Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Why and How Pilpul Functions as A Means of Deception.

    October 28th, 2018 2:27 PM WHY AND HOW PILPUL FUNCTIONS AS A MEANS OF DECEPTION.

    —“(((They))) win by creating false dichotomies; the use of language is very important.”—Mirjana Bilić

    [T]heir technique of Pilpul: They use an element of truth to create a false dichotomy and therefore frame the question by suggestion, and obscure the solution due to anchoring. We are always vulnerable to anchoring. Because we are vulnerable to anchoring we are vulnerable to framing. Because we are vulnerable to framing we are vulnerable to suggestion and obscurantism. Because we are vulnerable to suggestion and obscurantism we are vulnerable to influence. If we are provided for incentive to justify that influence we can be controlled – by BLOCKING our OPPORTUNITY and MOTIVATION for seeking truth. The three abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) all produce recursive ignorance cue to BLOCKING our search for truth. This is how PILPUL is used to deceive, and why math, logic, science, economics, law and testimonial truth are such an important defense. A lie (incentive), a half truth, a False dichotomy (choice). Low trust people simply dont’ go beyond the tangible. High trust people do. Our asset of high trust in constructing the commons which produce such outsized returns compared to other peoples. But our trust( suspension of disbelief), and vulnerability to anchoring, suggestion, and obscurantism make our ordinary folk easily deceived, manipulated, controlled, and preyed upon.

  • WHY AND HOW PILPUL FUNCTIONS AS A MEANS OF DECEPTION. —“(((They))) win by crea

    WHY AND HOW PILPUL FUNCTIONS AS A MEANS OF DECEPTION.

    —“(((They))) win by creating false dichotomies; the use of language is very important.”—Mirjana Bilić

    Their technique of Pilpul: They use an element of truth to create a false dichotomy and therefore frame the question by suggestion, and obscure the solution due to anchoring.

    We are always vulnerable to anchoring.

    Because we are vulnerable to anchoring we are vulnerable to framing.

    Because we are vulnerable to framing we are vulnerable to suggestion and obscurantism.

    Because we are vulnerable to suggestion and obscurantism we are vulnerable to influence.

    If we are provided for incentive to justify that influence we can be controlled – by BLOCKING our OPPORTUNITY and MOTIVATION for seeking truth.

    The three abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) all produce recursive ignorance cue to BLOCKING our search for truth.

    This is how PILPUL is used to deceive, and why math, logic, science, economics, law and testimonial truth are such an important defense.

    A lie (incentive), a half truth, a False dichotomy (choice).

    Low trust people simply dont’ go beyond the tangible. High trust people do. Our asset of high trust in constructing the commons which produce such outsized returns compared to other peoples. But our trust( suspension of disbelief), and vulnerability to anchoring, suggestion, and obscurantism make our ordinary folk easily deceived, manipulated, controlled, and preyed upon.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-28 14:27:00 UTC

  • (disciplining the dejected) …I don’t make mistakes. It’s my job to be the guy

    (disciplining the dejected)

    …I don’t make mistakes. It’s my job to be the guy in the room who doesn’t make mistakes. You didn’t understand the original statement, didn’t understand the subsequent arguments, and still have no idea what is going on. I am absolutely certain my analysis of your behavior and ability is correct. Dunning Kruger is a prison from which few can escape. You haven’t, you wont, you can’t.

    You wasted my time. And you’re still wasting it. Respect your betters by, at the very least, not wasting their time….

