Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • THE SCIENCE LOGIC AND LAW OF LYING(FRAUD) BY SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION

    THE SCIENCE LOGIC AND LAW OF LYING(FRAUD) BY SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION https://t.co/egpBb7Ctje

    Source date (UTC): 2022-02-09 17:35:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1491465751496171526

  • THE SCIENCE, LOGIC, AND LAW OF LYING BY SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION @curtd @RenegadeScou

    THE SCIENCE, LOGIC, AND LAW OF LYING BY SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION

    @curtd @RenegadeScoutr @Snidely_Whiplash @voxday

    — “It’s not that you use difficult words. It’s that the words you mean do not mean what you think they mean.” —

    Are you sure? Can you testify to that?

    It’s called Continuous Recursive Adversarial Disambiguation by Serialization and Operationalzation producing terms as a spectrum of unambiguous measurements, thereby preventing the many forms of sophistry, denial, deceit, and fraud, made possible by ambiguity in terms.

    At the beginning of this prosecution of the vox-moron-clique, explicitly demonstrated disambiguation of Faith(Theology) > Belief (Philosophy) > Trust (Science(Law)), to illustrated how one of the vox-morons was trying to claim that belief in the supernatural (mythicism) was equal to Trust in science (testimony).

    This is why you can’t tolerate the precision of terms I’m using, or the method of argument I’m using, because they deny you the ability to justify your social construction of falsehood (technically fraud by fictionalism, using sophistry and supernaturalism), by conflation, inflation, sophistry, social construction, false promise (fraud) of freedom from the four sets of laws of the universe, where testimony (truth) would require:

    Realism, Naturalism, Identity(uniqueness,unambiguous), internal consistency, operational possibility, external correspondence, rational choice, reciprocity of rational choice, stated limits, full accounting within those limits, competitive parsimony, warrantability, warranty of due diligence, within the limits of your restitutability.

    Because that’s the test of whether you may claim a statement is true without engaging in lying by design or by falure of due diligence. And when you fail due diligence by motivated reasoning, that means you’ve pursued self interest, and therefore committed a crime against the informational commons upon which all members of the polity depend for understanding, predicting, planning, and action.

    Now, (a) I know this is over your head (b) I know it will likely always be over your head, (c) because you would never try to justify your existing network of socially constructed deceits, and your practice of female method of argument that replaces the priority of truth and falsehood with approval and disapproval, and then relies on pretense of knowledge, denial, disapproval, shaming, moralizing, psychologizing, ridiculing, gossiping, rallying, poisoning the well, reputation destruction, and canceling.

    So all you have done during this little expermiental prosecution of mine, a prosecution you vox-morons have initiated with your female attacks, is provide overwhelming evidence of the veracity of my accusations, arguments, and convictions of you as a criminal network whose purpose is to preserve your organized crimes against the informational commons upon which all people depend.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2022-02-09 17:14:07 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107769157851233847

  • @LegionnaireBear @Black_Rabbi @RenegadeScoutr @Snidely_Whiplash @voxday (a) JFG

    @LegionnaireBear@Black_Rabbi@RenegadeScoutr@Snidely_Whiplash@voxday (a) JFG did the math and explained the ‘error’ vox was making.
    But it was unnecessary since the error is obvious. JFG was being gracious. I’m not. I’m not claiming it’s an error but a lie by a failure of due diligence because of motivated reasoning.

    (b) I explained the reason one makes such errors and engages in motivated reasoning – with emphasis on the Abrahamic method of deception and social construction.

    (c) While again the error for calculating the human rate is simple, the cause of evolution itself, the description of the process, and the range of variables one must account for in claiming evolution itself is mathematically impossible is not simple. I listed a subset of the variables necessary in order to show that vox was not accounting for those variables.

    (d) I listed a subset of the criteria that any mathematical formalization would have to overcome – and vox failed to.

