Curt Doolittle

Theme: Responsibility

  • Ethics of cooperative and sentient creatures capable of choosing between opportu

    Ethics of cooperative and sentient creatures capable of choosing between opportunities, must develop both objective morality (ethics of ‘natural law’) and group competitive ethics (moral norms), and individual competitive ethics (personal moral judgements). The principle conflicts in the study of manners, ethics, morality, and group evolutionary strategy (law of cooperation), are caused by (a) differences in male and female reproductive strategy, (b) differences in the desirability of the classes (associative, reproductive, economic, political, and military), and (c) differences in distributions of abilities between groups (tribes), and (d) necessities of territorial adaptation. Ergo while ethics(and morals) are objectively decidable across any group, because objectively decidable ethics exist, individuals, groups, and very large groups each construct portfolios of more complex normative and personal ethics(morals) so that they can successfully compete against other peers, genders, classes, tribes, nations, and civilizations. This does not mean that we cannot say one civilization’s nation’s, tribe’s, class’, gender’s person’s are decidability more moral than another’s. But then, these things we call ethics (morals) are tools of evolution. And both prey, parasite, and predator exist between organisms in nature, and prey, parasite and predator exist within organisms as well.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-04 17:37:00 UTC

  • A father needs to be for certain the one man a daughter can trust. I think this

    A father needs to be for certain the one man a daughter can trust. I think this is the line of teaching that MEN need to be taught. From teaching that one lesson, the rest follows for both genders.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-04 13:08:00 UTC

  • WOMEN ARE CAPABLE OF RATIONAL THOUGHT. MEN ARE CAPABLE OF RESPONSIBLE THOUGHT. W

    WOMEN ARE CAPABLE OF RATIONAL THOUGHT. MEN ARE CAPABLE OF RESPONSIBLE THOUGHT.

    Women are capable of understanding rationality. I believe they require different kinds of education from men to achieve rational perspective.

    The problem for women is finding a man that they can trust to provide the instruction. Usually this comes from experience talking with good fathers and brothers.

    Contemporary education consists merely of exercises in social conformity for women, hence the ease with indoctrinating them with socialist propaganda in university courses.

    In conversations on politics and society, conservative women always speak of the opinions of their father and husband with great frequency, they respect these men highly and thus integrate their perspectives.

    I don’t see the problem as women, the true problem is the feminization of men thus creating a society of weak fathers and husbands/boyfriends who validate the emotions of their daughters and wives/girlfriends instead of correcting them through assertive rational instruction on these topics.

    If we have good fathers, brothers, and husbands, women’s will be rational. Just as if we have good women men will be rational.

    We’ve done the opposite.

    Joel Davis

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 13:59:00 UTC

  • THE INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION OF CRIMINAL, UNETHICAL, AND IMMORAL CONDUCT BY THE S

    THE INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION OF CRIMINAL, UNETHICAL, AND IMMORAL CONDUCT BY THE SUPPRESSION OF CRIMINAL, UNETHICAL, AND IMMORAL INFORMATION.

    We defend life (murder)

    We defend the body (harm)

    We defend property (theft and harm)

    We defend kin (genes)

    We defend allies and nighbors (relations)

    We defend interests (private shares, public commons)

    We defend institutions (norms and formal institutions)

    We defend the territory (air, sea, land, resources, nature)

    We defend the market (involuntary warranty of goods, and services – and now INFORMATION)

    The west has been defeated in the ancient past by lies (supernatural monotheism)

    The west has almost been defeated in the modern era by lies (jewish pseudoscience, and puritan pseudorationalism)

    The first defeat was achieved through a near monopoly on writing and preaching.

    We rescued ourselves by the invention of the printing press and literacy.

    The second near defeat was achieved through a near monopoly on MEDIA.

    We are rescuing ourselves through the new literacy: the internet.

    There is no reason we do not demand in information, the same warranty of due diligence against HAZARD that we demand from GOODS and SERVICES.

    We do not ask the liar, the thief, and the immoral propagandist for permission to prosecute them, to kill, punish, deprive, and silence them. We threaten punishment and we demand restitution.

    My position is that it is quite possible to create an online reporting system for people who create hazards, collect data about them for later prosecution, use violence to obtain power to expand the common law to include warranty of due diligence on public speech, and then prosecute, judge and kill, punish, deprive, or silence those people so that just as we have eliminated violence, theft, fraud, and conspiracy from the market for goods and services, that we eliminate creations of criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial information from the market as well.

    If we kill enough of the people for advocating ‘voluntarism’ – an excuse to ignore externalities and hazards – then people will refrain from advocating ‘voluntarism’ and the export of externalities and hazards.

    It’s not that we shouldn’t use violence.

    It’s that don’t do enough of it.

    Hence: incremental suppression.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-03 13:37:00 UTC

  • Q&A: ON PORN – A LITTLE IS ONE THING, TOO MUCH IS A VERY BAD THING —“Hey Mr. D

    Q&A: ON PORN – A LITTLE IS ONE THING, TOO MUCH IS A VERY BAD THING

    —“Hey Mr. Doolittle. I love your work. If you don’t mind, could you do one of your famous write-ups on the harm of pornography?”—-

    Porn is bad for (most) men really. Cuts our dominance and aggression dramatically, and our ambition along with it; and if you watch it enough it will hurt your libido just like many recreational drugs will hurt your pleasure receptors – perhaps permanently.

    This has largely to do with the problem of novelty. Male arousal is largely a function of novelty. This is why good relationships combine frequent easy ‘nightly’ sex, with ‘novelty’ (like in places we shouldn’t have sex, or having sex under sneaky but fun circumstances.)