    (yeah, I know, i’m being an ass to a prole. someone needs to man up and discipline them.)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 19:11:00 UTC

  • —“Curt: Please Define ‘Post-Moral’?”–

    October 27th, 2018 8:42 AM —“CURT: PLEASE DEFINE ‘POST-MORAL’?”–

    —“Can you explain POST-MORAL to a newb?”— Scott Claremont

    [S]o just like we changed from theological(authoritarian) discourse on morals, to philosophical (rational) discourse on morals during the enlightenment, that we have changed from philosophical (rational) discourse on morals, to scientific (measurements) discourse on morals. |Explanation(Model)| traditional(norm) > religious (theology) > rational (moral) > scientific (reciprocity). It means (a) our language consists of reasoning by morality( intuition, habit, norm, tradition) rather than reasoning by reciprocity(measurement),(b) and where morality(intuition, habit, norm, tradition) vary not only between groups, but between individuals, reciprocity does not. (c) as such we can use the language of law (decidability), accounting (directly measurable), and economics ( indirectly measurable) to measure that which removes ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit from our discussion of ‘morality’, and describe human actions scientifically (universally) rather than normatively (colloquially).

  • —“Curt: Please Define ‘Post-Moral’?”–

    October 27th, 2018 8:42 AM —“CURT: PLEASE DEFINE ‘POST-MORAL’?”–

    —“Can you explain POST-MORAL to a newb?”— Scott Claremont

    [S]o just like we changed from theological(authoritarian) discourse on morals, to philosophical (rational) discourse on morals during the enlightenment, that we have changed from philosophical (rational) discourse on morals, to scientific (measurements) discourse on morals. |Explanation(Model)| traditional(norm) > religious (theology) > rational (moral) > scientific (reciprocity). It means (a) our language consists of reasoning by morality( intuition, habit, norm, tradition) rather than reasoning by reciprocity(measurement),(b) and where morality(intuition, habit, norm, tradition) vary not only between groups, but between individuals, reciprocity does not. (c) as such we can use the language of law (decidability), accounting (directly measurable), and economics ( indirectly measurable) to measure that which removes ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit from our discussion of ‘morality’, and describe human actions scientifically (universally) rather than normatively (colloquially).

  • Schooling the Ghost Vagina Syndrome on Argument

    October 27th, 2018 2:17 PM SCHOOLING THE GHOST VAGINA SYNDROME ON ARGUMENT (to: Damien Woodgate ) [I] don’t pre-prepare responses. I don’t have to. I work on the study of argument full time. And I use the same definitions (series) every time. Because they are constants (universals). And even if I did copy and paste, that would not undermine the argument – it would only illustrate (as it has) that you merely do as I said: engage in the extremely common tactic of feminine shaming as a substitute for argument and in doing so demonstrate you don’t know what you’re talking about. So again, just as I’ve stated, you’re just attempting to shame rather than argue the central point. —“”we civilised the world using violence”< You said that mate”—- Damien Woodgate I’ve not only stated it once, I have stated the premise twice : 1) >> “Violence is a precious resource. We civilised the whole world using violence. That’s the history of civilisation: the incremental suppression of parasitism through the organised application of violence.” 2) >> “If you attempt to deny that the organized application fo violence in the systematic use of law, to incrementally suppress free riding, parasitism and predation ISN”T how we civilized mankind by forcing people into markets, that’s going to be very difficult. Because politics(legislation and regulation) and law(Findings of law of Tort) are merely proxies for violence. ” And now a third time: 3) we have used the law to create law (findings of parasitism and predation), legislation/command (prevention of free riding, parasitism, and predation), and regulation (prior constraint that enforces legislation and law), to incrementally suppress each evolutionary migration of free riding, parasitism, and predation And you have not answered it, and that is because you can’t, because it can’t be falsified. The fact that you presume understanding when you lack the knowledge to even vaguely understand the argument. And I have defended against your “GSRMS” (gossip, shaming, ridicule, moralism, and straw manning” in an attempt for reputation destruction as an alternative to answering the central argument. Now here is your ‘simpleton’ understanding: (a) “geez, the financial sector screws us. they’re parasites” To which I answer “yes” because we have not yet used the organized application of violence via legislation, regulation, and law, to incrementally suppress the 19th-20th century innovation in rent seeking (free riding, predation, and parasitism) made possible by the failure to change from legislation, regulation and law under physical money distribution constraints under physical currency (note money substitutes), to legislation, regulation and law under fiat credit money, where money consists only of shares in the economy (Share Money Substitutes) needing no physical distribution. (Especially since all credit issuance is (a) determined my accumulated actuarial data, (b) insured by the state as the insurer of last resort, using the same assets (shares in the economy) – meaning we are insuring ourselves. As I said, we have incrementally suppressed free riding(externality), parasitism(indirect) and predation(direct), upon one another by the incremental application of organized violence, (law/courts and legislation/command/state)across the spectrum from: |HARM| Murder, VIolence, Theft, Fraud (in all its forms), free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, conspiracy (in all its forms), Poisoning the Informational Well (propaganda and deceit), trade war, conversion, immigration, conquest, and genocide. Under the options of: |RELATIONS| Bocott < Avoidance < Risk <- RECIPROCITY -> Free Riding > Parasitism > Predation. You know, I have a reputation as extremely patient with overconfident (arrogant) ignorant young men, trying to maintain face (status) while navigating a world they rarely succeed in. And it’s because as a ‘teacher’ of young men I wish to turn that frustrated demand for dominance play into learning by playing king of the hill, where quite obviously, I play the king of the hill. If teaching were still done this way (competitively) boys would not have fallen behind girls, and young men would nether check out of society, or PRACTICE FEMININE ARGUMENT. Adolescent (undeveloped) males require a strong paternal competitor in order to learn. That’s my role. And that is why men follow me. To learn. And to learn to argue as men. Not ‘women’. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Schooling the Ghost Vagina Syndrome on Argument

