Curt Doolittle

Theme: Responsibility

  • FAILURE OF DUE DILIGENCE BY SNOPES AND WHY IT OCCURS: Under the common law of to

    FAILURE OF DUE DILIGENCE BY SNOPES AND WHY IT OCCURS:
    Under the common law of tort, you are responsible for the production of a hazard, by a failure of due diligence against that hazard. The fact that the USA has been extraordinarily tolerant of hazarding and defamation, was due to the relative difficulty in transmission of information, and the relative ability of competition to counterbalance such claims.

    So yes, snopes failed due diligence against misleading the audience, and in doing so creating a defamatory tort against musk’s organization starlink. And yes the left enagaes in serial (rolling) false accusation using suggestion in lieu of due diligence, precisely because we have not yet restored the common law against doing so with updated legislation.

    Our organization works to restore (ad the court is doing elsewhere) the natural, common, concurrent law, of liability for failure of due diligence in speech, that could lead to inference and especially defamation, which is in fact the technique snopes (and all leftist organizations) practice.

    And yes I am an expert and like the most expert individual living and working to day on differences in lying, and how to reverse these methods of lying and denying through law.

    Because we know that the entire mental framework of the left, like marxism and abrahamic religion before hand, is an expression of the female instinct, makes use of double standards and special pleading, evades all responsibiity possible, and never engages in truthful reciprocal exchange, nor self regulatory behavior to do so.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @deesemonster @ModelYManiac @snopes @Starlink

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-21 18:21:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671584227958169623

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671564641191723011

  • (and personal responsibility is the answer to everything at every scale from the

    (and personal responsibility is the answer to everything at every scale from the personal to the familial, to the social, t the economic, to the political, to the strategic.)

    Rule of Thumb: Max is probably right. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-21 17:35:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671572578819874835

  • (and personal responsibility is the answer to everything at every scale from the

    (and personal responsibility is the answer to everything at every scale from the personal to the familial, to the social, t the economic, to the political, to the strategic.)

    Rule of Thumb: Max is probably right. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-21 17:35:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671572578878595096

    Reply addressees: @themaxstoic

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671567235637182481

  • I love everyone. I’m trying to end lying, fraud, and baiting into hazard in publ

    I love everyone.
    I’m trying to end lying, fraud, and baiting into hazard in public speech. Particularly academic, media, and political speech.

    The sex, class, and race problems were solved by natural law rule of law under it, and the scientific and resulting economic revolutions.

    But people were impatient and sought to accelerate social economic and political evolution faster than was possible – doing harm – by ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fictionalisms, deceits, frauds, and underminings.

    The multicultural multi-ethnic experiment has failed as thoroughly as the marxist universalist underclass experiment has failed, the noMarxist cultural marxism has failed, the feminist marxist experiment has failed, and the islamic universalist experiment has failed.

    The europeans long ago, despite the criminal imperial ambitions of the french under napoleon, discovered that the small, homogenous, ethnostate is the optimum political order with the least conflcit and competition, greastest contribution to the commons, greatest willingless for redistribution, and greatest adaptability.

    The British invented the modern state using it. The Americans tried to codify it in their constitution as the natural common concurrent law of self determination. But the greed and strategic opportunity of the westward expansion combined with the conflict of the tax paying agrarian south and the tax consuming industrial north, led to the conversion of the federation into a domestic empire – one that must be reversed if we are to live in peace to gether at all.

    There is a difference between defection and alliance with foreign powers, and choosing your preferrable society and economy within a federation under rule of law.

    That’s all that’s necessary.

    Masculine love comes from Noblesse oblige, at the top even if from feminine christian care at the bottom.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-21 16:06:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671541791558860800

  • RT @Psyche_OS: @curtdoolittle Because we know when a doctor kills a patient and

    RT @Psyche_OS: @curtdoolittle Because we know when a doctor kills a patient and punish them – thus, need for malpractice insurance and its…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-20 23:18:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671296482006167555

  • GREAT QUESTION –“Why not just say: “Slave morality is female morality, and mast

    GREAT QUESTION
    –“Why not just say: “Slave morality is female morality, and master slave is male morality, because these are terms for sex differences in instinctual responsibility for the commons.” Why use “indifferent from”?”–

    Because I was trained in economics and I work in epistemology and decidability, and a such “is” means equals or identical to, and that would be false.

    1) In economics, things are either marginally indifferent or marginally different, but almost never the same. Ergo, if you have 100 bags of flour to make it through the season, the first back is of lower subjective value than the last. If we are buying that same flour on the market in a commodities trade, then it’s possible they are marginally indifferent for all purposes. Despite that there are no such conditions because all flour, like all oil, is not identical in composition and quality. Ergo “identity is a property of the risks of inequality”.

    2) In decidability and in operational prose within decidability, we only use the word ‘is’ as ‘exists as x’ not as ‘is equal to or approximately equal to’, because the copula (the verb to be) is the means by which most sophistry, deceit, and philosophical nonsense is constructed. For that reason, we generally prohibit the use of the verb to-be in proofs of constructability (truth statements).