    (e) What I didn’t do yet, because I was hoping someone was vaguely intelligent enough to comprehend, is that the rate of evolutionary computation approaches infinity and varies by rate (size) of infinity (or ‘infinities’), meaning any claim evolution in historical timeline isn’t possible must demonstrate a difference in rates of infinities. Now,I know that’s over pretty much anyone’s head who believes in woo woo.

    You will run out of lies before I will run out of truth.

    That’s how this thing called continuous recursive production of testimony by falsification that we call ‘science’, incrementally erases ignorance, error, bias and deceit.

    Science is just law applied outside of tests of reciprocity.

    But then you don’t want the truth. You want to preserve a lie. Which is why you are a criminal, committing crimes against the commons of man.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-02-09 12:16:50 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107767988917515206

  • @Dubious_pug @voxday In an audience of infantile imbeclies we appeal to an exter

    @Dubious_pug@voxday In an audience of infantile imbeclies we appeal to an external jury of the competent adults.

    One does not convince the faithful that their social construction and perpetuation of deciets to which they’ve become addicted is false and immoral. One merely limits the damage they do, the externalization of their criminality, and the intergenerational transfer of their frauds.

    No criminal gives up his crime without enforcement.
    You are no different from any other criminals.
    It’s working. It’s just that the adults are impatient with you.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-02-09 07:37:23 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107766890085011002

  • @Snidely_Whiplash @Black_Rabbi @RenegadeScoutr @voxday Them make an argument fro

    @Snidely_Whiplash@Black_Rabbi@RenegadeScoutr@voxday

    Them make an argument from evidence:
    (a) what obvious falsehood did I state?
    (b) what syllogism did I fail to understand? (you lying f—k)

    Let me help you out a bit. So, I know you morons rely on supernaturalism, faith as equivalent to testimony, sophistry, and innumeracy, plus rather extraordinary ignorance of mathematics, in pilpul, critique, lying and denying.

    But I suppose that you grasp that a syllogism constiutes a subset of the logic of inference, and within that logic of inference, a reliance on sets, and the failings of sets withing the logic of inference:
    (a) all syllogistic arguments are predicated on assummed premises
    (b) all such arguments are justificationary
    (c) proofs are a statement of internal consistency only.
    (d) there is no closure in (verbal) logic regardless of internal consistency
    (e) closure requires operational logic – because operational logic tests causality.
    (f) and so on the contrary, all set logic then at best is falsificationary with ‘proof’ limited to trivialities.

    But of course, if you understood what you claim to, you would know that these are basic findings of the 20th century. And that’s just a quick sketch.

    ( And yes the audience of intelligent folk find these bitch-slaps to your infantile arrogance the subject of humor.)

    So. Man up.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-02-09 06:21:22 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107766591171141248

  • @Snidely_Whiplash @Black_Rabbi @RenegadeScoutr @voxday So was there an argument

    @Snidely_Whiplash@Black_Rabbi@RenegadeScoutr@voxday

    So was there an argument in there? Oh. No? Didn’t think so.
    Pick an example and test your theory – if its not just a pretense of knowledge.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-02-09 04:48:17 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107766225133023778

  • THINK OF PARADIGMS THIS WAY System of Lies = System of Ambiguation. System of Me

    THINK OF PARADIGMS THIS WAY
    System of Lies = System of Ambiguation.
    System of Measurement = System of Disambiguation

    (reposted to combine the two)

    Source date (UTC): 2022-02-08 23:32:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1491193223750238210

  • @Jason_the_Gentleman @no_slunk @veraticus @voxday Again, 1) This is a convenient

    @Jason_the_Gentleman@no_slunk@veraticus@voxday

    Again,

    1) This is a convenient trope.
    2) You can create a lie
    3) You can be a carrier of a lie
    4) You can distribute a lie
    5) You can prmote a lie

    Now,
    1) in criminal law we generally require intent.
    2) In Tort Law we only require responsibility to demand restitution.
    3) In Tort law we only require a failure of due diligence to demand punishment in addition to restitution.

