Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Thankfully I do not take ridicule, shaming and rallying (marxism) as criticism,

    Thankfully I do not take ridicule, shaming and rallying (marxism) as criticism, and instead require argument against the premises.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 14:12:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867382730098651136

    Reply addressees: @EasternMarxist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867377254497701888

    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/867377254497701888

  • SPEAK IN THE LANGUAGE OF MEN: TRUTHFULNESS You speak in Nonsense words, ridicule

    SPEAK IN THE LANGUAGE OF MEN: TRUTHFULNESS

    You speak in Nonsense words, ridicule, shaming, rallying?

    If you are not smart enough to speak in the language of adult men, nor strong enough to tolerate the language of adult men, then that is acceptable to adult men.

    Just do not speak in the presence of adult men.

    Lest we find it more convenient to silence, punish, enslave, or kill you than listen to your woman-words.

    Yes, “woman words”.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 13:39:00 UTC

  • Men make truthful arguments.This is the secret to western civilization:tolerance

    Men make truthful arguments.This is the secret to western civilization:tolerance for truth despite its high cost to the dominance hierarchy.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 07:31:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867281981234704388

    Reply addressees: @EasternMarxist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867281661121245184

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @EasternMarxist When you Ridicule, Rally, and Shame you circumvent making an argument and show yourself but effeminate, and marxist pseudo intellectual.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/867281661121245184

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @EasternMarxist When you Ridicule, Rally, and Shame you circumvent making an argument and show yourself but effeminate, and marxist pseudo intellectual.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/867281661121245184

  • When you Ridicule, Rally, and Shame you circumvent making an argument and show y

    When you Ridicule, Rally, and Shame you circumvent making an argument and show yourself but effeminate, and marxist pseudo intellectual.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 07:30:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867281661121245184

    Reply addressees: @EasternMarxist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867245091085316097

    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/867245091085316097

  • We can teach one another how to converse with the gods. We can teach one another

    We can teach one another how to converse with the gods.

    We can teach one another the meaning of the evidence of god’s will in the universe.

    But the man who claims to teach the word of god, is a liar.

    God needs no prophet or priest to talk with us.

    Only a Demon would need a prophet or a priest.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 04:30:00 UTC

  • NO I AM NOT AN ATHEIST I just want to remove lying from religion. We can see evi

    NO I AM NOT AN ATHEIST

    I just want to remove lying from religion.

    We can see evidence of a God’s will around us.

    We can, feel evidence of a God’s will revealed to us.

    But we cannot ‘hear’ a God’s words.

    And all attempts to suggest that god needs speak through a prophet rather than directly to us is to say he is not god.

    The greek and roman gods spoke to each other.

    They spoke to demigods (half gods), and they spoke to Heroes (those with a touch of the blood of the gods).

    But all of us can commune with the gods ourselves by trading with them.

    We are unsure of our ancient gods, but they were, we think, just our ancestors in the land of the dead.

    So I am not an atheist. I talk to my god every day.

    I want to end abrahamism, because all its prophets, who claim to know the word of god are liars – only the devil, not a god, would need a prophet.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 04:24:00 UTC

  • YES. I BAIT YOU INTO LEARNING OR TEACHING… I say something controversial, some

    YES. I BAIT YOU INTO LEARNING OR TEACHING…

    I say something controversial, something offensive, or something that’s a half truth.

    The purpose of doing so is to attract ‘those who understand a half truth’, then bait people into correcting me (or using suggestion to correct them by inserting doubt), so that I can make a point:

    that the (a) abrahamic tradition is predatory, and

    (b) that intellectuals who lack power, attempt to seize it (obtain status signals) by deception, using this technique REGARDLESS OF THEIR GENETIC ORIGINS.

    Men seek to advance status (climb a dominance hierarchy) by any RATIONAL MEANS AVAILABLE TO THEM, and lying (abrahamism) is an exceptional technique for that deception, just as western truth telling is its opposite.

    If I wrote about propertarianism the way *I* think, no one would know about it at all. The price of getting criticism is that I’m entertaining by advancing my work from the position of an extremist.

