Theme: Truth

  • THE ONLY POLITICAL ARGUMENT —“Leftists care more about an assertion being offe

    THE ONLY POLITICAL ARGUMENT

    —“Leftists care more about an assertion being offensive than it being true.”— Χρόνος @HliosX

    Yes.

    —“Hi! I am a leftist, yet I don’t think this assertion applies to me. Would you like to discuss/debate?”—Flancia @flancian

    Sure. 😉

    Assertion: all differences are reducible to right evidentiary capitalizing, inter-temporal, reciprocal, falsificationary eugenic vs left experiential, consumptive, temporal, proportional, justificationary, dysgenic – and as such, decidable. As such all left propositions will be reducible to approval/disapproval, and right truth/falsehood.

    Cognitively left dysgenic female herd vs cognitively right eugenic male pack. We have no agency. We we are gene machines pursuing our reproductive strategies adapting them only to our class (status).

    And all speech and most importantly, all political speech is either truthful, reciprocal, meritocratic (hierarchical male right) or untruthful, irreciprocal, proportional (equalitarian female left). Right trade and truth and Left Seduction disapproval.

    The only solution is exchange. The condensation of the three classes of monarchy(judge of last resort), nobility(lords, senate), and family-business(house of commons), into a single parliamentary council, instead of adding a house of labor and a house for women eliminated the traditional european market between the classes, thereby creating a race to the majoritarian bottom, political conflict, and the incentive to immigrate vast underclasses to circumvent the western civilizational strategy of sovereignty.

    If we had added houses women (who are the only defectors driving leftward movement) would have learned how to use their access to political power in exchange, rather than using the traditional female method of undermining.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-02 07:45:00 UTC

  • My premise is either you’re testifying truthfully and warrantying that you will

    My premise is either you’re testifying truthfully and warrantying that you will perform restitution if you lie, or that you’re just lying.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-02 03:46:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1223815040572280834

    Reply addressees: @TheocraticMona2 @EvaB57423389

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1223814704038019072


    IN REPLY TO:

    @JCsBestLT

    @curtdoolittle @EvaB57423389 Your commingling of the Jewish/Abrahamic/Islamic/Christian is faulty premise. Think error carried forward. Much more to the abrahamic understanding than deceit. Very shallow. There’s is a very good reason the OT is diligent with tracing lineages.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1223814704038019072

  • 3) the fictionalisms available to man are magic->pseudoscience, idealism->surrea

    3) the fictionalisms available to man are magic->pseudoscience, idealism->surrealism, and occult->theology.
    4) I teach both the european method of testimonial truth and the jewish method of abrahamic deceit. They are polar opposites.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-02 03:35:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1223812139388932097

    Reply addressees: @TheocraticMona2 @EvaB57423389

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1223811322183327745


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @TheocraticMona2 @EvaB57423389 2) This is the technique by which judaism, christianity, and islam are constructed, as well as marxism, cultural marxism, socialism, postmodernism, feminism, and differential denialism of cantor bohr, marx, boas, freud, marcuse, derrida, friedan, lenin, trotsky et al.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1223811322183327745


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @TheocraticMona2 @EvaB57423389 2) This is the technique by which judaism, christianity, and islam are constructed, as well as marxism, cultural marxism, socialism, postmodernism, feminism, and differential denialism of cantor bohr, marx, boas, freud, marcuse, derrida, friedan, lenin, trotsky et al.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1223811322183327745

  • REMINDER – NO MEMES. Please don’t post memes. I don’t tolerate memes. I teach ar

    REMINDER – NO MEMES.

    Please don’t post memes. I don’t tolerate memes. I teach argument. There are plenty of places to demonstrate you can’t. This isn’t one of them


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-01 19:47:00 UTC

  • WHAT IT SAYS RIGHT THERE IN TEXT… by Jerry Odom —“We hold these truths to be

    WHAT IT SAYS RIGHT THERE IN TEXT…

    by Jerry Odom

    —“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,

    deriving their just powers from the “consent” of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, ….”—

    So what it says here is our rights don’t come from government or from words on paper. Let’s be real here the only reason that we actually create government is to protect the rights of the people.

    So, what are inalienable rights? Among the natural rights of the people, are life, liberty, and property together with the right to protect and defend them with the best possible means possible.

