Curt Doolittle

Theme: Responsibility

  • A Critical Principle

    Apr 3, 2020, 10:46 AM By Daniel Roland Anderson If you ever want to understand Natural Law, this is a critical principle. If you have not performed Due Diligence, and you serve as a conduit for falsehood, you are “lying” under the P definition of lying. So sometimes when we call you liar, we aren’t saying you are wicked. It could be you are simply . . . simple.

  • A Critical Principle

    Apr 3, 2020, 10:46 AM By Daniel Roland Anderson If you ever want to understand Natural Law, this is a critical principle. If you have not performed Due Diligence, and you serve as a conduit for falsehood, you are “lying” under the P definition of lying. So sometimes when we call you liar, we aren’t saying you are wicked. It could be you are simply . . . simple.

  • Being Wrong Versus Lying

    Apr 3, 2020, 11:33 AM

    —“I’m not sure making being wrong and lying the same is going to work. Intent is an incredibly powerful part of our system. It’s the only substantial difference between murder and justifiable homicide. Judging just action/outcome without judging the intent isn’t going to create a workable system”—Greg Hamilton

    That can’t be true, because our legal system already does it. It always has. All this does is extend it from commercial to political speech. Think of it this way: philosophy was invented as a competition to the law to give permission to lie.

    —“Well I’m missing something because it appears you are saying being wrong is lying. … That without intent to deceive to are as guilty as if you had intent. “—Greg Hamilton

    Being wrong, or failing due diligence? You can perform due diligence and still be wrong without fault. You cannot avoid due diligence and still be wrong without fault. This is why the law distinguishes between Restitution, escalating to Punishment, and escalating to Prevention. Means motive and opportunity. We cannot know intent. We can however know due diligence. Which is how we test your truth or lie in law.

  • Being Wrong Versus Lying

    Apr 3, 2020, 11:33 AM

    —“I’m not sure making being wrong and lying the same is going to work. Intent is an incredibly powerful part of our system. It’s the only substantial difference between murder and justifiable homicide. Judging just action/outcome without judging the intent isn’t going to create a workable system”—Greg Hamilton

    That can’t be true, because our legal system already does it. It always has. All this does is extend it from commercial to political speech. Think of it this way: philosophy was invented as a competition to the law to give permission to lie.

    —“Well I’m missing something because it appears you are saying being wrong is lying. … That without intent to deceive to are as guilty as if you had intent. “—Greg Hamilton

    Being wrong, or failing due diligence? You can perform due diligence and still be wrong without fault. You cannot avoid due diligence and still be wrong without fault. This is why the law distinguishes between Restitution, escalating to Punishment, and escalating to Prevention. Means motive and opportunity. We cannot know intent. We can however know due diligence. Which is how we test your truth or lie in law.

  • Reverse Accusations of Gsrrm

    Apr 5, 2020, 11:34 AM GSRRM must be used to avoid an argument by substituting disapproval for truth. Shaming is necessary and warranted demand for restitution by suppression of the crime of avoiding an argument by substitution of disapproval.

    —“Doolittle: “do as I say not as I do”—Tamzin Millikan @MillikanTamzin

    Shaming for disapproval to avoid the argument, falsehood, irreciprocity, and failure of due diligence, is a demand for restitution, under test of reciprocity. The opposite is not. Learn the law. You will be better for it. Me: “Speak to the audience in a compromise grammar.” So: (a) I’m speaking to the audience in a compromise grammar (market). (b) You are disapproving without doing due diligence (assuming you understand and not asking why I’m doing so),(c) counter-signaling my shaming of your for failure of due diligence. Learn the law. End error.

  • Reverse Accusations of Gsrrm

    Apr 5, 2020, 11:34 AM GSRRM must be used to avoid an argument by substituting disapproval for truth. Shaming is necessary and warranted demand for restitution by suppression of the crime of avoiding an argument by substitution of disapproval.