    Long time followers know I use these techniques. I attack things or promote things in order to create conflict and interest in order to provide solutions that if stated simply would be overlooked, because the knowledge required to comprehend them requires an essay, whereas in this technique it requires an argument that people can get involved in.

    Create controversy to draw interest, then solve the controversy by leading the horse to water.) Exactly what every talking head show on television does all day long…..

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-23 11:45:00 UTC

  • THE BIG LIE Ok. Lets try again then. Is claiming that a god speaks his will to y

    THE BIG LIE

    Ok. Lets try again then.

    Is claiming that a god speaks his will to you in a language you can understand, the same as claiming that if there is a god, the evidence of his will is provided by the laws of the universe, including laws of nature, natural law, and law of information?

    (Did ‘ja see how I use existential language to debunk a fraudulent criticism?)

    I talk to my god every day. He does not talk back to me. I learn by talking to him, because I know I cannot lie to him, not by what he says in return. My god’s will exists. Existence is his language.

    I need nothing to prove existence except itself. I cannot prove, and no other man can, that he as heard the words of god.

    Conversely, I can prove incentives exist for many men to lie that they have heard the word of god, and that many men have profited, and many men have died because of their profits, by the great lie of claiming they have heard the word of god.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-23 09:03:00 UTC

  • Anyone who claims to have heard the word of god or gods by any means whatsoever

    Anyone who claims to have heard the word of god or gods by any means whatsoever is merely lying. God or gods write in the language of the universe. Not in the language of men.

    This is the lie of Abrahamism.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-22 18:56:00 UTC

  • ARGUMENT: CIRCUMVENTING METHODOLOGICAL FRAMING (argumentative methods)(advanced

    ARGUMENT: CIRCUMVENTING METHODOLOGICAL FRAMING

    (argumentative methods)(advanced followers)(must read)

    THE EXAMPLE: RATIONALISM

    Lets use this excellent question to illustrate how to circumvent the problem of argumentative framing within philosophy, and why I hold such disdain for ‘rationalist’ and ‘literary’ philosophy.

    —“How do you connect platonism to post-structuralism?”–Arthur Calloni

    Do you mean, how do I connect platonic idealism > kant, >post structuralism with aristotelian descriptivism > hume > cognitive science?

    See? I just did connect platonism to post-structuralism. How? a requirement for operations (actions) rather than meanings (imaginations)

    THE TECHNIQUE: INCREASE THE PRECISION OF ARGUMENT

    I view trying to validate philosophy with philosophy as the same as trying to validate religion with religion: ridiculous nonsense: an attempt at fraud.

    One of the techniques I use is to test philosophy by increasing the demand for knowledge avoid the fallacy of relying on philosophy for anything -particularly self criticism. Instead, I criticize philosophy with science, law, economics, and history.

    I test all claims in the social sciences, by natural law, and outside of natural law by evolutionary constraints.

    You need a lot more knowledge to speak testimonially (operational literature) than you need to speak scientifically (empirical[correspondent] literature)

    You need a lot more knowledge to speak Scientifically (empirical literature), than you do philosophically (rational literature).

    You need a lot more knowledge to speak philosophically(rational literature) than you do religiously (wisdom literature).

    You need a lot more knowledge to speak religiously (wisdom literature) than you do colloquially (experiential literature).

    So when someone asks you to defend a position within a context, increase the demand for knowledge by increasing the precision of the method of measurement (analogy) that you are employing.

    And recognize that any question requires a certain degree of information, and any truth proposition requires a great deal of information, if not *complete* information.

    And that in common discourse, most coercion in this world is conducted by loading (ridicule, shaming, rallying).

    In common argument most deception is conducted by moral framing.

    And that most frauds in this world are constructed by methodological framing.

    And that in politics, moral(ideological), religious, philosophical, and legislative framing. But that all of these frames are decidable by operational testing under natural law within cooperation, and evolutionary demand outside of cooperation.

    Language was invented to negotiate, and most methods of argument were invented to lie.

    There is only one method of speaking truthfully: the testimony, in operational grammar, of that which has survived tests of categorical, logical, empirical, existential, moral consistency, and scope completeness – and your warranty that you have done so, upon pain of restitution, punishment, or death.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-22 13:13:00 UTC