    October 27th, 2018 2:17 PM SCHOOLING THE GHOST VAGINA SYNDROME ON ARGUMENT (to: Damien Woodgate ) [I] don’t pre-prepare responses. I don’t have to. I work on the study of argument full time. And I use the same definitions (series) every time. Because they are constants (universals). And even if I did copy and paste, that would not undermine the argument – it would only illustrate (as it has) that you merely do as I said: engage in the extremely common tactic of feminine shaming as a substitute for argument and in doing so demonstrate you don’t know what you’re talking about. So again, just as I’ve stated, you’re just attempting to shame rather than argue the central point. —“”we civilised the world using violence”< You said that mate”—- Damien Woodgate I’ve not only stated it once, I have stated the premise twice : 1) >> “Violence is a precious resource. We civilised the whole world using violence. That’s the history of civilisation: the incremental suppression of parasitism through the organised application of violence.” 2) >> “If you attempt to deny that the organized application fo violence in the systematic use of law, to incrementally suppress free riding, parasitism and predation ISN”T how we civilized mankind by forcing people into markets, that’s going to be very difficult. Because politics(legislation and regulation) and law(Findings of law of Tort) are merely proxies for violence. ” And now a third time: 3) we have used the law to create law (findings of parasitism and predation), legislation/command (prevention of free riding, parasitism, and predation), and regulation (prior constraint that enforces legislation and law), to incrementally suppress each evolutionary migration of free riding, parasitism, and predation And you have not answered it, and that is because you can’t, because it can’t be falsified. The fact that you presume understanding when you lack the knowledge to even vaguely understand the argument. And I have defended against your “GSRMS” (gossip, shaming, ridicule, moralism, and straw manning” in an attempt for reputation destruction as an alternative to answering the central argument. Now here is your ‘simpleton’ understanding: (a) “geez, the financial sector screws us. they’re parasites” To which I answer “yes” because we have not yet used the organized application of violence via legislation, regulation, and law, to incrementally suppress the 19th-20th century innovation in rent seeking (free riding, predation, and parasitism) made possible by the failure to change from legislation, regulation and law under physical money distribution constraints under physical currency (note money substitutes), to legislation, regulation and law under fiat credit money, where money consists only of shares in the economy (Share Money Substitutes) needing no physical distribution. (Especially since all credit issuance is (a) determined my accumulated actuarial data, (b) insured by the state as the insurer of last resort, using the same assets (shares in the economy) – meaning we are insuring ourselves. As I said, we have incrementally suppressed free riding(externality), parasitism(indirect) and predation(direct), upon one another by the incremental application of organized violence, (law/courts and legislation/command/state)across the spectrum from: |HARM| Murder, VIolence, Theft, Fraud (in all its forms), free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, conspiracy (in all its forms), Poisoning the Informational Well (propaganda and deceit), trade war, conversion, immigration, conquest, and genocide. Under the options of: |RELATIONS| Bocott < Avoidance < Risk <- RECIPROCITY -> Free Riding > Parasitism > Predation. You know, I have a reputation as extremely patient with overconfident (arrogant) ignorant young men, trying to maintain face (status) while navigating a world they rarely succeed in. And it’s because as a ‘teacher’ of young men I wish to turn that frustrated demand for dominance play into learning by playing king of the hill, where quite obviously, I play the king of the hill. If teaching were still done this way (competitively) boys would not have fallen behind girls, and young men would nether check out of society, or PRACTICE FEMININE ARGUMENT. Adolescent (undeveloped) males require a strong paternal competitor in order to learn. That’s my role. And that is why men follow me. To learn. And to learn to argue as men. Not ‘women’. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • SCHOOLING THE GHOST VAGINA SYNDROME ON ARGUMENT (to: Damien Woodgate ) I don’t p

