Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • RT @MichaelSurrago: @curtdoolittle And of course via negativa in all 3: each one

    RT @MichaelSurrago: @curtdoolittle And of course via negativa in all 3: each one survives a different market

    True = survives evidence and…

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-20 22:55:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637950949070106626

  • CURT: “WHAT’S YOUR GOAL, YOUR WORLDVIEW?” (laundering mankind of lies, frauds, b

    CURT: “WHAT’S YOUR GOAL, YOUR WORLDVIEW?”
    (laundering mankind of lies, frauds, baiting into hazard, and the rent seekers and parasites that profit from them. So that we may all reach our maximum mindfulness, potential and fulfillment. “No more lies.”)
    That’s really it. It was… https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1637835810580885504

  • You’d have to demonstrate that case rather than assert it (lying) without argume

    You’d have to demonstrate that case rather than assert it (lying) without argument (fraud), using the pretense of knowledge (fraud). You will be hard-pressed to find anyone with greater cross-disciplinary knowledge than I do. I know. I try.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-20 15:09:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637833845058727937

    Reply addressees: @GoodTexture @MrWarrenBuffet @whatifalthist @elonmusk

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637831892324974592

  • That’s just false. Encyclopedias were successful at proposing information in the

    That’s just false. Encyclopedias were successful at proposing information in the context of ‘neutral point of view’ which we now understand as ‘legal and empirical’ point of view: testimony.

    Even as such, for example, in the sciences, were the previous generations of the theory of gravity wrong? Or are we just increasing the precision of the cause and measurement of gravity over time.

    If you mean psychological and social and political grounds, it turns out that the postwar mass production of behavioral pseudoscience in pursuit of marxist pretenses of equality, then almost all social science prior to 1925 is superior to that since outside of a few innovations produced by cognitive science since 2000.

    If you mean economics, then no, it’s pretty clear that pre-war economists understood both behavior and economics better than postwar. This is partly because they saw the globalization of the 1800s without the politicization of economics in response to the communists, socialists, and fascists. Or, the Keynesian’s for that matter.

    Until about 2003 I could read the entire technical corups Microsoft and it’s competitors published on CD every year. At present I can still read all the meaningful papers in economics, the cognitive sciences, and physics. Nothing is coming out of law at all of merit. The behavioral social and political sciences are humiliating and intellectually embarrassing.

    And Wikipedia is as biased as the Catholic and Marxist encyclopedias, or any of the religious laws.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-20 14:29:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637823749457166339

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637819690524311552

  • That’s just false. Encyclopedias were successful at proposing information in the

    That’s just false. Encyclopedias were successful at proposing information in the context of ‘neutral point of view’ which we now understand as ‘legal and empirical’ point of view: testimony.

    Even as such, for example, in the sciences, were the previous generations of the theory of gravity wrong? Or are we just increasing the precision of the cause and measurement of gravity over time.

    If you mean psychological and social and political grounds, it turns out that the postwar mass production of behavioral pseudoscience in pursuit of marxist pretenses of equality, then almost all social science prior to 1925 is superior to that since outside of a few innovations produced by cognitive science since 2000.

    If you mean economics, then no, it’s pretty clear that pre-war economists understood both behavior and economics better than postwar. This is partly because they saw the globalization of the 1800s without the politicization of economics in response to the communists, socialists, and fascists. Or, the Keynesian’s for that matter.

    Until about 2003 I could read the entire technical corups Microsoft and it’s competitors published on CD every year. At present I can still read all the meaningful papers in economics, the cognitive sciences, and physics. Nothing is coming out of law at all of merit. The behavioral social and political sciences are humiliating and intellectually embarrassing.

    And Wikipedia is as biased as the Catholic and Marxist encyclopedias, or any of the religious laws.

    Reply addressees: @GoodTexture @MrWarrenBuffet @whatifalthist @elonmusk

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-20 14:29:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637823749310279680

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637819690524311552

  • (We hit the limit on FB, and 2M on YT. But then the ‘suppression’ occurred. Now

    (We hit the limit on FB, and 2M on YT. But then the ‘suppression’ occurred. Now that Twitter doesn’t suppress the truth, we gain followers every day.)

