Curt Doolittle

Theme: Responsibility

  • WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? In technical terms: 1) “Dishonest Libertarians” (Rothbar

    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

    In technical terms:

    1) “Dishonest Libertarians” (Rothbardian Libertines) allocate all property and rights to individuals, maintain that unethical and immoral thefts are legal, and grant all individuals universal standing (ability to sue).

    2) Classical liberals (“Honest libertarians”) allocate all property and rights to individuals, grant universal standing, and enforce prohibition on unethical and immoral thefts. Classical liberals also encourage construction of commons and prohibit free riding on commons.

    3) Progressives (Democratic Socialists) argue that all property belongs to the corporation (community) and is leased by corporation managers (government) to individuals temporarily for productive use for the good of the community, and that individuals may keep some of the proceeds from the production that they engage in as reward for helping the community.

    I believe that this is the most accurate distinction currently available. Although I could add detail.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-25 13:47:00 UTC

  • PERSONAL ADVICE (worth repeating) It is not helpful to think of others as fools,

    PERSONAL ADVICE

    (worth repeating)

    It is not helpful to think of others as fools, idiots or malcontents, which presumes human equality of ability, but to think of others as different breeds of human with better and lesser abilities, each of whom does the best it can competing against the mean of human abilities that we call ‘society’.

    Instead of wishing for lower transaction costs, which one cannot possibly achieve, it is better to recognize one’s superiority, and choose between helping the demonstrably inferior, ignoring them, or admonishing them a little bit in order to ‘correct’ their behavior – a necessary and beneficial contribution to the commons.

    The illusion of equality under the enlightenment fallacy has produced negative conceptual norms even in the best of us. So those of us with Aristocratic abilities and sentiments should not fall victim to the fallacy ourselves.

    My approach is to assume everyone is making constant errors, and to try to help them. It’s an aristocratic duty, and taking priestly, professorial, or philosophical, or whatever approach you wish to call ‘teaching’ or ‘training’ has improved my life dramatically. In my twenties I decided to help everyone I cam in contact with in some small way – usually by helping them understand the world as it is, rather than as they wish it to be.

    Helping others removes frustration, and brings you and others joy. You will always be happier helping than being frustrated. And yes, helping is a high cost. On the other hand the more helping you do the better you get at it, and it is wonderfully rewarding to experience how you are treated by others when they expect that you will try to help rather than confront them.

    We have a lot of work to do. The enlightenment fallacy, the errors of the socialists and the lies of the postmodernists can be countered with recent scientific evidence, and by learning a few arguments from Aristocratic Egalitarianism, Propertarianism, and Testimonial Truth and Operationalism.

    They created a fallacy by talking. The cure is truth. And truth is helpful.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-08 07:36:00 UTC

  • ON MORALITY (THE FINAL WORD?) GIVEN 1) The Set of all objective prohibitions on

    ON MORALITY (THE FINAL WORD?)

    GIVEN

    1) The Set of all objective prohibitions on involuntary-transfer/free-riding/imposed-costs in the spectrum criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial.

    2) The Set of all normative rules that impose costs on participants for some normatively strategic purpose, enforced by inclusion or exclusion.

    3) The Set of formal laws intended to capture all of the above, and enforce by violence.

    4) The Set of all subjective categorical applications of those rules to concrete circumstances, not yet determinable as 1, 2, or 3.

    ASSERTIONS

    a) 1 is Universally true, since cooperation is irrational in the presence of parasitism.

    b) 2 is NOT universally true since under no universal set of norms are all groups equally competitive. Therefore it is advantageous for higher groups (with better abilities, norms, and institutions) to operate in libertarian ethics, and lower groups (those with worse abilities, norms and institutions) to operate under social democratic, or even despotic conditions.

    c) 3 is not universally true because law is a pragmatic organic adoption to the necessary condition of set 1, and the strategic condition of set 2.

    d) 4 is not universally true because because it is hypothetical experimentation not yet codified as law, norm, or necessity.

    EXPLANATION

    Different groups develop different evolutionary strategies that require treatment of in-group and out-group members differently. Under the Absolute nuclear family and the nuclear family the distinction between out-group and in-group members has been eradicated due to outbreeding. Communism and socialism likewise are attempts to destroy the family in an attempt to mitigate reproductive differences between Tribes, classes and families. As such this is a ‘white people’ problem since only northern european white people have abandoned the family and tribe and the rest of the world has not.

