Theme: Truth

  • Since when are evidence, logic, and reason examples of hate?

    Since when are evidence, logic, and reason examples of hate?


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-09 11:45:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/674555452164866048

    Reply addressees: @bakedinapie @ReactionaryTree @HillaryClinton

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/674264915415289856


    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/674264915415289856

  • Transform debate by exposing lies. Nearly all political advocacy consists of exc

    Transform debate by exposing lies. Nearly all political advocacy consists of exclusively of lying. #NRx #AltRight #Conservative


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-09 07:30:00 UTC

  • “Londonistan”— (omg) Truth hurts

    —“Londonistan”—

    (omg) Truth hurts.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-09 07:07:00 UTC

  • The moment you have a ‘law’ you have a polity. The west=Natural Law, Truth, Jury

    The moment you have a ‘law’ you have a polity. The west=Natural Law, Truth, Jury, Property. Diff law=Diff Govt.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-08 17:52:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/674285310180769792

    Reply addressees: @andrew88fields @AnnCoulter

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/674283152412696576


    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/674283152412696576

  • costs of truth telling?

    costs of truth telling?


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-08 13:35:00 UTC

  • LYING: METHODS AND TECHNIQUES … PLUS A READING LIST. (important) (first draft)

    LYING: METHODS AND TECHNIQUES … PLUS A READING LIST.

    (important) (first draft) (this ought to make some people think)

    What I am struck by when researching this topic, is how primitive the research is into HOW lies are constructed. Here are the Axis I am working with:

    So sticking with the general rules that

    1) All language consists of negotiation on behalf of our reproductive strategies

    2) Transfer of meaning requires empathy and suggestion (guidance)

    3) Categories, Properties and Relations are transferred between people by analogies which we recursively test.

    4) Names of identities consisting of operations constitute the least divergent analogies for the purpose of transferring categories, properties and relations and establishing meaning.

    6) One can speak to:

    —a) speak directly to an individual or audience (as targets)

    —c) speak indirectly through individuals or audiences (as agents)

    —d) speak indirectly through media (as distributors)

    —e) speak indirectly through environmental ‘evidence and markers’ (as inferrers – this is the most interesting)

    5) One can convey :

    —a) speak as complete a set of information as possible to establish meaning sufficient to deny all possible alternative interpretations.

    —b) speak a sufficient set of information for the audience to construct the meaning, but insufficient to eliminate the possibilities.

    —c) speak an incomplete set of information hoping the audience will substitute the correct or incorrect information.

    —d) speak an alternative set of information sufficient to mislead the audience, but not necessarily determine falsehood of one’s statements.

    —e) speak an alternative set of information sufficient to mislead the audience but sufficient to determine the falsehood of you statements.

    —f) not speak at all.

    7) One can speak using:

    -construction-

    …a) names of operations (truth)

    …b) analogies (meaning)

    …c) experiences (suggestion of how information should be interpreted)

    …d) loadings (influencing information)

    …f) framings (eliminating information)

    …g) obscurantisms (hiding information)

    …h) overloadings (saturating the environment with information)

    …i) outright lies and ‘big lies’.

    8) One can speak with:

    a) Truthfulness

    b) Honesty

    c) Error

    d) General Cognitive Bias

    e) Reproductive Cognitive Bias

    f) Wishful Thinking

    g) Deception

    9) One can construct speech out of:

    -axis-

    …a) a simple statement (information)

    …b) a simple narrative (experience)

    …c) a complex narrative (cause and effect)

    …d) a distributed fragmentary narrative (multiple narratives with corresponding and reinforcing value judgements).