    So if you don’t have the right to life you’re dead, if you don’t have liberty in your servant of the government you created, if you don’t have a right to property and that you don’t have a right to life and your subject to whoever owns the property, if you don’t have a right to defend these things than you are slave you are not a free man, if you have to ask permission of the government protect my life my and my property then you are not a free man, inalienable rights are not subject to laws of man especially when we gave them the ability to govern based on the consent of the people.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-01 19:38:00 UTC

  • THE VIA NEGATIVA REVERSAL OF THE 20TH TO 21ST —“In the information age, it’s l

    THE VIA NEGATIVA REVERSAL OF THE 20TH TO 21ST

    —“In the information age, it’s less important to have the information than knowing how to discriminate from and work with all the information that is available. And P can be immensely helpful with that.”— Martin Štěpán


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-31 17:22:00 UTC

  • Again, it’s explainable. But explaining, including video of laying on the beach

    Again, it’s explainable. But explaining, including video of laying on the beach in the bahamas, is not the same as experiencing laying on the beach in the bahamas. Conversely, there is nothing we cannot explain. Modern religions are indifferent from Tolkien w/ a false promise.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-31 12:42:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1223225106194931712

    Reply addressees: @Sov3r3ignSoul

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1223223112688267264


    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/1223223112688267264

  • CAN YOU EXPLAIN EPRIME TO A NEWBIE? —“Curt Doolittle, Can you help explain e p

    http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htmCURT CAN YOU EXPLAIN EPRIME TO A NEWBIE?

    —“Curt Doolittle, Can you help explain e prime for a newbie? (E prime is a the language taught in Propertarian circles – to reduce every statement down to an operational level – to test it for truth.)”—Rae Liera

    I don’t think it’s that hard:

    E-PRIME

    E-Prime (short for English-Prime or English Prime, sometimes denoted É or E′) is a version of the English language that excludes all forms of the verb to be, including all conjugations, contractions and archaic forms. Some scholars advocate using E-Prime as a device to clarify thinking and strengthen writing.

    PRETENSE OF KNOWLEDGE

    Kellogg and Bourland describe misuse of the verb to be as creating a “deity mode of speech”, allowing “even the most ignorant to transform their opinions magically into god-like pronouncements on the nature of things”. Use of E-Prime reduces the possibility of deception, suggestion, misunderstanding or conflict.

    Korzybski observed improvement “of one full letter grade” by “students who did not generalize by using that infinitive”. In other words, you will dramatically improve your own understanding and ability to communicate by writing in eprime.

    PROPERTARIAN CONTEXT

    So, P uses Disambiguation by serialization and operationaliztion, and ePrime, written in complete sentences (transactions), where complete sentences or sets of sentences (full accounting) describe changes in state of demonstrated interests (investments). This produces a value neutral financial or economic language of psychology, ethics, sociology, and politics. It is also, like accounting, very difficult to ‘fudge’ (lie).

    DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS OF THE VERB TO-BE

    In the English language, the verb ‘to be’ (also known as the copula) has several distinct functions, all of which are reducible to “testimony on the terms of existence”.

    1. identity, of the form “noun copula definite-noun” [The cat is my only pet]; [The cat is Garfield]

    2. class membership, of the form “definite-noun copula noun” [Garfield is a cat]

    3. class inclusion, of the form “noun copula noun” [A cat is an animal]

    4. predication, of the form “noun copula adjective” [The cat is furry]

    5. auxiliary, of the form “noun copula verb” [The cat is sleeping]; [The cat is being bitten by the dog]. The examples illustrate two different uses of ‘be’ as an auxiliary. In the first, ‘be’ is part of the progressive aspect, used with “-ing” on the verb; in the second, it is part of the passive, as indicated by the perfect participle of a transitive verb.

    6. existence, of the form “there copula noun” [There is a cat]

    location, of the form “noun copula place-phrase” [The cat is on the mat]; [The cat is here]

    Bourland sees specifically the “identity” and “predication” functions as pernicious, but advocates eliminating all forms for the sake of simplicity. In the case of the “existence” form (and less idiomatically, the “location” form), one might (for example) simply substitute the verb “exists”. Other copula-substitutes in English include taste, feel, smell, sound, grow, remain, stay, and turn, among others a user of E-prime might use instead of to be.

    Examples

    Words not used in E-prime include: be, being, been, am, is, isn’t, are, aren’t, was, wasn’t, were, and weren’t.

    Contractions formed from a pronoun and a form of to be are also not used, including: I’m, you’re, we’re, they’re, he’s, she’s, it’s, there’s, here’s, where’s, how’s, what’s, who’s, and that’s. E-Prime also prohibits contractions of to be found in nonstandard dialects of English, such as “ain’t”.