    In polities with Traditional and STEM families, there exists high demand for the state because in-group and out-group members are treated very differently. In a northern european aristocratic polity, in-group and out-group members are not treated differently – because there are no out-group members. However, external polties entering into the northern european polity demonstrate in-group vs out-group ethics and morality. This means that universalism or better stated, monopoly ethics, or perhaps ‘totalitarian ethics’, are in fact competitively disadvantageous against those who practice out-group ethics.

    The more ‘insurance’ provided by the state the more disadvantaged is universalism and libertarianism. Because not only are universalists paying into the commons with late child birth, working parents, and the nuclear and absolute family costs, but competitors do not practice these same constraints, and rates of birth and place multiplicative burden on the commons generated by those who contribute to it.

    So the northern european strategic advantage brought about by manorialism and the church’s prohibition on inbreeding reduces population growth rates, eliminates even in-family free riding, all in an effort to add capital to the commons, and to suppress underclass rates of reproduction. Meanwhile those that do not practice such abstinence are able to consume the commons thus saved.

    We can analyze each group’s reproductive(family structure), social (trust radius), and productive (economic) strategies but in the end, this is what is codified in our laws and norms. As such norms are morals unique to a given reproductive strategy for a given people, in competition with other peoples.

    Moral universalism is true in matters of dispute resolution – voluntary exchange is the only rational means of dispute resolution. Moral particularism is true in the case of fulfilling a reproductive strategy. But no moral strategy can be universal since that would deterministically eliminate some groups from participation. ergo -libertarianism is an aristocratic philosophy for a creative class, and other classes require other strategies. In the context of moral utility then these strategies are each moral within group and not across group. For cross group morality we only require property rights. However, since any and all collections of property rights whether objective and necessary or normative and strategic, require institutional support, we require different political orders to satisfy the reproductive strategies of each while cooperating via market means (voluntary exchange) at both the consumer, producer and political levels.

    Monopoly is tyranny.

    There is no optimum.

    Any optimum would produce deterministic ends.

    And that would mean some people would have to prefer losing the genetic competition.

    And that will never happen. Never has happened. Never can happen.

    Universalism is non-logical. Libertarian or otherwise.

    Instead, libertarianism forms the legal basis of the negotiation of conflicts between groups with heterogeneous wants and needs.

    As far as I know, albeit in brief form, this is the last word on morality, its scope and the argument for universalism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-29 09:14:00 UTC

  • I invest in my staff – a lot. When it doesn’t pay off I move on. When it does pa

    I invest in my staff – a lot. When it doesn’t pay off I move on. When it does pay off I’m always absolutely thrilled. The best way to invest in your staff is to negotiate decisions with them, until their decisions are as good or better than yours. You must never lose control in the sense that decisions are ‘deals’ between you and your staff. The deals must persist. But at some point they begin to understand the overall deal structure (they have adopted your goals) and you are really able to rely on them for stopping you from making mistakes rather than you stopping them from making mistakes.

    So, the best approach is to constantly consider how to spend your time. It is much more time consuming to negotiate (train) your staff so that they make good decisions, but it is a much larger long term payoff to try to train everyone to make good decisions. When they do, they have sovereignty, and are in control of their lives and we all desire that. They feel respected, and are respected, because they participate. I dont do this for purely warm and fuzzy reasons – even though the sociology of the work place is something very important to me. I do it because I am, at all times, trying to invest now, so that I can tackle other problems later without the fear of absorbing risk by doing so.

    My staff has hit a sort of critical mass since the spring, but particularly since we sent them to work together in a villa for the spring and summer. When you are that close to people, all sorts of external influence and posturing eventually disappears from the daily work and a level of trust develops that is something beautiful to behold.

    Managers can really be separated into those who do such things and those who either don’t or can’t, because they aren’t craftsmen. This is one of the things I’ve learned from the ‘good to great’ research: that you really must build people from within, and from craftsmen, mature them into managers.

    Otherwise nobody respects those managers, and they are right not to. They’re just bureaucrats. And no trust can develop in that environment. And thats why it doesn’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-28 05:42:00 UTC

  • Cases of Moral Conditions

    —“That we have immoral politics for thousands of years does not make crass politics any less evil.”– David Macdonough.

