Curt Doolittle

Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

  • We had laws against scolds (what you’re doing), and under the duel you would be

    We had laws against scolds (what you’re doing), and under the duel you would be silenced by threat, and until mid 20th you would be silenced by defamation laws for your action. When, in retrospect, this is a group strategy of females, jews, muslims and christians: undermining.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 20:27:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174057349197258752

    Reply addressees: @Simon_Whitten

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174056778583162880

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Simon_Whitten I mean, you don’t know that you’re doing it right now. You think (as would all cognitively female humans) that you’re making an argument but you’re just engaging in reputation destruction rather than argument, and from a position of presumption bias and ignorance.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174056778583162880

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Simon_Whitten I mean, you don’t know that you’re doing it right now. You think (as would all cognitively female humans) that you’re making an argument but you’re just engaging in reputation destruction rather than argument, and from a position of presumption bias and ignorance.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174056778583162880

  • Abortion? Ok. One Immoral Trade for Another.

    —“I have been fighting for reproductive rights for over 40 years, yet some forced birthers still appear to think that their justifications (exclusively religiously based) are so persuasive they will magically change my mind. Save your emails people, I’ve heard ’em all.”—Jane Caro @JaneCaro

    An excellent example of Pilpul (Sophism). So, you want to restore the right of mothers alone to kill fetuses, just as women have killed newborns, and young children for thousands of years by exposure, suffocation, and strangulation when they were too much of a burden. Women have murdered more children then all the wars of men combined. In fact, women’s murder of children is outdone only to the great plagues and Islamic conquest. But let’s not pretend it’s not murder. It is. It’s just justifiable murder in a woman’s eyes. How about a trade? End alimony and child support in exchange for juridical license to murder before their born, rather than after? Restore man’s choice if we are going to restore woman’s? That is a Just trade. Men want their offspring and their genetic lines to survive because they have no other choice. Women don’t want the burden of bearing, birthing, surrendering to adoption, or caring. If women will not pay to birth them then men should not pay to raise them. That is a reciprocal exchange. Trade license for one immorality for another. Or is your moralizing just a shallow attempt to obscure the underlying costs and privileges? Are you just seeking another privilege for women at another cost born by men?    

  • Abortion? Ok. One Immoral Trade for Another.

    —“I have been fighting for reproductive rights for over 40 years, yet some forced birthers still appear to think that their justifications (exclusively religiously based) are so persuasive they will magically change my mind. Save your emails people, I’ve heard ’em all.”—Jane Caro @JaneCaro

    An excellent example of Pilpul (Sophism). So, you want to restore the right of mothers alone to kill fetuses, just as women have killed newborns, and young children for thousands of years by exposure, suffocation, and strangulation when they were too much of a burden. Women have murdered more children then all the wars of men combined. In fact, women’s murder of children is outdone only to the great plagues and Islamic conquest. But let’s not pretend it’s not murder. It is. It’s just justifiable murder in a woman’s eyes. How about a trade? End alimony and child support in exchange for juridical license to murder before their born, rather than after? Restore man’s choice if we are going to restore woman’s? That is a Just trade. Men want their offspring and their genetic lines to survive because they have no other choice. Women don’t want the burden of bearing, birthing, surrendering to adoption, or caring. If women will not pay to birth them then men should not pay to raise them. That is a reciprocal exchange. Trade license for one immorality for another. Or is your moralizing just a shallow attempt to obscure the underlying costs and privileges? Are you just seeking another privilege for women at another cost born by men?    

  • But let’s not pretend it’s not murder. It is. It’s just justifiable murder in a

    But let’s not pretend it’s not murder. It is. It’s just justifiable murder in a woman’s eyes. How about a trade? End alimony and child support in exchange for juridical license to murder before their born, rather than after?Restore man’s choice if we are going to restore woman’s.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 18:44:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174031347469430785

    Reply addressees: @JaneCaro

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174030835361755136

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @JaneCaro Excellent example of Pilpul (Sophism). You want to restore the right to kill fetuses, just as women have killed newborns, and young children for thousands of years by exposure, suffocation, and strangulation. Women have murdered more children then all the wars of men combined.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174030835361755136

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @JaneCaro Excellent example of Pilpul (Sophism). You want to restore the right to kill fetuses, just as women have killed newborns, and young children for thousands of years by exposure, suffocation, and strangulation. Women have murdered more children then all the wars of men combined.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174030835361755136

  • Read this today: “How to Become a Federal Criminal: An Illustrated Handbook for

    Read this today:

    “How to Become a Federal Criminal: An Illustrated Handbook for the Aspiring Offender”

    Simon and Schuster Digital Sales Inc

    Took about twenty minutes. Collection of absurd legislation and regulation. Supposed to be funny. But not.