    10) One can engage in discovery by:

    -discovery-

    …a) conversation (free association)

    …b) discourse (investigation)

    …c) argument (criticism by reason)

    …d) debate (persona, audience/jury, court/jury, senate/jury)

    …e) publication and collective criticism (science)

    10a) one can engage rallying by:

    -Rallying-

    a) gossip (positive or negative)

    b) shaming(negative) or praising(positive)

    c) rallying (positive or negative)

    e) Propagandizing (positive or negative)

    d) Critique(negative) or Heaping Undue Praise(positive)

    f) Ideology (positive or negative)

    11) One can employ arguments using (true or false) :

    11.1) EXPRESSIVE (emotional): a type of argument where a person expresses a positive or negative opinion based upon his emotional response to the subject.

    11.2) SENTIMENTAL (biological): a type of argument that relies upon one of the five (or six) human sentiments, and their artifacts as captured in human traditions, morals, or other unarticulated, but nevertheless consistently and universally demonstrated preferences and behaviors.

    11.3) MORAL (normative) : a type of argument that relies upon a set of assumedly normative rules of whose origin is either (a)socially contractual, (b)biologically natural, (c) economically necessary, or even (d)divine. (Also: RELIGIOUS)

    11.4) RATIONAL (logical) – Most philosophical arguments rely upon contradiction and internal consistency rather than external correspondence.

    11.5) HISTORICAL (analogical): A spectrum of analogical arguments – from Historical to Anecdotal — that rely upon a relationship between a historical sequence of events, and a present sequence events, in order to suggest that the current events will come to the same conclusion as did the past events, or can be used to invalidate or validate assumptions about the current period.

    11.6) SCIENTIFIC (directly empirical): The use of a set of measurements that produce data that can be used to prove or disprove an hypothesis, but which are subject to human cognitive biases and preferences. ie: ‘Bottom up analysis”

    11.7) ECONOMIC: (indirectly empirical): The use of a set of measures consisting of uncontrolled variables, for the purpose of circumventing the problems of direct human inquiry into human preferences, by the process of capturing demonstrated preferences, as expressed by human exchanges, usually in the form of money. ie: “Top Down Analysis”. The weakness of economic arguments is caused by the elimination of properties and causes that are necessary for the process of aggregation.

    11.8) RATIO-EMPIRICAL (Comprehensive: Using all above): A rationally articulated argument that makes use of economic, scientific, historical, normative and sentimental information to comprehensively prove that a position is defensible under all objections. NOTE: See “Styles of Argument” below.

    11.9) TRUTHFUL(COMPLETE): Internally consistent (logical), Externally Correspondent (Instrumental), Operational (Possible), Falsifiable (negatively tested).

    11.10) THE TAUTOLOGICAL TRUTH – Not so much an argument but the most parsimonious verbal statement is possible.

    READING LIST

    Dallas Denery: The Devil Wins: A History of Lying from the Garden of Eden to the Enlightenment

    Thomas Carson: Lying and Deception: Theory and Practice

    Jennifer Mather Saul: Lying, Misleading, and What is Said

    Clancy Martin: The Philosophy of Deception

    Herbert Fingarette: Self-Deception

    Brooke Harrington: Deception: From Ancient Empires to Internet Dating

    Edward Bernays: Propaganda

    Jason Stanley: How Propaganda Works Hardcover

    Jeremy Elkins: Truth and Democracy

    David Livingstone: Less Than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others

    Daniel Nanavati: A Brief History Of Lies


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-08 10:14:00 UTC

  • HIERARCHY OF ETHICAL LOGICS (worth repeating) 1) Pedagogical Myths (very young)

    HIERARCHY OF ETHICAL LOGICS

    (worth repeating)