    (Note, I just wanted to capture this response here, as a good illustration of the familial origins of morality. In this reply, I’m trying to suggest why government must be not just rational but scientific. Because, as most of you know, I have become very hostile to the pretense of reason, given the pseudoscientific attack on the west during the 20th century.)

    David,

    [C]ASES
    A population ISLE is on a large island with Crete’s climate, plenty of sea resources, fertile volcanic soil, and they prohibit marriage until the couple can afford to buy their own home, so they practice late marriage and reproduction. This controls their population. They are all closely related so they out-breed. They conduct internal and sea trade.

    A population FOR lives in a land of forests and rivers, with a temperate climate of hot but bearable summers and cold but bearable winters, fertile soil, and they prohibit marriage until the couple can own their own home, so they practice late marriage and reproduction. Most neighboring populations practice very similar manners, ethics, morals, and traditions, and they conduct land and river trade. They are all closely related so they out breed at least locally.

    A population PEN lives on a peninsula that provides adequate but not good terrain and soil. They are surrounded on all sides by very different peoples, all of whom seek control of trade routes and taxes to fund the costs of keeping competitors at bay. They practice traditional families. Only the upper classes control their breeding. They practice non-egalitarian inheritance to keep property in the family. They breed largely with close friends and relatives.

    A Population STP lives on an steppe of horsemen with limited resources, no transportable rivers or sea lanes, harsh winters and warm short summers. All local resources are scarce so they move their herds constantly across vast areas and constantly come into competition with other similar groups. The do not control their breeding and they in-breed to keep limited portable property in the family.

    A Population DES lives on a desert of horsemen with no resources, hot days and cold nights, useless soil, and they sustain themselves by migratory herding. There are no local resources so they move their herds constantly across very fragile terrain and compete ruthlessly to obtain or hold what they have. They do not control their breeding and they in-breed almost exclusively to keep limited portable property in the family.

    While the assessment of criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial conduct remains constant in all cultures, the TOLERANCE or INTOLERANCE for criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial conduct varies between these groups. The degree of demonstrated morality one practices reflects the degree of outbreeding one practices.

    Cooperation is a reproductive strategy. The only rational reason for abandoning violence is that it is more rewarding to cooperate than conflict. The only reason to engage in ethical behavior is because it is more rewarding than engaging in deception with out-group members (the market) and in-group members – because they will ostracize you. The only reason to engage in moral behavior is because other members of your group will ostracize you for not. But one doesn’t care about out-group members, upon who we can impose costs at will whenever possible.

    Westerners make the mistake of confusing the universal ethics of the market, with the strategic reproductive ethics of the polity.

    No one other than westerners makes this mistake. When other civilizations complain about capitalism, it is the attack on their family structures that it represents, in no small part, they are reacting to – justifiably.

    In then end analysis, under unmitigated fully ethical, but morally neutral capitalism, over time, the most parasitic peoples that breed the fastest will conquer those that attempt to concentrate and accumulate capital.

    (See **Altruistic Punishment**. ie: suicidal tendencies.)

    I don’t make ‘should’ arguments. I make ‘is’ arguments. What we do with the world as it is, is a competitive advantage. That is why scientific arguments are a competitive advantage. A competitive advantage for the tribes and families that use them. Everything less scientific is merely a disadvantage.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine

  • Cases of Moral Conditions

    —“That we have immoral politics for thousands of years does not make crass politics any less evil.”– David Macdonough.

    (Note, I just wanted to capture this response here, as a good illustration of the familial origins of morality. In this reply, I’m trying to suggest why government must be not just rational but scientific. Because, as most of you know, I have become very hostile to the pretense of reason, given the pseudoscientific attack on the west during the 20th century.)

    David,

    [C]ASES
    A population ISLE is on a large island with Crete’s climate, plenty of sea resources, fertile volcanic soil, and they prohibit marriage until the couple can afford to buy their own home, so they practice late marriage and reproduction. This controls their population. They are all closely related so they out-breed. They conduct internal and sea trade.

    A population FOR lives in a land of forests and rivers, with a temperate climate of hot but bearable summers and cold but bearable winters, fertile soil, and they prohibit marriage until the couple can own their own home, so they practice late marriage and reproduction. Most neighboring populations practice very similar manners, ethics, morals, and traditions, and they conduct land and river trade. They are all closely related so they out breed at least locally.

