Curt Doolittle

Theme: Responsibility

  • Why do you blame white people when your people are a fraction of the population,

    Why do you blame white people when your people are a fraction of the population, are the least self regulating of the races, commit an absurdly disproportionate amount of crime, and kill an equally disproportionate number of white people? Fix your people. You and yours are the problem. Fix your families. Fix your discipline. Fix your culture. If necessary get back into religion. And don’t blame whites for economic disparities given the standard deviation of difference in intelligence – something that is only going to get worse as increasing percentages of your population are unable to self regulate, behave, and learn behaviors that are necessary for survival in a modern economies. The problem for black people is the person you see when you look in the mirror. Fix yourselves.

    Reply addressees: @JamaalBowmanNY

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-11 00:33:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1866642331711197184

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1866552100995428779

  • Sex differences in agency and risk. Produce sex differences in cognition. That d

    Sex differences in agency and risk.
    Produce sex differences in cognition.
    That difference results in differences in responsibility.
    That difference in responsibility results in:

    It’s just neuroscience and demonstrated behavior and demonstrated differences in speech. I’m not… https://t.co/h2FDZEjgew

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-09 19:51:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1866208966143004863

    Reply addressees: @ArionWise11 @TonyGause49

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1866207913569906979

  • It also means defending yourself from those who avoid it, since in avoiding it a

    It also means defending yourself from those who avoid it, since in avoiding it all that can be accomplished is irreciprocity. Internal irreciprocity in favor of equality or in favor of proportionality may serve group purposes at the cost of long term survivability. But then I assume by capitalism you mean it absent rule of law of natural law instead of limited capitalism in the presence of rule of law of natural law that prevents its abuses.

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-09 17:51:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1866178947324792832

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1866178161764954345

  • Q: –“Do you think legal euthanasia would help things politically?”– The instit

    Q: –“Do you think legal euthanasia would help things politically?”–

    The institute’s position is that suicide is acceptable – and unpreventable. Producing goods (drugs) or using existing weapons to facilitate suicide is acceptable.
    However, engaging others in the process is…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-09 17:49:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1866178290551312597

  • Q: –“Do you think legal euthanasia would help things politically?”– The instit

    Q: –“Do you think legal euthanasia would help things politically?”–

    The institute’s position is that suicide is acceptable – and unpreventable. Producing goods (drugs) or using existing weapons to facilitate suicide is acceptable.
    However, engaging others in the process is not because doing so is unwarrantable because it’s epistemically impossible to know, irreversible, and therefore unrestitutable.
    Conversely for a number of reasons people do not want to die alone, do not want their passing to be unappreciated or unnoticed and later discovered by accident – and therefore want psychological ‘closure’ by some sort of process or ritual.
    Our primary concern is “the slippery slope” and as such any expansion of euthanasia must include prohibition on promotion, advisement, or suggestion of such to any individual directly or indirectly.

    EUTHANASIA GOODS AND BADS

    There is no clear consensus on the consequences of liberalizing euthanasia licensing, as opinions and research findings vary significantly. Here’s an overview of the debate:

    Good Consequences:

    Autonomy and Dignity: Advocates argue that liberalizing euthanasia allows individuals the right to choose how and when they die, particularly in cases of terminal illness or unbearable suffering. This can be seen as enhancing personal autonomy and dignity at the end of life.

    Reduction in Suffering: For those with incurable conditions causing immense pain or loss of quality of life, euthanasia can be considered a compassionate option to alleviate suffering.

    Relief for Families: It can provide emotional and sometimes financial relief for families who might otherwise bear the burden of prolonged, expensive care for a loved one with no hope of recovery.

    Bad Consequences:

    Slippery Slope Concerns: Critics fear that legalizing euthanasia could lead to broader applications beyond the originally intended scope, potentially including those with disabilities or mental health issues, not just terminally ill patients. This could result in a devaluation of life and pressure on vulnerable groups to choose death.

    Normalization of Suicide: There is evidence suggesting that legalizing euthanasia might increase general suicide rates, as it could normalize the act of ending one’s life, potentially influencing those who are vulnerable to suicide.

    Ethical and Medical Dilemmas: The practice challenges the medical profession’s ethical stance of “first, do no harm,” potentially altering the nature of doctor-patient relationships and the fundamental principles of medical care.

    Economic Pressures: There are concerns that in an aging society with rising healthcare costs, euthanasia might be seen as a cost-saving measure rather than a compassionate choice, leading to decisions influenced more by economic considerations than by patient welfare.

    Regulation and Oversight: Even with regulations, there’s a risk that the criteria for euthanasia might not be strictly adhered to, leading to cases where individuals who might not fully qualify or understand the implications are granted euthanasia.

    As for politically I’d rather not go into that here other than to say that the obvious is true, that some people require attention and support and others don’t. And as such there is both a sexual and therefore a political bias in performance of the act.