    So your question is the equivalent of why a mathematician uses specific symbols: it’s the same reason. Symbols in math, and operational language in testimony, are just a requirement of the grammar of disambiguation necessary for the use of each in the conduct of any measurement. Because ambiguity is the cause of logical falsehood.

    I hope that very nerdy explanation helps. 😉

    Reply addressees: @patriciamdavis @TheAutistocrat @PaulGottfried6 @ConceptualJames

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-20 13:47:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671152763709841410

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1671149771233579012

  • Q: “How Do We Avoid Nihilism?” By loving ourselves and taking on that responsibi

    Q: “How Do We Avoid Nihilism?”
    By loving ourselves and taking on that responsibility, we had attributed to god with confidence that we can, despite struggles, persevere and evolve into the gods we imagine. And make a garden of this planet and this universe, that if such a god…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-20 00:09:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670946950798012420

    Reply addressees: @KomondorDaugrin @TheAutistocrat

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670943708919877635

  • Q: DOES FREE WILL EXIST? Excellent example of a question that is intentionally o

    Q: DOES FREE WILL EXIST?

    Excellent example of a question that is intentionally or not misunderstood and misrepresented.

    Can we, and therefore are we responsible and accountable for our actions – particuarly in the sense of criminal, ethical, moral, seditious, and treasonous.…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-19 21:49:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670911704568406020

    Reply addressees: @tryanph

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670908605439287296

  • Q: DOES FREE WILL EXIST? Excellent example of a question that is intentionally o

    Q: DOES FREE WILL EXIST?

    Excellent example of a question that is intentionally or not misunderstood and misrepresented.

    Can we, and therefore are we responsible and accountable for our actions – particuarly in the sense of criminal, ethical, moral, seditious, and treasonous. The answer is obviously is yes. We have free will in the context of right and wrong.

    The misrepresentation of this question is ‘are events and thoughts deterministic (soft determinism) or predetermined (hard determinism).

    The answer is that all human be havior is categorically deterministic because we are all motivated by the marginally indifferent (assuming we conflate the sexes) incentives, within the same body form, with the same constraints.

    But given that the distribution of the universe is determinable and determistic (categorizable by general rules) but not determined (these rules apply only chaotically in various distributions at varioius times in various conditions) and information is llimited to locality and humans are insulated from all but very great pressures (compared to background quantum events), and given that all human prediction is imprecise and combined of ideosyncratic experience and error, then no our actions are not pre-determined. and the cannot be.

    My argument when I was very young was quite simple: human predictive error and choice because of that error is so pervasive that error alone would prohibit hard determinism.

    So I’ve never really understdood how the presumptions of ‘mathematics’ could be appled to human behavior, when we have known for a very long time that economics has demonstrated the unpredictability of human behavior even when we have extraordinary volumes of precise information.

    And the neurons in one person’s head make economics look trivial by comparison.

    Ergo, free will exists within the limits of an individual’s experience, knowledge, competency, and error – and we are really good at ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, denail, deceit, fraud and every variation thereof.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-19 21:49:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670911704262221827

  • ANSWERING THE IS-OUGHT PROBLEM – HARD BUT SIMPLE Q: CURT: “Considering what I in

    ANSWERING THE IS-OUGHT PROBLEM – HARD BUT SIMPLE
    Q: CURT: “Considering what I interpret as your claim to some form of moral realism and you have Hume on your reading list do you have an article on your solution to the Is–ought problem?”

    Good (Great) Question

    Simple version:
    1) Hume was partly correct in that induction doesn’t exist.
    2) Popper was partly more correct with falsification and justification doesn’t exist.
    3) My work relies on the completion of the falsificationary program, demonstrating that all logic is and can only be falsificationary (falsifying the alternatives), with truth candiates surviving:
    |Decidability|: incomprehensible > undecidable > possibly True or Reciprocal > False or Irreciprocal
    4) Therefore the is-ought problem isn’t one, but another fallacy of justificationism (a derivation of ‘mathiness’.)
    5) As such, we can only falsify the untestifiable (false), and irreciprocal (criminal, unethical, immoral, seditious, treasonous) objectively, and as such, all claims of preference (individual) or good (collective) are statements of preference in a market competition for the scarce cooperation and resources to bring them about, with evolutionary consequences performing falsification of our theories of the preferential and good.
    6) We achieve this method of falsification by completing epistemic testifiability and the hierarchy of first principles of the universe across all domains, resulting in universal decidability of testifiability (truthful and reciprocal) and decidability independent of opinion or context. And no you will not understand all of that any more easily than you will understand any other STEM subject because it is the unification of the fields, and most similar to a merger of mathematics, cognitive science, economics, and law. ie: it’s somewhat hard. As hard as any other STEM subject.

    I hope this helps.
    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute
    The Science of Cooperation

    Reply addressees: @NorseJarl @Plinz

    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-19 21:12:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670902303354679296

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1670898891737235456