Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

The op is true

The op is true.

Source date (UTC): 2019-11-30 18:28:31 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200844068512813056

Reply addressees: @DegenRolf

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200843982126952448

IN REPLY TO:

Unknown author

@DegenRolf If any statement in psychology, social science, law, ethics, politics, is incompatible or in conflict with those laws, then it’s false.

Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1200843982126952448

IN REPLY TO:

@curtdoolittle

@DegenRolf If any statement in psychology, social science, law, ethics, politics, is incompatible or in conflict with those laws, then it’s false.

Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1200843982126952448

November 30, 2019
who is that directed to?

who is that directed to?

Source date (UTC): 2019-11-30 15:50:00 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200804177632530434

Reply addressees: @KSSS

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200802246021275649

IN REPLY TO:

@KSSS

it’s that you first mischaracterize the WHOLE LIBERATION PROJECT which makes it so easy to tear down https://t.co/lQTMlOlsHk

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200802246021275649

November 30, 2019
I don’t understand the question, and how it relates to the statements

I don’t understand the question, and how it relates to the statements.

Source date (UTC): 2019-11-30 15:49:18 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200804000779710465

Reply addressees: @Bantz_Rayder

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200803778443661312

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/1200803778443661312

November 30, 2019
answer

answer: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=518638205399741&id=100017606988153

Source date (UTC): 2019-11-30 15:48:46 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200803868277383169

Reply addressees: @ArturBooth

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200798698000801793

IN REPLY TO:

@ArturBooth

@curtdoolittle When was the first destruction, by the way? And is it going to be a trilogy? Because I don’t want to spend money unnecessary right now, you know, I didn’t make millions of ca$h while Rome was burning, like some did.

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200798698000801793

November 30, 2019
VIA ARISTOTLE’S METAPHYSICAL MODEL by Andrew M Gilmour I’m not sure this will be

VIA ARISTOTLE’S METAPHYSICAL MODEL

by Andrew M Gilmour

I’m not sure this will be of any use to you but I expanded Aristotle’s metaphysical model to help myself understand them.

In keeping with truth equals that which exists, and each layer being predicated on the previous one; I came up with this model:

Empirical and Analytical:

1. Ontic (4 categories of existence)

2. Epistemic (perceiving, awareness of)

3. Semiotic(?) (methodology, language is the first method, but includes everything in standard epistemology not included in the epistemic category)

4. Semantic

5. Ethic

(CD: “Supply”, Masculine )

Leftists uses the mirror opposite model.

Social and verbal (social constructivism):

1. Ethic (X is good, I like X)

2. Semantic (all definitions are defined how I value them)

3. Semiotic (all methods are arbitrary)

4. Epistemic (perception and awareness come after: feelings, definitions, and methods) They are not aware of anything that hasn’t passed through the first 3 levels.

5. Ontic (only after this completely backward process can a thing be said to exist)

(CD: “Demand”, Feminine )

This seems to be the operational structure behind these two modes of being. Unfailingly when I read a leftist argument, I find the methodology procedes from the ethic or (false) definition.

They’ve always used this model, only now it has a name.

Source date (UTC): 2019-11-30 15:26:00 UTC

November 30, 2019
READ, AND UNDERSTAND, WHAT IS “WRONG” TODAY

READ, AND UNDERSTAND, WHAT IS “WRONG” TODAY https://t.co/EvCuZyr8QS

Source date (UTC): 2019-11-30 15:25:24 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200797987993276416

November 30, 2019
(worth repeating)

(worth repeating) https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1200785072141557760

Source date (UTC): 2019-11-30 14:34:24 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200785150713446400

https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1200785072141557760

November 30, 2019
It would be nice to see some evidence. 😉

It would be nice to see some evidence. 😉

Source date (UTC): 2019-11-30 14:14:01 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200780022103060480

Reply addressees: @WALLABEEDON

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200696554085965824

IN REPLY TO:

@WALLABEEDON

@curtdoolittle No.

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200696554085965824

November 30, 2019
( Michael Churchill If you still want that book I think it’s about there. )

( Michael Churchill If you still want that book I think it’s about there. )

Source date (UTC): 2019-11-30 09:11:00 UTC

November 30, 2019
Inappropriate (too true) for Facebook. Moved to Site

Inappropriate (too true) for Facebook. Moved to Site.

http://propertarianism.com/2019/11/30/bret-weinstein-is-selling-false-promises/

Source date (UTC): 2019-11-30 03:29:55 UTC

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200617931127713794

Reply addressees: @eruditenights @BretWeinstein

Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200606676623118336

IN REPLY TO:

@eruditenights

@curtdoolittle @BretWeinstein Getting link broken here

Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1200606676623118336

November 30, 2019