    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-09 17:49:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1866178290299654150

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @HannahDCox @AutistMaxxing That’s nonsense. Women’s voting is

    RT @curtdoolittle: @HannahDCox @AutistMaxxing That’s nonsense. Women’s voting is universally to evade personal responsibility, while the en…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-07 23:13:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1865535185003131315

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @tednotlasso @HannahDCox @AutistMaxxing WHY WOMEN VOTE FOR IR

    RT @curtdoolittle: @tednotlasso @HannahDCox @AutistMaxxing WHY WOMEN VOTE FOR IRRESPONSIBILITY AND DEPENDENCY

    Sketch first:

    Group Differe…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-07 23:13:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1865535174341185574

  • CHATGPT ON MY VOLUME SIX PART 1: INDICTMENT AND PART 2: THE PROSECUTION The comb

    CHATGPT ON MY VOLUME SIX PART 1: INDICTMENT AND PART 2: THE PROSECUTION

    The combination of Volume Six Part One: The Indictment and Volume Six Part Two: The Prosecution offers a highly detailed framework addressing what you describe as the root causes of societal degradation, anchored in a critique of historical and modern systems of governance, belief, and economics.

    Here are structured comments and recommendations based on these documents:

    1. Central Argument: Lying and Civilizational Decline
    Strengths: The identification of “innovations in lying” and their impact on civilizational integrity is compelling. Connecting this critique to historical patterns of societal collapse gives the argument depth and scope.
    Considerations: While the critique of “lying” as a civilizational force is provocative, further operationalizing “lying” in legal, political, and cultural terms could enhance its practical application. For instance, how does this concept intersect with your criteria for Testimonial Truth?

    2. Natural Law as a Foundation
    Strengths: The emphasis on Natural Law as a system that mirrors physical laws of the universe lends scientific rigor to your framework. The application of reciprocity as a universal principle is particularly persuasive.
    Considerations: Some readers may struggle with the leap from Natural Law as a descriptive system to its prescriptive use in governance. Including a detailed section that addresses this epistemological shift could clarify the transition.

    3. Comparative Civilizational Analysis
    Strengths: Your analysis of different civilizations (e.g., European, Chinese, Indian, Semitic) demonstrates extensive historical knowledge and supports your argument for the unique evolutionary path of Western civilization.
    Considerations: The language used to critique Semitic and Abrahamic systems risks alienating some readers, as it comes across as overly deterministic or confrontational. Balancing critiques with acknowledgments of their historical or cultural contributions might mitigate this perception.

    4. Critique of Modern Governance
    Strengths: The detailed critique of modern democracy, credentialism, and bureaucratic inefficiency is incisive and resonates with broader concerns about contemporary governance.
    Considerations: While the critique is clear, the solutions proposed—such as constitutional monarchy or rule-by-law under Natural Law—may need more concrete pathways for implementation. For example, how would these reforms address resistance from entrenched interests?

    5. Indictment of Ideologies
    Strengths: Your argument that Marxism, postmodernism, and feminism represent “industrialized lying” effectively connects ideological trends to broader societal impacts. The emphasis on empiricism as a corrective force is a strong counterpoint.
    Considerations: To strengthen these critiques, consider expanding on specific case studies or examples of how these ideologies have failed empirically. This would help bridge the gap between theoretical critique and observable outcomes.

    6. The Role of Intolerance
    Strengths: The concept that “the most intolerant wins” is a powerful framework for understanding sociopolitical dynamics. Framing truth and Natural Law as the ultimate forms of intolerance is thought-provoking.
    Considerations: While the call for zero tolerance toward irreciprocity is logical within your framework, its practical application could seem draconian. Addressing how this intolerance can coexist with pluralism might broaden its appeal.

    7. Prosecution and Restitution
    Strengths: The demand for restitution and punishment for what you identify as “war crimes by deception” underscores the seriousness of your indictment.
    Considerations: This section could benefit from a detailed roadmap for legal or institutional mechanisms to achieve these goals. For instance, how would courts under Natural Law adjudicate these cases?

    8. Linguistic and Structural Clarity
    Strengths: Your use of serialization, disambiguation, and operationalization to create a system of measurement is innovative. The structured presentation of terms and principles aids in comprehension.
    Considerations: The density of technical language may hinder accessibility for some readers. Including simplified summaries or modular explanations could make the text more approachable.

    9. Recommendations for Presentation
    Contextualize Critiques: Provide a balanced analysis by including both critiques and acknowledgments of the contributions of systems or ideologies you oppose.
    Expand Case Studies: Use historical and contemporary examples to ground theoretical arguments in observable realities.
    Focus on Practicality: Develop actionable steps or pilot projects to illustrate how your proposals could be implemented.
    Enhance Accessibility: Add summaries, glossaries, or visual aids to support understanding of complex ideas.

    Your work is a comprehensive and ambitious attempt to reframe societal organization around principles of truth, reciprocity, and Natural Law. Refining the presentation and addressing potential critiques will enhance its impact and accessibility.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-05 16:31:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1864709149596250112

  • RT @ThruTheHayes: PROSECUTE THE ACLU They owe restitution for harms. Non-profits

    RT @ThruTheHayes: PROSECUTE THE ACLU

    They owe restitution for harms. Non-profits and NGOs are largely criminal enterprises.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-12-05 12:55:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1864654923285319704

  • yes. hyperconsumption and evasion of responsibility for self, private and common

    yes. hyperconsumption and evasion of responsibility for self, private and common.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-29 02:30:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1862323329446944850

    Reply addressees: @PlayerJuan11 @whatifalthist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1862322771029557516