    GENERAL SEMANTICS

    General semantics was a self improvement movement that (roughly) suggested that if you improve the use of your language so that it is more correspondent to reality (or something at least) that you will train yourself (similar to stoic rituals in list making) to have greater understanding and mindfulness of the world.

    I would state this differently in that P logic using the above techniques seeks to create a value neutral standard of weights and measures by which we interpret the world, that is the most parsimonious system of weights and measure that is possible – and – is most correspondent consistent and coherent with the world. (this is the aristotelian project).

    P IS THE OPPOSITE OF POSTMODERNISM

    The opposite proposition of P is that of Theology, Postmodernism, and Generative Anthropology, all of which attempt social construction that is non-correspondent, inconsistent, non-coherent with reality in order to use deception to coerce people into submission to some narrative of desirable or undesirable deceit.

    In other words, there is leftist postmodernism (social construction) and rightist postmodernism (social construction) and both are means of deceit in order to compensate for lack of military and economic power. In other words, this is the purvey of pseudoscientists, financialists, mystics and priests: deception.

    And yes, I realize, people have a hard time with reality and want comforting deceits. But there are three other choices: physical ritual, buddhist and stoic-epicurean self discipline (emotional), and the scientific truth (intellectual). All three produce mindfulness without ‘the big lies of social constructions.’

    ORIGINS OF EPRIME

    D. David Bourland Jr., studied under Alfred Korzybski, and devised E-Prime as an addition to Korzybski’s general semantics in the late 1940s.

    BOOKS

    Bourland published the concept in a 1965 essay entitled “A Linguistic Note: Writing in E-Prime”

    Bourland collected and published three volumes of essays in support of his innovation.

    – To Be or Not: An E-Prime Anthology (1991)

    – More E-Prime: To Be or Not II (1994)

    – E-Prime III: a third anthology, published (1997).

    LINKS TO PAPERS ONLINE

    https://web.archive.org/web/20130204204954/http://www.generalsemantics.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/articles/etc/46-3-bourland.pdf

    http://www.generalsemantics.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/articles/etc/44-2-kellogg.pdf

    http://www.hilgart.org/papers_html/091S196.B07.html

    http://www.nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm

    http://www.textjournal.com.au/april16/frazer.htm

    https://web.archive.org/web/20061221093237/http://learn-gs.org/library/elaine-eprime.htm

    ( FYI: @[655376421:2048:Bill Joslin] @[11019687:2048:Brandon Hayes] )Updated Jan 31, 2020, 9:14 AM


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-31 08:59:00 UTC

  • I don’t argue against christian ethics (outcome) – I argue against abrahamism (j

    I don’t argue against christian ethics (outcome) – I argue against abrahamism (justification).

    I want them to be christians. I just don’t want them to argue with me by claiming that their preference for conveying Christian ethics is a truth or a necessity – It’s neither. it’s a good, and a preference. that’s fine. 😉 But theology isn’t true or even close to it. It’s a false and unwarrantable promise to bait you into following christian ethics.

    I just tell them that christianity when stated in scientific terms is in fact the scientific optimum ethics. The way that they argue it and justify it is rather ridiculous for those of us who are fine with the scientific truth being enough of a reason to act according to christian ethics.

    If you need different incentives to follow christian ethics that’s just a psychological difference. Otherwise, natural law and Christian ethics are the optimum.

    Largely, need for faith is a biological bias to empathy (feminine minds); need for theological argument is a biological bias for (weak) male minds. And the lack of need for faith is a biological basis for analytic (male) minds. And given that regardless of sex we almost all share some distribution of masculine and feminine biases.

    So no matter which reason you choose christianity: emotional faith, authoritarian rational, or scientific acknowledgment, all that matters is that people who AREN’T CHRISTIAN always and everywhere have more questionable (worse) ethics that are incompatible with western civilization.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-31 07:28:00 UTC

  • Of course. 😉 Just staying on message. Sovereignty, rule of law of reciprocity,

    Of course. 😉 Just staying on message. Sovereignty, rule of law of reciprocity, truth, and incremental suppression of parasitism under it, with soft market eugenics and in six to ten generations most peoples can at least approach european social orders. (They won’t, but can.)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-01-30 23:54:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1223031706032246784

    Reply addressees: @SirJohn981

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1223030662032130054


    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/1223030662032130054