I don’t care what system of government, economy, social order, or faith that you construct – it will be governed by the laws that I state and produce the outcomes I state. There is no difference between physics and behavior except for our memory of cooperative debits and credits.
I reduced western civilization to first causes. Then discovered it was just the most conformant to the laws of the universe. It’s that tedious process that made me understand western superiority isn’t a opinon, it’s a scientific fact. We have one flaw: christian tolerance.
The Ultimate Religion is not the religion of everyone. It’s the religion of everyone capable of it. The rest, frankly, they don’t matter.
If someone can’t understand some branch of mathematics, or logic, or science they’re perfectly happy to say that it’s beyond their understanding. But as soon as we move from formal and physical science to behavioral science, everyone seems to think they have a valuable opinion.
Really I don’t have critics of the work. Just of me. That’s ok. Same for other ‘disagreeable’ people in history. This isn’t a popularity contest. Unfortunately, people intuit that formal behavioral science needs their approval as if it’s ideology or philosophy. Sorry. Wrong.
I do my job. Which is to make no presumptions, and falsify until only the truth is left standing. This is the truth that is left standing. Everyone wants me to take the shortcut. I don’t shortcut. I have to construct a proof. P-Law is constructed of proofs from first causes (first principles). If I take your shortcut (even if I intuit that you’re right) I haven’t constructed a proof. P-Law is a Formal Science. So it’s the natural endpoint of logic, science, law, and religion: the One Law, and the One Religion. The mythology is up to others to write. Although our ancestors did a pretty good job if we remove the Semitic deceits and restate christianity as science.
In the simplest of terms all political ideology, all philosophy, and theology attempts to construct some sort of scam to avoid paying the psychological cost of adherence to physical, natural, and evolutionary laws.
I should just automate this response: (A) Not an argument. (B) GSRRM because you don’t have one, (C) This is Twitter – ultra-short form. (D) And intro to behavioral economics and natural law must use simple examples that newbs can intuit. Go here for GSRRM: BTW: http://naturallawinstitute.com/2020/05/31/what-does-gsrrm-stand-for-full-version/
That’s what frustrates me. Everything good in Xianity can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And it’s SCIENTIFICALLY TRUE. But for some reason people feel this desperate need for woo that is just incomprehensible to the rest of us. Yeah. We need some kinda church. Not lies.
[They] always lie. Because the world fantasy tey desire is impossible except in their imaginations and justified by social construction, in competition with daily falsification in reality.
There isn’t any difference between left, libertarian, and right NPCs. The question isn’t whether we have free will, but just how hard and rare it is not to be a bot for your genes, repeating the hoots and whistles of your gene pool.
Androgeny to males is equal to giving it away to females. Same issue, same response. Discounts the market.
Women are attracted to their value of men, but more so to the power of women – power that they can follow, imitate, and master. Women are emotional and psychological puppeteers on one end and social superpredators on the other. Men are just resources as women are just objects. Only about 1/3 of men even exist in women’s mental world. Men are not even objects. They are potential resources or they’re threats. Women choose the best men they can get while still puppeteering. And are more driven by keeping those men from others than having them themselves.