@ahaspel Exceptional parsimony. But I notice two things 1) observer without taking responsibility for change. 2) criticism without solution.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 12:41:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885841796944756736
—“Curt, So the argument that ‘sentient beings’ or ‘moral actors’ do not qualify as “resources” can not stand up to simple deflation of the term. Human actors demonstrably have the ability to benefit and gain from the transformation and consumption of other human capital, in many cases without the need violent compulsion. The only means of insuring the principle that you yourself differ from ‘live stock’ is in reciprocal construction of the notion between those who can demonstrate the necessary agency.”— Nicholas Arthur Catton
(Well done.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 14:24:00 UTC
I kind of think Aristocratic Liberty requires (a) scientific thought AND (b) taking responsibility for the tribe.
Whereas much Separatist libertinism uses (c) rational thought and (d) avoids responsibility for the tribe (absence of loyalty).
You could just say in-group males and out-group males.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-11 13:22:00 UTC
WHERE ARE ANY INNOCENTS?
by Al Freeman
Who, in our current world, is not initiating violence against you?
Our society currently thinks(and this includes those who follow the NAP) that violence should only be used against physical violence. We ignore social, political, and monetary violence.
Violence has been redefined. (CURT: we have shifted violence from laborers (slaves), to physical property, to ‘material interests’ to social capital, political capital, civilizational capital, and genetic capital.)
Not long ago, and for most of human history, voting for, or supporting Bernie Sanders would have been considered violence. Voting for a man who openly advocates stealing from others is an act of violence.
Voting for and supporting a removal of guns from civilians is an act of violence.
So, by advocating violence, am I supporting violence against innocents that are peaceful?
No. But where do you find such people in our society? Where are the innocents?
Taking money to redistribute it is theft, taking away guns is stealing, and destroys your ability to defend yourself.
These things are acts of violence.
Anyone who uses money, takes actions, or casts a vote to support these things is committing an act of violence.
Violence against which we can justifiably retaliate.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-09 12:16:00 UTC
by Joel Davis
I have been thinking about testimonialism a lot and I have come to the conclusion that testimonialism is less about “the truth” than it is about humility (and if it isn’t, it should be).
Testimony functions by subdividing experiential contexts into conceptual components via the commensurable definition of relative variance, and/or uniting conceptual components into experiential contexts via the commensurable definition of relative convergence, to enable and expand (in the case of testimony) the commensurable conceptualization of experiential contexts between communicators.
Non-testimony functions by misrepresenting a concept as a component of an experiential context it did not derive from by either:
– Defining the relative variance/convergence between concepts incommensurably. (Operational non-correspondence)
or
– Expanding the definition of the experiential context beyond commensurable relativity between its components. (Operational incoherence)
I can break this down into normiespeak..
Rather than telling me “what is”, tell me how it seems, because no matter “what is”, you can only ever perceive how it seems, as to find out that what it really “is” is different to how it seems, seems really only for it to now seem different.
Therefore to believe that how it seems is how it is, seems rather arrogant to me.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-03 03:41:00 UTC
CAN AN AI TESTIFY?
—“Can AI perform statements?”— Skye Stewart
Brilliant question. The question is, who is speaking? The AI, or the developers, or the information providers, or the managers of it?
In propertarian ethics, an AI is always owned like a pet. We may not harm it but that does not mean we grant it peerage. (I am not sure we can).
But that said, even if we grant an AI rights by proxy of ownership like we do corporations, (which is what we will do), then can we punish an AI for false testimony? Can an AI make false testimony? Can an Ai speak without due diligence? Or would we have to punish the programmers that produce an AI that could lie or couls speak without due diligence?
As far as I know you have to give an AI a means of decidability, and that humans have many incentives to produce falsehoods and ai’s have none of them. Our problem is instead, reducing error in GENERAL AI’s (remember that all current ai is not general ai). And to do that we need vast stores of information, and human-speed search and retrieval across all those domains.
My personal view is that AI’s cannot report but not testify. AI’s can report but it is their producers and owners it proxies for.
Source date (UTC): 2017-07-02 11:24:00 UTC
COMPARING INTENTIONS VS OUTCOMES
You can look at the content or you can look at the method of communication and argument. you can look at the consequences.
We were the greatest people on earth before christianity. and the greatest people on earth after christianity. And we are being defeated right now by christianity version 2: marxism/postmodernism and islam v1.
So a silly person looks at the gears inside the box(intentions). The wise person looks at what comes out of the box (consequences).
The consequences of aristotelianism and confucianism and zoroastrianism and buddhism vs the consequences of judaism, christianity, and islam. It’s not a difficult comparison. Abrahamism is a cancer upon mankind nearly as great as the entire history of plaques and diseases.
Atheism in practice is just democratic socialism: a variation of marxism: christianity v2.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-27 11:36:00 UTC
(how many times i gotta say it. Please don’t include me in your anger-speech. Look in the mirror. You, your parents, your grandparents, your relatives, their friends, that is who is responsible for our current state. It is trivially easy to defend against abrahamism whether christian jewish or islamic. If you don’t, then you’ve given the scorpion a ride you stupid frog. The only way to defeat it, is to kill it first.
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-22 14:21:00 UTC
—“We hold individuals accountable through Law, we hold groups accountable through War.”—Bill Anderson
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-21 16:21:00 UTC
A DOUBLE STANDARD IS A VIOLATION OF THE NATURAL LAW OF RECIPROCITY.
(SO PUNISH OFFENDERS.)
Source date (UTC): 2017-06-21 07:15:00 UTC