same reproductive interests and therefore wants of our subspecies. And we have the opportunity to speciate. If we speciate we will outperform all the other just as we have in the past.

    All that matters is getting to that point. And as far as I know there is no other means than revolution.

    -hugs

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-01 22:46:45 UTC

  • (inspired from elsewhere) Since I’m an Operationalist I only consider operationa

    (inspired from elsewhere)

    Since I’m an Operationalist I only consider operational ideas as more than fantasy, and therefore worthy of thinking about. Fantasy is just daydreaming. And sure, I agree with our collective fantasies. The question is, how would we bring about such fantasies as an outcast minority?

    We cannot work with wanting people to believe in our fantasies and possessing our values *we have nothing to sell the feminine males and the feminine underclasses*. Aristocracy (meritocracy) does not sell it rules. It must. Property rights, meritocracy, markets, voluntary exchange, and truth to power are undesirable for the majority. If we cannot convince or sell them, the only thing left then is buying them off or violence, or both.

    So I am only concerned with how to buy them off, or how to use violence, since what we do once we get there is not a matter of dispute. We all agree. Agreement isn’t necessary. A plan of action is.

    I don’t care about what you’d like. We all share the same reproductive interests and therefore wants of our subspecies. And we have the opportunity to speciate. If we speciate we will outperform all the other just as we have in the past.

    All that matters is getting to that point. And as far as I know there is no other means than revolution.

    -hugs

    Source date (UTC): 2018-08-01 18:46:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. (Thinking) Do we operationally agree with our

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (Thinking)
    Do we operationally agree with ourselves? In other words, in that moment where you think you have found an idea, answer, decision, or plan, how does that differ from when you listen to and then you agree with someone else? I am not sure it does. I think those two sensation and operations are the same.

    (Bill Joslin)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-31 21:11:40 UTC

  • (Thinking) Do we operationally agree with ourselves? In other words, in that mom

    (Thinking)

    Do we operationally agree with ourselves? In other words, in that moment where you think you have found an idea, answer, decision, or plan, how does that differ from when you listen to and then you agree with someone else? I am not sure it does. I think those two sensation and operations are the same.

    (Bill Joslin)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-31 17:11:00 UTC