I can easily tell that you’re moral and intellectually honest so I don’t really want to push back on you. Moral and intellectually honest are enough.This conversation is above your pay grade though and I’d ask you to just ‘listen in’ for six months and see if you benefit from it.
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-01 19:28:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322983966295642112
Reply addressees: @albademiks
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322983364748546048
What did you just say to me? You just told me you weren’t my research assistant.
Welcome to Reciprocity.,
It’s hard but you might eventually understand 😉
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-01 19:24:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322982808051134465
Reply addressees: @UtopiumTinkerer
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322979680971010061
So you use it as an appeal to authority anyway?
I do formal, physical, natural, and evolutionary science (laws). If you want midwit argument then find someone else’s time to waste.
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-01 19:22:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322982272853807105
Reply addressees: @albademiks
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322981045621477377
See? The is what happens. I post for smart people and stupid people, especially overconfident, island 120 male midwits, who are much greater in number, than those of us over 130 pollute the informational commons and destroy the discourse. I’m patient but I learned -ban them fast.
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-01 19:20:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322981893940355072
Well, I can’t help you there son.. appeal to authority is the last refuge of liars, cowards, and imbeciles. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-01 19:15:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322980613545144320
Reply addressees: @albademiks
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322979695328169984
Can’t fault you. You’re operating from a presumption that’s the least bad until recently. P-Law is complete. Fully decidable formal, operational logic of langauge, psychology, sociology, ethics, law, politics, group strategy, and aesthetics.
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-01 18:52:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322974911204347907
Reply addressees: @mailmanposts
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322972478583369728
You know you have this really bad habit of presuming you know what you’re talking about. 😉
So (a) you use your definition when there are at least four, (b) you choose to argue from the most false of them (c) and then you strawman from the most false position.
Typical.
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-01 18:49:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322974063506137090
Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322973089777344512
Libertarians are always wrong. It’s pseudoscientific philosophy not political science – and it is so for very good reason – because it doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny.
Study our work on natural law. If you disagree then by definition you’re engaging in fraud.
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-01 18:42:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322972239520813057
(I think you think that made sense, but I can’t make sense of it. ) 😉
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-01 18:39:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322971541953499139
Reply addressees: @RantinArkansan
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322971077375598592
aside from grammatical incoherence, could you try to explain that? Because I think you are using platonic ideals rather than scientific reals. 🙂 usually the market of (((libertarian))) indoctrination.
Source date (UTC): 2020-11-01 18:39:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322971433463668739
Reply addressees: @UtopiumTinkerer
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322970767290748930