Theme: Truth

  • We are supposed to love women and care for them. We are not supposed to debate w

    We are supposed to love women and care for them. We are not supposed to debate with them over true or false. Only whether a want is possible for the two of us, or impossible for the two of us. Our education, commerce, and politics places too much emphasis on true or false or good or bad, and too little upon possible and impossible. Women are precious creatures if they are honest. There is no reason we must worry about good and true. Only possible and harmful. It does not matter if what they want is good or true, only whether it is possible and not harmful. We are happy to ask women not to ask us to think as women. But we too infrequently fail to reciprocate by not asking women to think as men. Women nest at home, seek signal status with their peers, and try to overload their children, and none of these three impulses have any limit other than her exhaustion. An exhaustion which she will transfer to you. So do not ask woment to be men and think of limits and efficiency. Just love them, and do what is possible. The suffering occurs when we engage in transfers and not exchanges. and the enemy of exchanges is lethargy caused by lack of fitness, and lack of will.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-18 09:46:00 UTC

  • Contradiction is not a problem for women or liberals. Because correspondence wit

    Contradiction is not a problem for women or liberals.

    Because correspondence with reality is not necessary for women or liberals.

    Because truth is not necessary for women or liberals.

    Because the purpose of liberal verbalism is to lie, cheat, and steal.

    Because they are seeking to avoid trades, and impose rents.

    The Left is a Kleptocracy, and the Right a Meritocracy.

    There is nothing more to be said.

    Liberals and Women just ‘want’.

    We’re the ones who limit their wants to what is not harmful.

    Otherwise there is no end to their wants.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-18 09:28:00 UTC

  • Some arguments ask if statements are ‘possible’ or ‘impossible’. Some arguments

    Some arguments ask if statements are ‘possible’ or ‘impossible’.

    Some arguments ask if statements are ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

    Some arguments ask if statements are true or false.

    Some arguments ask if statements are gains or losses.

    Some arguments ask if statements are exchanges or transfers

    Some arguments ask if statements are investments or frauds

    Some arguments ask if statements are any of the above.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-18 08:01:00 UTC

  • YOU DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPREAD IGNORANCE ( Nick Heywood and Curt Doolittle )

    YOU DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPREAD IGNORANCE

    ( Nick Heywood and Curt Doolittle )

    Why do you have the right to ignorance?

    Well, there is a difference between enjoying the luxury of ignorance at other’s expense, and distributing ignorance by your words and deeds.

    And there is a difference between general knowledge that allows us to escape our ignorance, and the means of testing information against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience and deceit, that allows us to increase our knowledge and decrease our ignorance, and to speak truthfully and avoid speaking untruthfully.

    And since the animal man evolved to negotiate and deceive as well as describe and inform, and since we evolved to act rationally – meaning morally when in our interests and immorally when in our interests – the reason it has taken us thousands of years to develop the technology of truth telling that we call ‘science’, is because it is unnatural to us. We evolved to negotiate, not testify.

    So just as we must learn manners, ethics, morals, and laws to obtain access to and participate in the benefits of that market for cooperation that we call the ‘social order’, we must learn the ethics of knowledge: how to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading and framing, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit.

    And we must teach one another manners, ethics, morals, laws – not only defensively: to limit the ill-mannered, unethical, immoral, and illegal – but also as investment: to increase the number of people with whom we have an option to cooperate at ever lower costs, in the production of private and common goods, services, and information, for mutual benefit.

    So defensive and investment reasons we must invest constantly in the teaching of manners, ethics, morals, and laws, including the ethical science of interpreting and giving testimony: truth telling.

    And conversely we must punish those who cause harm to manners, ethics morals and law; cause harm to the production of private and common goods, services, and information.

    But how do we punish? By the incremental suppression of ill-mannered, unethical, immoral, illegal, speech:

    DEPRIVATION OF OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK

    1st with ridicule & shame

    (Ya f’n idiot! What are ya thinkin’? Or ya not thinkin’?!?)

    DEPRIVATION OF OPPORTUNITY TO COOPERATE:

    2nd with ostracism

    (I’m afraid I can’t associate with you. You’re deceitful and just repeat lies you’ve been convinced of as true in order to influence)

    DEPRIVATION OF GOODS, SERVICES AND INFORMATION

    3rd loss of privilege

    (I can’t trade with you or offer service, ya on ya own!)

    DEPRIVATION OF CHOICE

    4th loss of liberty

    (You’re a danger. You lose the ability to make your own decisions. You demonstrate a high risk to other’s welfare)

    DEPRIVATION OF ACTION

    5th loss of freedom!

    (Off to Jail ya go ya f’er! Or war in the case of the state 😉 )

    DEPRIVATION OF EXISTENCE

    6th loss of life

    (hanging)


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-18 07:40:00 UTC

  • This is an empirically demonstrated, and logically complete, and scientifically

    This is an empirically demonstrated, and logically complete, and scientifically explicable definition of a necessity.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-17 18:37:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799320546878128128

    Reply addressees: @BulgakovsPilot

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799319121326325760


    IN REPLY TO:

    @BulgakovsPilot

    @curtdoolittle is the concept of natural rights even desirable?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799319121326325760

  • No reason not to ban anything false: religion, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience

    No reason not to ban anything false: religion, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience. No value in fraudulent products, services OR information.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-17 18:29:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799318667829936129

  • We cannot control what nonsense you believe but we certainly can limit what nons

    We cannot control what nonsense you believe but we certainly can limit what nonsense you distribute. End the lies forever: Testimonial Truth


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-17 18:21:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799316614206390274

  • No reason not to outlaw anything false: religion, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscie

    No reason not to outlaw anything false: religion, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience. No value in fraudulent products, services OR information.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-17 13:29:00 UTC

  • We cannot control what nonsense you believe but we certainly can limit what nons

    We cannot control what nonsense you believe but we certainly can limit what nonsense you distribute. End the lies forever: Testimonial Truth


    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-17 13:21:00 UTC

  • No. Science Is A Moral Discipline Within Natural Law: The Means By Which We Warrant The Truthfulness Of Our Statements.

    (Ethelbert, Jesus, and Kant say the same thing) The languages of science(testimony), physical science, propertarianism (social science), natural law (science of dispute resolution), accounting, finance, and economics, (measurement of production), function as the universal language of truth-telling.

    The discipline of science asks us to warranty that we have performed due diligence on our statements. We warranty that we have eliminated error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, pseudoscience, and deceit from our utterances. That’s what science is: A NATURAL LAW: a warranty of our information, just like the warranty of our services, just as the warranty of our products, just as the warranty of our speech. Period. End of story. I know. You thought you were smart. You were so proud that you had transcended superstition. But it never occurred to you that you were just as ridiculous in the present generation due to the pseudosciences of Marx, Freud, Boaz, Adorno than your superstitious ancestors were in the pseudoscience of theology. Ok. Have we got that straight? Look in the mirror. Repeat after me: “I was suckered by pseudoscience, just like my ancestors were suckered by superstition. I am a sucker. I pledge not to be a sucker any longer. There is only one moral rule in both silver(negative) and gold (positive) forms: Impose not cost upon the cost born by others, by limiting yourself to actions and words, consisting only of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to productive externalities. Ethelbert (Anglo-Saxon Silver Rule), Jesus (Golden-Rule), and Kant (bi-metal rule), all said the same thing. Everything else is lies to justify theft and to circumvent voluntary transfers between individuals classes and groups. Ok. We’re done here. “Please stop torturing me with your postmodern superstitions, ok?. Thanks, -The Management.” Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy