Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • ( I suspect that this is false. )

    ( I suspect that this is false. )

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 19:48:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246162662716837888

    Reply addressees: @AmbassadorRice

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1245447403680997388

  • The Pattern Is That There Is No Pattern

    The Pattern Is That There Is No Pattern. https://t.co/cO6MspZpEW

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 19:47:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246162370809991168

  • DEGREES OF HOMICIDE VS DEGREES OF LYING (Discussion between Curt and Greg Hamilt

    DEGREES OF HOMICIDE VS DEGREES OF LYING

    (Discussion between Curt and Greg Hamilton)

    Degree of failure of due diligence determines severity.

    Example:

    … Murder > Homicide > ???

    … Lying > Deceiving > ???

    We don’t have via negativa terms for crimes, but P-law is a via negativa logic.

    So, in P, we call a failure of due diligence “Lying”, because we can’t determine intentions only whether you in fact did the due diligence, and whether you stated a falsehood, or irreciprocity.

    Lying by intent and Lying by failures of due diligence.

    This definition mirrors “Truth”:

    Truth means satisfying the demand for infallibility.

    We satisfy the demand for infallibility by due diligence.

    So, is it correct to use Falsehood(error) or Lying(failure of due diligence)? Well, how do we know the difference? 😉

    DEGREES OF HOMICIDE

    Murder first and second

    -vs-

    Voluntary, Constructive, and Involuntary manslaughter

    -vs-

    Negligent Homicide (esp. vehicular)

    -vs-

    Excusable Homicide: by accident and misfortune, or in doing any other lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent.”

    -vs-

    Justifiable Homicide (self or other defense)

    -vs-

    State Licensed Homicide (military, law enforcement)

    The key phrase being “with usual and ordinary caution”

    Again, I am (we are) stating that in public, to public, in matters public, one must use ordinary caution. We are are increasing the requirements for ordinary caution.

    We are increasing the burden on public speech such that by failure of due diligence you do not guard against the spreading of falsehood (lying) because we cannot judge your intent, we can only determine whether or not you enaged in due diligence.

    It works just fine. We do it every day in courts around the globe.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 17:16:00 UTC

  • TRUTH: ability to control impulsive behavior varies between demographics and cla

    TRUTH: ability to control impulsive behavior varies between demographics and classes. The principle difference between the classes is agency. Given that the AA population is majority (genetically) underclass partly due to accelerated depth of maturity, this is expected.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 16:42:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246115972177690624

    Reply addressees: @ShayeStone @kat__stafford @JesseLehrich

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1245799914182934529

  • THE TEN CANONICAL PRINCIPLES IN THE NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGNS. 1. Commensurabili

    THE TEN CANONICAL PRINCIPLES IN THE NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGNS.

    1. Commensurability: Definitions by Disambiguation by Serialization and Operationalization

    2. Truth: Satisfaction of demand for infallibility.

    3. Testimony: Due diligence against perceivable dimensions.

    4. Reciprocity: Due diligence against incentive to retaliate.

    5. Property In Toto: Measurements of Demonstrated intersets

    6. Compatibilism: Gender and class division of perception, cognition, memory, advocacy, and cooperation.

    7. Trifunctionalism: Three possible means of coercion, produces three competing specializations of elites.

    8. Perfect Government: rule of law, monarchy as judge of last resort, houses for regions, classes, genders, with one family one vote – adapting to authority under threat, markets under peace, and redistribution during windfalls.

    9. Transcendence: Evolutionary necessity ‘to become the red queen’ – we may never stop nor never rest.

    10. Western Group Evolutionary strategy is “OODA” meaning technology, maneuver and initiative. This strategy is created by excellence and beauty, heroism and duty, truth and oath, sovereignty and reciprocity, rule of law and jury, and markets in everything: association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polities, and war – while suppressing the reproduction of the underclasses, and devoting the surpluses to the production of commons, and the multiples for all that result.

    That’s the core of P.

    The rest is application.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 14:23:00 UTC

  • “It’s ok to have an opinion. But it’s better to not.”—Stephen Thomas

    —“It’s ok to have an opinion. But it’s better to not.”—Stephen Thomas

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 14:10:00 UTC

  • “I’m not sure making being wrong and lying the same is going to work. Intent is

    —“I’m not sure making being wrong and lying the same is going to work. Intent is an incredibly powerful part of our system. It’s the only substantial difference between murder and justifiable homicide. Judging just action/outcome without judging the intent isn’t going to create a workable system”—Greg Hamilton

    That can’t be true, because our legal system already does it. It always has. All this does is extend it from commercial to political speech.

    Think of it this way: philosophy was invented as a competition to the law to give permission to lie.

    —“Well I’m missing something because it appears you are saying being wrong is lying. … That without intent to deceive to are as guilty as if you had intent. “—Greg Hamilton

    Being wrong, or failing due diligence?

    You can perform due diligence and still be wrong without fault. You cannot avoid due diligence and still be wrong without fault.

    This is why the law distinguishes between Restitution, escalating to Punishment, and escalating to Prevention.

    Means motive and opportunity.

    We cannot know intent.

    We can however know due diligence.

    Which is how we test your truth or lie in law.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 11:33:00 UTC

  • P GRAMMARS TIE ALL THE WAYS OF KNOWING TOGETHER by Ryan Drummond I think reading

    P GRAMMARS TIE ALL THE WAYS OF KNOWING TOGETHER

    by Ryan Drummond

    I think reading Jung without reading Nietzsche can easily bait one into intellectual (and moral) hazard.

    I’d say, too, that reading Nietzsche without reading the cognitive sciences or the work of yourself, for example, can bait people into empirical hazard.

    The breadth of such work simply can’t be understood by reading one author, or even two authors.

    You need to cover the existential, the theological, the moral, the historical, the cultural, the psyche, and the scientific objectivity to get a ‘clearer’ picture of the totality.

    Even then we can easily fall into traps of bias and error!

    I admire how P takes all of these things and knits them together into a logical web of truth that can be followed and understood a little more clearly by those with no exposure or those with partial exposure to these things.

    It also, if you want to take it far enough, opens up avenues of thought and totality for even hardened scholars in such fields of study.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 10:49:00 UTC

  • “The lost virtue of “I don’t know” and “I’m not qualified to answer”— Steve Pe

    —“The lost virtue of “I don’t know” and “I’m not qualified to answer”— Steve Pender

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 10:45:00 UTC

  • INTENTION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ONE TO LIE The difference between testimonial trut

    INTENTION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ONE TO LIE

    The difference between testimonial truth and honesty is substantial, but perhaps the most surprising is that that we do not need to intend to lie to lie. We need only speak a lie whether we intend to or not. Most of us are carriers of lies. Because we do not know how to perform due diligence against lying. And worse, because we do not desire to stop using our most precious lies. So in P-law, we are guilty of a failure of due diligence against lying, rather than just intent to lie – just as in our existing law we are responsible for restitution whether we intended harm or not. And we are additionally subject to punishment and prevention if we harm by intent.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 09:40:00 UTC