    A population PEN lives on a peninsula that provides adequate but not good terrain and soil. They are surrounded on all sides by very different peoples, all of whom seek control of trade routes and taxes to fund the costs of keeping competitors at bay. They practice traditional families. Only the upper classes control their breeding. They practice non-egalitarian inheritance to keep property in the family. They breed largely with close friends and relatives.

    A Population STP lives on an steppe of horsemen with limited resources, no transportable rivers or sea lanes, harsh winters and warm short summers. All local resources are scarce so they move their herds constantly across vast areas and constantly come into competition with other similar groups. The do not control their breeding and they in-breed to keep limited portable property in the family.

    A Population DES lives on a desert of horsemen with no resources, hot days and cold nights, useless soil, and they sustain themselves by migratory herding. There are no local resources so they move their herds constantly across very fragile terrain and compete ruthlessly to obtain or hold what they have. They do not control their breeding and they in-breed almost exclusively to keep limited portable property in the family.

    While the assessment of criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial conduct remains constant in all cultures, the TOLERANCE or INTOLERANCE for criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial conduct varies between these groups. The degree of demonstrated morality one practices reflects the degree of outbreeding one practices.

    Cooperation is a reproductive strategy. The only rational reason for abandoning violence is that it is more rewarding to cooperate than conflict. The only reason to engage in ethical behavior is because it is more rewarding than engaging in deception with out-group members (the market) and in-group members – because they will ostracize you. The only reason to engage in moral behavior is because other members of your group will ostracize you for not. But one doesn’t care about out-group members, upon who we can impose costs at will whenever possible.

    Westerners make the mistake of confusing the universal ethics of the market, with the strategic reproductive ethics of the polity.

    No one other than westerners makes this mistake. When other civilizations complain about capitalism, it is the attack on their family structures that it represents, in no small part, they are reacting to – justifiably.

    In then end analysis, under unmitigated fully ethical, but morally neutral capitalism, over time, the most parasitic peoples that breed the fastest will conquer those that attempt to concentrate and accumulate capital.

    (See **Altruistic Punishment**. ie: suicidal tendencies.)

    I don’t make ‘should’ arguments. I make ‘is’ arguments. What we do with the world as it is, is a competitive advantage. That is why scientific arguments are a competitive advantage. A competitive advantage for the tribes and families that use them. Everything less scientific is merely a disadvantage.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Philosophy of Aristocracy
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine

  • The Aristocratic Contract vs Patriotism


    [I] don’t like the word patriot, because it suggests fealty to church or state. Instead: the obligation of every man who accepts the aristocratic contract is to deny power to any and all over any and all.

    In this sense patriotism is impossible for members of the aristocracy because it implies a moral choice rather than a necessary contractual obligation to all other members of the aristocratic corporation.

  • The Aristocratic Contract vs Patriotism


    [I] don’t like the word patriot, because it suggests fealty to church or state. Instead: the obligation of every man who accepts the aristocratic contract is to deny power to any and all over any and all.

    In this sense patriotism is impossible for members of the aristocracy because it implies a moral choice rather than a necessary contractual obligation to all other members of the aristocratic corporation.

  • The Truth: Making Honest Can't VS Should Arguments


    If you’re making a “CAN’T” argument, then just admit it’s because you can’t. If you’re making a “SHOULD or SHOULDN’T” argument, then state why you should or shouldn’t. But if you’re making a can’t argument while saying it’s because you shouldn’t, then that’s not truth that’s deception.

    It’s true that you CAN’T hold Russia accountable for attacking Ukraine, breaking the postwar consensus, and restarting nuclear proliferation, but that doesn’t me you shouldn’t.

    Truth is true. Lie is Lie. Unknown is Unknown. It’s not complicated.

    CLARITY

    Truth: Testimonial truth. Speaking truthfully.
    Honest: Testimonial truth. Speaking truthfully.
    Under testimonial truth, Honestly and Truthfully are synonymous.

    CONTEXT:
    Diplomats should not posture that they have the capacity to act, and choose not to act under the cover of justifications, when they have no capacity to act. This is dishonest. Politics is a dishonest business.

    ———-
    –“THE TRUTH: MAKING HONEST CAN’T VS SHOULD ARGUMENTS–

    If you’re making a “CAN’T” argument, then just admit it’s because you can’t. If you’re making a “SHOULD or SHOULDN’T” argument, then state why you should or shouldn’t. But if you’re making a can’t argument while saying it’s because you shouldn’t, then that’s not truth that’s deception.
    It’s true that you CAN’T hold Russia accountable for attacking Ukraine, breaking the postwar consensus, and restarting nuclear proliferation, but that doesn’t me you shouldn’t.