    SCHOOLING THE GHOST VAGINA SYNDROME ON ARGUMENT

    (to: Damien Woodgate )

    I don’t pre-prepare responses. I don’t have to. I work on the study of argument full time. And I use the same definitions (series) every time. Because they are constants (universals). And even if I did copy and paste, that would not undermine the argument – it would only illustrate (as it has) that you merely do as I said: engage in the extremely common tactic of feminine shaming as a substitute for argument and in doing so demonstrate you don’t know what you’re talking about. So again, just as I’ve stated, you’re just attempting to shame rather than argue the central point.

    —“”we civilised the world using violence”< You said that mate”—- Damien Woodgate

    I’ve not only stated it once, I have stated the premise twice :

    1) >> “Violence is a precious resource. We civilised the

    whole world using violence. That’s the history of

    civilisation: the incremental suppression of parasitism

    through the organised application of violence.”

    2) >> “If you attempt to deny that the organized application fo violence in the systematic use of law, to incrementally suppress free riding, parasitism and predation ISN”T how we civilized mankind by forcing people into markets, that’s going to be very difficult. Because politics(legislation and regulation) and law(Findings of law of Tort) are merely proxies for violence. “

    And now a third time:

    3) we have used the law to create law (findings of parasitism and predation), legislation/command (prevention of free riding, parasitism, and predation), and regulation (prior constraint that enforces legislation and law), to incrementally suppress each evolutionary migration of free riding, parasitism, and predation

    And you have not answered it, and that is because you can’t, because it can’t be falsified. The fact that you presume understanding when you lack the knowledge to even vaguely understand the argument.

    And I have defended against your “GSRMS” (gossip, shaming, ridicule, moralism, and straw manning” in an attempt for reputation destruction as an alternative to answering the central argument.

    Now here is your ‘simpleton’ understanding:

    (a) “geez, the financial sector screws us. they’re parasites”

    To which I answer “yes” because we have not yet used the organized application of violence via legislation, regulation, and law, to incrementally suppress the 19th-20th century innovation in rent seeking (free riding, predation, and parasitism) made possible by the failure to change from legislation, regulation and law under physical money distribution constraints under physical currency (note money substitutes), to legislation, regulation and law under fiat credit money, where money consists only of shares in the economy (Share Money Substitutes) needing no physical distribution. (Especially since all credit issuance is (a) determined my accumulated actuarial data, (b) insured by the state as the insurer of last resort, using the same assets (shares in the economy) – meaning we are insuring ourselves.