    —“Doolittle: “do as I say not as I do”—Tamzin Millikan @MillikanTamzin

    Shaming for disapproval to avoid the argument, falsehood, irreciprocity, and failure of due diligence, is a demand for restitution, under test of reciprocity. The opposite is not. Learn the law. You will be better for it. Me: “Speak to the audience in a compromise grammar.” So: (a) I’m speaking to the audience in a compromise grammar (market). (b) You are disapproving without doing due diligence (assuming you understand and not asking why I’m doing so),(c) counter-signaling my shaming of your for failure of due diligence. Learn the law. End error.

  • The False Promise

    Apr 18, 2020, 3:43 PM

    —“That’s what it always comes down to, freedom from consequences. The false promise of freedom from consequences is baiting into hazard as ignoring consequences must necessarily result in destruction.”—Andrew M Gilmour

    —“Marxism is the tooth fairy of political beliefs. You can’t make a credible claim to being an adult and still believe in that nonsense.”–Noah J Revoy

    —“Surplus value cannot exist. It’s the greatest lie to ever ensnare humans.”—Andrew M Gilmour

    —“Even if something like surplus value hypothetically could exist, I think the more important point is that there is no way of verifying or falsifying such a claim. He just insists that it does exist and that it can be calculated in terms of socially necessary labor time per hour. He’s just describing the attributes of a mythical tooth fairy without providing any way of verifying it.”—Predmetsky Rosenborg

    The question is this, why should I, having collected the savings fo dozens of families, invest in more than one companies, when only one will turn a profit, without expecting a return from the one company, that will profit enough to invest in any company, despite all but one losing money?

    Or more differently, given that all industrial capitalization, organization, marketing, sales, production, and receipt of payment is speculative, would the common laborers equally risk their income by investing labor and then waiting to see if the income would be returned?

  • The False Promise

    Apr 18, 2020, 3:43 PM

    —“That’s what it always comes down to, freedom from consequences. The false promise of freedom from consequences is baiting into hazard as ignoring consequences must necessarily result in destruction.”—Andrew M Gilmour

    —“Marxism is the tooth fairy of political beliefs. You can’t make a credible claim to being an adult and still believe in that nonsense.”–Noah J Revoy

    —“Surplus value cannot exist. It’s the greatest lie to ever ensnare humans.”—Andrew M Gilmour

    —“Even if something like surplus value hypothetically could exist, I think the more important point is that there is no way of verifying or falsifying such a claim. He just insists that it does exist and that it can be calculated in terms of socially necessary labor time per hour. He’s just describing the attributes of a mythical tooth fairy without providing any way of verifying it.”—Predmetsky Rosenborg

    The question is this, why should I, having collected the savings fo dozens of families, invest in more than one companies, when only one will turn a profit, without expecting a return from the one company, that will profit enough to invest in any company, despite all but one losing money?

    Or more differently, given that all industrial capitalization, organization, marketing, sales, production, and receipt of payment is speculative, would the common laborers equally risk their income by investing labor and then waiting to see if the income would be returned?

  • Compassion Is an Individual Action, Not a Collective One

    Apr 22, 2020, 5:38 PM by Matt MacBradaigh One can only be compassionate as an individual action, not a collective one. When one tries to extend collective compassion, what happens is recipient (a small segment of society) benefits irreciprocally at the expense of others. Examples: “Compassion” for repeat criminal offenders, “It’s not their fault; it’s the system. Blah blah blah” is at at the expense of those whom are the next repeat criminal offender’s victims. It’s total LACK of compassion for everyone else to satisfy ones feelz. It’s actually downright selfish. “Compassion” for the poor leading to voting for government to take other’s money instead of giving your own, and then engaging in GSRRM to shame anyone who balks at being stolen from.

  • Compassion Is an Individual Action, Not a Collective One

    Apr 22, 2020, 5:38 PM by Matt MacBradaigh One can only be compassionate as an individual action, not a collective one. When one tries to extend collective compassion, what happens is recipient (a small segment of society) benefits irreciprocally at the expense of others. Examples: “Compassion” for repeat criminal offenders, “It’s not their fault; it’s the system. Blah blah blah” is at at the expense of those whom are the next repeat criminal offender’s victims. It’s total LACK of compassion for everyone else to satisfy ones feelz. It’s actually downright selfish. “Compassion” for the poor leading to voting for government to take other’s money instead of giving your own, and then engaging in GSRRM to shame anyone who balks at being stolen from.