    99% of law is not in fact ‘law’ but findings and application of the law. And because these findings and applications of law have no means of expiry they don’t vaporize.

    1. The law can’t change. There is only one: reciprocity.

    2. A constitution’s articles provide organizations and processes for administering that law.

    3. A constitutional Amendments include rights constructed under the law under the constitution.

    4. legislation can only exist of contract between members of the polity to produce a commons, and all contracts must

    expire either in time or when the objective is concluded.

    5. Regulation is dependent upon the legislation it seeks to enforce by prior or post constraint.

    6. Findings of the court are dependent upon regulation, legislation, rights, and of course, the law itself.

    In other words, there must be a surviving chain of relations for findings, regulation, legislation, rights, constitution, and the law.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 17:08:00 UTC

  • Rule of Law, Truthful (testimonial) Public Speech, Economics(cherry picking), Ma

    Rule of Law, Truthful (testimonial) Public Speech, Economics(cherry picking), Mathematics (DSGEM), Demographic Distribution(IQ), Heterogeneity(conflict), Family Formation, Intergenerational Family, Class, Gender, Eugenics. Or simply: full accounting of changes human capital. …

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 13:56:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173959016445296640

    Reply addressees: @Brian_Alford @DineshDSouza

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173956359676559361

    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/1173956359676559361

  • Correct. Rule of law requires juridical defense, reciprocity, non retroactivity,

    Correct. Rule of law requires juridical defense, reciprocity, non retroactivity, universal application, and universal standing. The state gradually disintermediated the people and the courts. Depriving the people of Juridical Defense – and with Judicial Review, ended Rule of Law.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 20:33:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173696531981099008

    Reply addressees: @pnw_rider @JohnMarkSays

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173693284658667520

    IN REPLY TO:

    @pnw_rider

    @JohnMarkSays the thing that really concerns me is the lack of justice. We have a set of laws that don’t apply to the government people and elite and another for everyone else Epstein, LV shooting report , Hilary, Learner , FBI, DOJ , Tech, NXIVM etc https://t.co/ncT4NwidBO

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173693284658667520

  • We Must Accumulate Law like we do Accounting Entries

    We Must Accumulate Law like we do Accounting Entries. https://propertarianism.com/2019/09/16/we-must-accumulate-law-like-we-do-accounting-entries/

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 19:12:17 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173675996135993344

  • We Must Accumulate Law like we do Accounting Entries.

    AI will probably lie a lot, because so many games require that, but it’s not unrealistic to think it will lie less to itself. …  Humans are trapped at a cognitive level that depends upon buying into their own bullshit. … They’re generally so bad at lying they have to become deception zombies. – Nick Land (Outsideness)

    The degree to which we are dependent upon whatever set of paradigms in whatever set of narratives, we use for our network of decidability, is something between humbling and humiliating – which only increases my conviction that we must accumulate Law like we do accounting entries. Debits (acts) and Credits (revisions) continuously trying to maintain a positive balance sheet of human behavior, shipping new products of law as fast as parasites invent new means of imposing costs upon others.

  • We Must Accumulate Law like we do Accounting Entries.

    AI will probably lie a lot, because so many games require that, but it’s not unrealistic to think it will lie less to itself. …  Humans are trapped at a cognitive level that depends upon buying into their own bullshit. … They’re generally so bad at lying they have to become deception zombies. – Nick Land (Outsideness)

    The degree to which we are dependent upon whatever set of paradigms in whatever set of narratives, we use for our network of decidability, is something between humbling and humiliating – which only increases my conviction that we must accumulate Law like we do accounting entries. Debits (acts) and Credits (revisions) continuously trying to maintain a positive balance sheet of human behavior, shipping new products of law as fast as parasites invent new means of imposing costs upon others.