    Now
    you have an incentive to lie,
    you have an incentive to collect an inventory of lies as a carrier of lies.
    You have engaged in the distribution of the lie.
    And by arguing you have attempted to promote the lie.

    Now since we are speaking of a matter of the commons -meaning truth claims in pubilc about matters public, but
    1) have failed due diligence,
    2) actied with intent,
    then
    3) it doesn’t matter if you intend to lie or not,
    4) you distributed a lie for the purpose of self interest against the public interst, because the only public interst is truth.

    The reason for our laws is to ensure that you cannot profit from fraud even if that profit is just to preserve your self image, status, alliances, and the social construction of the fraud you share – a conspiracy of common interest.

    So, Accused, Argued, Convicted, and submitted for Sentencing for Responsibiilty, Restitution, and Punishment.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-02-08 22:47:06 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107764804906756311

  • @RedPilledWorld @voxday Oh. I know Vox’s “Math” and as an explanation: non corre

    @RedPilledWorld@voxday

    Oh. I know Vox’s “Math” and as an explanation: non correlation without explaining causation. Now, the means of falsifying this particular argument is relatively simple and someone has already done so in this thread.

    For example, there are about 100M neural columns in your head. They manage to predict and iteratively test and re-predict a model of the world within a few milliseconds. This EVOLUTION of disorder into order you call perception is possible because those 100M neural colums work in PARALLEL. And they do so by adversarial competition for prediction over time. And those columns that correctly predict contain neurons that get fed for that correct prediction. Now, evolution works the same way. In massive parallel and variation and hybridization and variation and speciation and so on. So the (moronic) oversight of such calculations as vox has stated is presuming that taking an average rate of mutation in a stable life form that by its stability limits mutations is sufficient to statistically represent the wide variety of rates of mutation, the wide variety of selection criteria, and the massive parallelism that occurs as this wide range of potentials compete. Now, of course, the correct answer is that because evolution (evolutionary computation) is the function (first principle) of the universe, and because of the absolutely stupid-simple method of computation by which the universe computes increase in the capture of energy as existence – a stable relation, that anything that can be computed will be computed.

    And the rate of computation is simply the set of methods of evolutionary computation, the rate of trial and error, the rate and number of regulatory processes, the complexity of the exchange between the cellular biochemistry and the production of molecules, the rate of reproduction, the degree of parallelization, the number and frequency of speciation and recombination, the division of responsibility between cells, organisms, and complex organisms, and the chaos of the selection criteria produced by the environment, resources and competitors. Not how few of those factors are present in the ‘moron math’ of vox day. And how easily you morons are fooled by a basic incomprehension of basic statistics.

    The big ‘oops’ for example is the capture of mitochondria by one cell that tried to eat another cell. This allowed cells to divide by providing external resources of energy production, and the nucleus to divide the genetic material without increasing genetic mass, and without accounting for energy production. This ‘oops’ is not the only ‘oops’ that appears to have happened.

    SIMPLE MATH VERSION
    Any math that ends in infinities is false.
    Any math that is non-correspondent is false.
    Any math that cannot provide an operational construction is false.
    Because all of these failures are evidence of a failure to account for variables – what we call ‘hidden variables’.

    Vox’s math (which isn’t his by the way), is false.

    Source date (UTC): 2022-02-08 22:37:49 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107764768384038667

  • @no_slunk @veraticus @voxday Again. You’re proving my point that abrahamism teac

    @no_slunk@veraticus@voxday Again. You’re proving my point that abrahamism teaches you to claim knowledge you do not have, to lie, and to socially construct falsehoods.

    Can you testify that I’m not just covered in sweat from the summer heat, and inability to regulate my body temperature becasue I lack a thyroid, and take a number of allergy medicationst that exacerbate the problem?

    No, you can only lie.

    You lied. I know you are going to lie. Because christianity is a lie and all abrahamic religion consists of is a vast compilation of lies, using the female means of lying and denying using pilpul, gssrm, critique, social construction, lying and denying.

    😉

    Source date (UTC): 2022-02-08 21:41:40 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107764547609755200