    As I said, we have incrementally suppressed free riding(externality), parasitism(indirect) and predation(direct), upon one another by the incremental application of organized violence, (law/courts and legislation/command/state)across the spectrum from:

    |HARM| Murder, VIolence, Theft, Fraud (in all its forms), free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of commons, conspiracy (in all its forms), Poisoning the Informational Well (propaganda and deceit), trade war, conversion, immigration, conquest, and genocide.

    Under the options of:

    |RELATIONS| Bocott < Avoidance < Risk <- RECIPROCITY -> Free Riding > Parasitism > Predation.

    You know, I have a reputation as extremely patient with overconfident (arrogant) ignorant young men, trying to maintain face (status) while navigating a world they rarely succeed in.

    And it’s because as a ‘teacher’ of young men I wish to turn that frustrated demand for dominance play into learning by playing king of the hill, where quite obviously, I play the king of the hill.

    If teaching were still done this way (competitively) boys would not have fallen behind girls, and young men would nether check out of society, or PRACTICE FEMININE ARGUMENT.

    Adolescent (undeveloped) males require a strong paternal competitor in order to learn.

    That’s my role.

    And that is why men follow me.

    To learn. And to learn to argue as men.

    Not ‘women’.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 14:17:00 UTC

  • HOW TO ARGUE AGAINST MORAL POSTURING UNDER PRETENSE OF VALUE, EQUALITY OR KINSHI

    HOW TO ARGUE AGAINST MORAL POSTURING UNDER PRETENSE OF VALUE, EQUALITY OR KINSHIP

    (from elsewhere)

    Did you just make a psychological rather than empirical argument? Oh wait. your first response was a moralism not a scientific one, or one of demonstrated preference. So yes, it’s not surprising that you would make a sentimental distraction rather than a scientific argument yet again.

    Or that you would give freudian evidence of your feminine cognition and lack of evidentiary understanding by using the example of ‘great at parties’ rather than ‘great at business, science, and law.” I mean. Talk about a subconscious confession of animal intuition masked by language using the pretense of reason….. lol.

    Debtors are debtors. Period.

    We aren’t equal, we aren’t allies, we aren’t family, we aren’t friends. Your value to me and mine is only what is our interests, evolution’s interests, and as a consequence, and the future of mankind’s interest.

    All your attempts to create the pretense of equality, value to one another, or social political military obligation due to reciprocity or advantage is just a fraud to create the peacock-tail of value. My only question is whether you are a cost, not a cost, or a contributor to me and mine, evolutionary excellence, and the transcendence of mankind.”

    Your method of ‘argument’ (non-argument, fraudulent positioning) only works if (a) you are kin, and (b) you are a woman and can create future kin. Otherwise you are just an opportunity or a cost.

    A man in rhetorical petticoats has nothing to trade.

    You have no intrinsic value.

    None.

    You are dead weight on humanity’s Transcendence into the gods we imagine – and gods we must be – or be chained to the lifecycle of this rock.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 10:07:00 UTC

  • “CURT: PLEASE DEFINE ‘POST-MORAL’?”– —“Can you explain POST-MORAL to a newb?”

    —“CURT: PLEASE DEFINE ‘POST-MORAL’?”–

    —“Can you explain POST-MORAL to a newb?”— Scott Claremont

    So just like we changed from theological(authoritarian) discourse on morals, to philosophical (rational) discourse on morals during the enlightenment, that we have changed from philosophical (rational) discourse on morals, to scientific (measurements) discourse on morals.

    |Explanation(Model)| traditional(norm) > religious (theology) > rational (moral) > scientific (reciprocity).

    It means (a) our language consists of reasoning by morality( intuition, habit, norm, tradition) rather than reasoning by reciprocity(measurement),(b) and where morality(intuition, habit, norm, tradition) vary not only between groups, but between individuals, reciprocity does not. (c) as such we can use the language of law (decidability), accounting (directly measurable), and economics ( indirectly measurable) to measure that which removes ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit from our discussion of ‘morality’, and describe human actions scientifically (universally) rather than normatively (colloquially).

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-27 08:42:00 UTC