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-20 05:05:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637681869465567234

    Reply addressees: @thenewMJG @enigma3078 @whatifalthist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637668160806723586

  • It’s a combination of IQ, morals, truth-before-face, and knowledge that you’d do

    It’s a combination of IQ, morals, truth-before-face, and knowledge that you’d don’t have. You’d have to claim anything I said was false (it isn’t). And that I wasn’t trying to solve the great problem of the age (I am). And that the solutions I’ve proposed don’t do so (they do). And to make such a claim, you’d have to demonstrate competency, to hold those positions (you don’t and I’m quite sure you can’t.) Worse you’d have to claim I don’t criticize every group for their latent cultural criminality ( I do).
    And it’s most likely you’d virtue signal virtue you don’t have (you are), and that you’re granting special privileges and special pleading to cover the expansion of female anti-social behavior in norms and that the intellectuals who formed this justification for anti-social behavior, especially behavioral pseudoscience, were’t almost exclusively jewish, and from the jewish ethic and moral tradition, and that such moral tradition isn’t an application of the feminine social, cognitive and reproductive strategy (weakness). All of which you’d fail to achieve.
    We didn’t like Darwin’s consequence on god. We won’t like my work on ‘the feminine’ for the same reason.
    It’s still true, whether we like it or not.
    I do truth, for the tiny minority that desires the truth.
    And in truth, they are all that matter.
    The herd of lie-followers don’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-20 05:05:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637681642817871873

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637667411569827841

  • It’s a combination of IQ, morals, truth-before-face, and knowledge that you’d do

    It’s a combination of IQ, morals, truth-before-face, and knowledge that you’d don’t have. You’d have to claim anything I said was false (it isn’t). And that I wasn’t trying to solve the great problem of the age (I am). And that the solutions I’ve proposed don’t do so (they do). And to make such a claim, you’d have to demonstrate competency, to hold those positions (you don’t and I’m quite sure you can’t.) Worse you’d have to claim I don’t criticize every group for their latent cultural criminality ( I do).
    And it’s most likely you’d virtue signal virtue you don’t have (you are), and that you’re granting special privileges and special pleading to cover the expansion of female anti-social behavior in norms and that the intellectuals who formed this justification for anti-social behavior, especially behavioral pseudoscience, were’t almost exclusively jewish, and from the jewish ethic and moral tradition, and that such moral tradition isn’t an application of the feminine social, cognitive and reproductive strategy (weakness). All of which you’d fail to achieve.
    We didn’t like Darwin’s consequence on god. We won’t like my work on ‘the feminine’ for the same reason.
    It’s still true, whether we like it or not.
    I do truth, for the tiny minority that desires the truth.
    And in truth, they are all that matter.
    The herd of lie-followers don’t.

    Reply addressees: @thenewMJG

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-20 05:05:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637681642675351557

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637667411569827841

  • Yes, well calling you Yuval Harari’s influence yes, but otherwise is an insult.

    Yes, well calling you Yuval Harari’s influence yes, but otherwise is an insult. We might like to HEAR Harari’s ‘fictionalization’ of man and what’s good for man. But you will learn a lot more from Rudyard than Harari because Dear Dr. Historian, Philosopher, Saint, and Prophet, Lynch won’t lie to you by suggestion and false promise. In fact, the reason I’m a fan is he’s literally never wrong.

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-18 18:54:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637165618376974336

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1636963169464901633

  • Yes, well calling you Yuval Harari’s influence yes, but otherwise is an insult.

    Yes, well calling you Yuval Harari’s influence yes, but otherwise is an insult. We might like to HEAR Harari’s ‘fictionalization’ of man and what’s good for man. But you will learn a lot more from Rudyard than Harari because Dear Dr. Historian, Philosopher, Saint, and Prophet, Lynch won’t lie to you by suggestion and false promise. In fact, the reason I’m a fan is he’s literally never wrong.

    Reply addressees: @whatifalthist

    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-18 18:54:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637165618318262274

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1636963169464901633