    So frequently ‘using’ porn, ‘desensitizes’ your libido and forces you to search for ever increasing novelty to provoke a response. If you do this enough, then it is increasingly difficult to obtain a state of arousal or even ‘interest’ in real life. ESPECIALLY with your stable girlfriend/wife – and this is the problem. You can compensate by avoiding alcohol and pot. You can compensate a bit by physical exercise and competition, but the porn will draw down your desire for it. You can compensate by avoiding it entirely for six months or more. As far as I know you can get past it entirely if you stay away from it for three to four years (which is about duration of the human forgetting curve). But I haven’t seen good data other than about two thirds of men respond positively to long term avoidance of porn.

    (Good research esp, out of Italy.)

    HOWEVER, there is also research to suggest that the drop in crime among those men with TOO MUCH testosterone (you know who) has a lot to do with the availability of free porn, cheap high fat food loaded with MSG, cable television and video games, more so than any other phenomenon.

    And it seems like now-and-then use of porn in your teens, can seriously help release the stress of being a young male. Which honestly, is distracting as hell, and in my memory, was a constant source of aggressive thoughts.

    So you know, it’s one of those good and bad things.

    If you’re in a regular relationship do not use it, and instead, be a little more creative. Porn is a cheap and easy spice for sex with your regular girl. But you pay for the discount. Instead, try higher investment activities: new places, higher risk, more kinky, or the old fashioned way: more sensual and attentive. (Although my generation was over-taught that strategy).

    We have some interesting information from the past few decades of data collection, and it turns out that women like the ‘lower class’ men at times because they ‘think less and feel more’ and do it more aggressively. And just as a woman has a harder time ‘letting go’ in order to ‘get there’, men have to re-learn to ‘let go’ and get her there.

    So when with her friends, love your inner gentleman. When you’re arousing, love your inner romantic, and play the romance game. But when in the heat of it, love your inner Gorilla. Surrender to him. Let him go. Use every drop of strength you have to move her. Girls don’t break all that easily. And most of them like the thrill of it. Just how it is.

    RUN A BIT.

    SPRINT A BIT

    PLAY A LITTLE PAINTBALL

    LIFT VERY HEAVY THINGS WITH YOUR WHOLE BODY

    READ A NON-FICTION BOOK.

    GENTLEMAN/ROMANCE/AND GORILLA THE HELL OUT OF HER.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 11:51:00 UTC

  • I don’t have anything to prove. Instead, I need to punish you. Make an example o

    I don’t have anything to prove. Instead, I need to punish you. Make an example of you. It immoral and unethical to let you live.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-27 15:37:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802899143157055488

    Reply addressees: @lrockhq

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802896779570135040

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802896779570135040

  • So is that your suggestion? What about reparations to Poland, Ukraine, Estonia,

    So is that your suggestion? What about reparations to Poland, Ukraine, Estonia, and Latvia?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-26 21:02:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802618549915320320

    Reply addressees: @GorskyDmitry @nntaleb @FamesBlond @RT_com

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802533839243542528

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802533839243542528

  • Thankfully we don’t judge people criminals on their sincerity of their intention

    Thankfully we don’t judge people criminals on their sincerity of their intentions but the result of actions.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-26 01:20:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802321108410236928

    Reply addressees: @digitalErmit @VonMacht @Salon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802312726286475264

    IN REPLY TO:

    @digitalErmit

    @curtdoolittle @VonMacht @Salon I’m not educated enough on them to tell. Now, I believe some of them were sincere and thoughtful.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802312726286475264

  • MORE NON-AGGRESSION FALLACY SUPPRESSION —-“1. Against someone who initiates ag

    MORE NON-AGGRESSION FALLACY SUPPRESSION

    —-“1. Against someone who initiates aggression.”—-

    (libertarian fallacy by suggestion)

    It’s like saying the sky is blue. Aggress is a verb. like “act”. Its meaningless unless you define the noun that functions as the predicate: the scope of what we tolerate retaliation against aggressions against.

    The fact that so many people are suckers for this rhetorical fallacy says volumes about human cognitive bias. Aggression = Bad, non Aggression=Good, but only if you are in kindergarten.

    The problem of ethics lies in determining what empirically causes people to retaliate no matter what we agree to, what normative contracts we invest in, and what commons we invest in, and of those three categories, what transgressions they will insure by formal punishment, formal restitution, formal penalty, informal boycott or disassociation, informal shaming, or interpersonal shaming.

    Another strange cognitive bias is the common impulse that the subject matter (conflict resolution) that has empirically driven the evolution of the common law of torts for over two thousand years; is the origin of philosophical reason in the ancient world, rationalism in the medieval, empiricism in the modern, and science of late, should somehow be a matter of personal introspection by the common folk rather than empirical science by masters of the craft.

    In other words, why does the average person feel capable of issuing pronouncements on ethics any more than structural engineering, the structure of space time, protein folding or algebraic geometry?

    Yet we know the reason: because we are not trying to discover the truth when we speak of ethics. We did not evolve to tell the truth, or science would not have taken us over two thousand years to develop. Instead, our genes are telling us to negotiate, influence, and lie on their behalf. And we are faithful servants of their influences.

    Man is a rational animal. He is not moral or immoral but moral or immoral when it suits him. And his definition of ‘moral’ is whatever suits his reproductive strategy at the moment. This is why genders and classes, nations, tribes and races all state that moral truths favor their genetic advancement over the genetic advancement of others.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-25 18:09:00 UTC

  • Holding Status Issuers Liable

    HOLD THE NOBEL PRIZE COMMITTEE LIABLE FOR THEIR RATING SERVICE? Do you suppose we could make the Nobel Prize committee liable for the certification of pseudoscience? I think we could. Why not? I mean, for all intents and purposes, how is the Nobel Committee any different from the Mortgage Rating Services? Privatizing commons while socializing losses into the commons?