    1) Pedagogical Myths (very young) – Stories

    2) Virtue Ethics (young) – Biographies

    3) Rule Ethics (inexperience adult) – Laws

    4) Outcome Ethics( experienced adult) – Science


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-08 07:18:00 UTC

  • Cleanse the Earth Of Lies and Theft – Pacification of Man

    COMBINE SCIENCE, TRUTH, PHILOSOPHY, MORALITY, LAW, AND ECONOMICS – CLEANSE THE EART OF LIES AND THEFT, AND WE WILL BE IN PRACTICE GODS [P]hysical Science as practiced is merely incomplete. When completed, Science is a moral discipline laundering imagination from free association. Physical Science advanced faster than Social Science because in Physical, truth is advantageous – and in Social lying often is. 0) Seven Moral Warranties compete science, and unify truth, science, philosophy, morality, law, politics and economics. 1) Identity (non-conflation) 2) internal consistency (logical), 3) external consistency (correspondence) …. 4) Existential Possibility(Operationalism), 5) Morality(voluntary transfers), 6) Parsimony(limits), 7) Full Accounting… Without these seven warranties one cannot honestly promise that he adheres to his oath to forgo harm, theft and deceit. So why should we permit to live among us those who will not take and keep this oath – as we have, for thousands of years? If one cannot warranty the truthfulness of one’s speech, then why should such a person be permitted to speak? The first question of ethics is: “Why do we not kill others?” Only because productivity is superior if we cooperate. But Parasitism is Not Cooperation, it is predation. Hence if we don’t benefit from cooperation it’s foolish to practice it. And if we do not practice cooperation then the rational choice is ostracization – and if parasitic, then conquest – but not Tolerance. So if man or woman will not take and adhere to the oath, and survive the test of adhering to it, we must shun or kill them. This is truth said, truth reasoned, and truth acted. Leave no man alive who engages in theft or deception. And when the world is clean, leaving only speakers of the truth, then we shall be gods in name, actions and genes. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine (ps: my ongoing mission to cleanse western civilization of fallacies, and restore it to its origins as the people who speak the truth)

  • Cleanse the Earth Of Lies and Theft – Pacification of Man

    COMBINE SCIENCE, TRUTH, PHILOSOPHY, MORALITY, LAW, AND ECONOMICS – CLEANSE THE EART OF LIES AND THEFT, AND WE WILL BE IN PRACTICE GODS [P]hysical Science as practiced is merely incomplete. When completed, Science is a moral discipline laundering imagination from free association. Physical Science advanced faster than Social Science because in Physical, truth is advantageous – and in Social lying often is. 0) Seven Moral Warranties compete science, and unify truth, science, philosophy, morality, law, politics and economics. 1) Identity (non-conflation) 2) internal consistency (logical), 3) external consistency (correspondence) …. 4) Existential Possibility(Operationalism), 5) Morality(voluntary transfers), 6) Parsimony(limits), 7) Full Accounting… Without these seven warranties one cannot honestly promise that he adheres to his oath to forgo harm, theft and deceit. So why should we permit to live among us those who will not take and keep this oath – as we have, for thousands of years? If one cannot warranty the truthfulness of one’s speech, then why should such a person be permitted to speak? The first question of ethics is: “Why do we not kill others?” Only because productivity is superior if we cooperate. But Parasitism is Not Cooperation, it is predation. Hence if we don’t benefit from cooperation it’s foolish to practice it. And if we do not practice cooperation then the rational choice is ostracization – and if parasitic, then conquest – but not Tolerance. So if man or woman will not take and adhere to the oath, and survive the test of adhering to it, we must shun or kill them. This is truth said, truth reasoned, and truth acted. Leave no man alive who engages in theft or deception. And when the world is clean, leaving only speakers of the truth, then we shall be gods in name, actions and genes. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine (ps: my ongoing mission to cleanse western civilization of fallacies, and restore it to its origins as the people who speak the truth)

  • #NRx This is truth said, truth reasoned, and truth acted. Leave no man alive who

    #NRx This is truth said, truth reasoned, and truth acted. Leave no man alive who engages in theft or deception.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-07 12:00:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/673834357203845120

    Reply addressees: @Outsideness

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/673809450592034816


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Outsideness Physical Science as practiced is merely incomplete. Science is a moral discipline laundering imagination from free association.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/673809450592034816


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Outsideness Physical Science as practiced is merely incomplete. Science is a moral discipline laundering imagination from free association.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/673809450592034816