    Truth is true. Lie is Lie. Unknown is Unknown. It’s not complicated.
    ———–

    Caine conveniently reduced the scope of the argument to the first sentence in order to remove the information necessary to render the argument correspondent with reality. (Usually this is merely the error of novices, or people who don’t read the entire argument; but it falls under the category of either a fallacy -straw man- or a deception – selective inclusion of information in the argument. I assume that this is merely the error of a novice. As such cain is applying the technique of formal languages to correspondent and natural languages. This is a common error of ‘logicism’ (that is the word Max was looking for). I categorize all these kinds of errors as ’empty verbalisms’. But Max was attempting to say the same thing. (I am more patient – the curse of aspie-ness.)

    —” If one can not do something (it is not reasonably possible)” is no different from “shouldn’t” in the vast majority of cases when people utter those words.—-

    This is yet another fallacy given that the counter argument that Cain put forward was a fallacy of formal language, minus the information necessary for it to be correspondent – then you Greg, counter with an argument to normative speech.

    So now we have gone from a correspondent argument, to an internally consistent argument to a normative usage argument. Now, I suspect that in the end, Neither Cain nor Greg is probably aware of the different properties of these systems and you are justifying intuition not formal criticism.

    I made a rhetorical statement, because i do not make verbalist statements. I am an active opponent of logicism as psuedoscientific when applied outside of formal bounds. I’m an operationalist
    ———–
    I didnt make an absolute statement now did I?
    ———-

    Nope. No hole there at all. Rock solid.

    NOW LETS LOOK AT YOUR ARGUMENTS

    —If Nuclear war is unacceptable for you then in this context it’s both Can’t and Impossible Max, there he can muse on his Moral Should or not, Be or not to be all day long, 24/7—

    FULLY EXPANDED:
    “If you can conduct nuclear war then
    you cant conduct nuclear war and
    its impossible to conduct nuclear war
    but you prefer not to conduct nuclear war.”

    WELL THAT DOESN”T WORK. LETS BE MORE CHARITABLE

    Nuclear war is unacceptable. (Meaning you prefer not to conduct nuclear war.)
    AND
    You can conduct nuclear war, but you prefer not to.
    OR
    You can’t conduct nuclear war, and it’s immaterial whether you prefer to or not.

    “Can’t physically” != “Prefer not to.”

    WELL THAT DOESN”T WORK. SO LETS SEE WHAT ELSE WE HAVE

    … But really we just get back to the central argument which is that you’re holding a double standard. You allow yourself the laxity of informal language with ‘…in this context…’ but do not allow me the same laxity of informal language given the context. Instead, you pull out a sentence and argue that I made a statement I did not. Then, you go and make the statements I just illustrated were nonsense above.

    I made no universal statement. I did not make a statement regarding the necessary membership of sets. I stated that it is dishonest to posture. You may not have understood that. But this is your own hasty reading.

    I then defended my position with an argument over your head.

    And I am back to making the same argument in simple terms.

    NOW LETS SEE ABOUT AD HOMINEM(s)
    —Scholar—
    Well, I don’t see that as an insult. I don’t claim to be an academic. I don’t claim to be any thing. I claim I am correct. Otherwise that would mean I made an appeal to authority, which would be a fallacy. My arguments stand or they don’t, and they stand.

    —Buffoon—
    Says the guy who just made a clown of himself, did so with passion, did so under the cover of ad hominems.

    –Falling back—

    I didn’t make a mistake. My entire argument stands. I am good at what I do. Sorry. Just how it is. Get over it.

    Curt

  • The Truth: Making Honest Can’t VS Should Arguments


    If you’re making a “CAN’T” argument, then just admit it’s because you can’t. If you’re making a “SHOULD or SHOULDN’T” argument, then state why you should or shouldn’t. But if you’re making a can’t argument while saying it’s because you shouldn’t, then that’s not truth that’s deception.

    It’s true that you CAN’T hold Russia accountable for attacking Ukraine, breaking the postwar consensus, and restarting nuclear proliferation, but that doesn’t me you shouldn’t.

    Truth is true. Lie is Lie. Unknown is Unknown. It’s not complicated.

    CLARITY

    Truth: Testimonial truth. Speaking truthfully.
    Honest: Testimonial truth. Speaking truthfully.
    Under testimonial truth, Honestly and Truthfully are synonymous.

    CONTEXT:
    Diplomats should not posture that they have the capacity to act, and choose not to act under the cover of justifications, when they have no capacity to act. This is dishonest. Politics is a dishonest business.

    ———-
    –“THE TRUTH: MAKING HONEST CAN’T VS SHOULD ARGUMENTS–

    If you’re making a “CAN’T” argument, then just admit it’s because you can’t. If you’re making a “SHOULD or SHOULDN’T” argument, then state why you should or shouldn’t. But if you’re making a can’t argument while saying it’s because you shouldn’t, then that’s not truth that’s deception.
    It’s true that you CAN’T hold Russia accountable for attacking Ukraine, breaking the postwar consensus, and restarting nuclear proliferation, but that doesn’t me you shouldn’t.

    Truth is true. Lie is Lie. Unknown is Unknown. It’s not complicated.
    ———–

    Caine conveniently reduced the scope of the argument to the first sentence in order to remove the information necessary to render the argument correspondent with reality. (Usually this is merely the error of novices, or people who don’t read the entire argument; but it falls under the category of either a fallacy -straw man- or a deception – selective inclusion of information in the argument. I assume that this is merely the error of a novice. As such cain is applying the technique of formal languages to correspondent and natural languages. This is a common error of ‘logicism’ (that is the word Max was looking for). I categorize all these kinds of errors as ’empty verbalisms’. But Max was attempting to say the same thing. (I am more patient – the curse of aspie-ness.)

    —” If one can not do something (it is not reasonably possible)” is no different from “shouldn’t” in the vast majority of cases when people utter those words.—-

    This is yet another fallacy given that the counter argument that Cain put forward was a fallacy of formal language, minus the information necessary for it to be correspondent – then you Greg, counter with an argument to normative speech.

    So now we have gone from a correspondent argument, to an internally consistent argument to a normative usage argument. Now, I suspect that in the end, Neither Cain nor Greg is probably aware of the different properties of these systems and you are justifying intuition not formal criticism.

    I made a rhetorical statement, because i do not make verbalist statements. I am an active opponent of logicism as psuedoscientific when applied outside of formal bounds. I’m an operationalist
    ———–
    I didnt make an absolute statement now did I?
    ———-

    Nope. No hole there at all. Rock solid.

    NOW LETS LOOK AT YOUR ARGUMENTS

    —If Nuclear war is unacceptable for you then in this context it’s both Can’t and Impossible Max, there he can muse on his Moral Should or not, Be or not to be all day long, 24/7—

    FULLY EXPANDED:
    “If you can conduct nuclear war then
    you cant conduct nuclear war and
    its impossible to conduct nuclear war
    but you prefer not to conduct nuclear war.”

    WELL THAT DOESN”T WORK. LETS BE MORE CHARITABLE

    Nuclear war is unacceptable. (Meaning you prefer not to conduct nuclear war.)
    AND
    You can conduct nuclear war, but you prefer not to.
    OR
    You can’t conduct nuclear war, and it’s immaterial whether you prefer to or not.

    “Can’t physically” != “Prefer not to.”

    WELL THAT DOESN”T WORK. SO LETS SEE WHAT ELSE WE HAVE

    … But really we just get back to the central argument which is that you’re holding a double standard. You allow yourself the laxity of informal language with ‘…in this context…’ but do not allow me the same laxity of informal language given the context. Instead, you pull out a sentence and argue that I made a statement I did not. Then, you go and make the statements I just illustrated were nonsense above.

    I made no universal statement. I did not make a statement regarding the necessary membership of sets. I stated that it is dishonest to posture. You may not have understood that. But this is your own hasty reading.

    I then defended my position with an argument over your head.

    And I am back to making the same argument in simple terms.

    NOW LETS SEE ABOUT AD HOMINEM(s)
    —Scholar—
    Well, I don’t see that as an insult. I don’t claim to be an academic. I don’t claim to be any thing. I claim I am correct. Otherwise that would mean I made an appeal to authority, which would be a fallacy. My arguments stand or they don’t, and they stand.

    —Buffoon—
    Says the guy who just made a clown of himself, did so with passion, did so under the cover of ad hominems.

    –Falling back—

    I didn’t make a mistake. My entire argument stands. I am good at what I do. Sorry. Just how it is. Get over it.

    Curt