Form: Argument

  • “What was the reasoning that led to pening european and american borders to immi

    –“What was the reasoning that led to pening european and american borders to immigrants?”–

    Answer:
    Economic Exploitation, Political Manipulation, Demographic manipulation, and Ideological Globalism:

    Economic Exploitation:

    Cheap Labor: Rather than addressing labor shortages out of necessity for growth, immigration might have been encouraged to keep wages low and profits high by exploiting immigrants who were often willing to work for less under harsh conditions. This perspective sees immigration policies as a means to keep the workforce compliant and underpaid.

    Depression of Local Wages: Immigrants could also be seen as competitors for jobs, potentially driving down wages for everyone, which benefits employers more than the economy as a whole.

    Political Manipulation:

    Vote-Bank Politics: Political entities might have seen immigrants as future voters who could be swayed by parties or politicians offering them rights or support, thus using immigration as a tool for political gain rather than for humanitarian or economic integration.

    Refugee Policies as Political Statements: Accepting refugees could be interpreted as a way for countries to score political points on the global stage, demonstrating moral superiority or commitment to certain ideological battles, rather than a genuine effort to help those in need.

    Demographic Manipulation:

    Cultural Dilution: From a pessimistic viewpoint, opening borders could be seen as a strategy to dilute or change the cultural, ethnic, or racial makeup of a nation, potentially leading to social tensions or loss of national identity.

    Cultural and Ideological Conflicts:
    Selective Integration: While nations might celebrate being built by immigrants, there’s a darker side where certain groups might not be welcomed as warmly, leading to selective immigration where only those who can quickly assimilate or are from ‘preferred’ backgrounds are encouraged.

    Globalization’s Dark Side:

    Economic Dumping Ground: Countries might open their borders not out of benevolence but because they see an opportunity to offload surplus population from other countries, essentially treating immigration as a way to manage global population distribution without addressing root causes like conflict, poverty, or environmental degradation.

    Neocolonialism: Immigration could also be viewed as a new form of colonialism where labor is imported from less developed countries to serve the economic interests of developed nations, continuing a cycle of dependency and exploitation.

    This view frames immigration policies as potentially self-serving, focusing on the negatives like exploitation, cultural erosion, and political manipulation, rather than the positive aspects of cultural enrichment, economic growth, and humanitarian aid.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-12 15:49:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1856362518794608640

  • What he fails to understand: Under common law, and under our common law, he is l

    What he fails to understand:
    Under common law, and under our common law, he is liable for the consequences of his actions. There is no escape. The fact that we haven’t prosecuted people like him YET, doesn’t mean we won’t prosecute them in the future – because those people who…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-11 00:11:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1855765366963949631

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1855762946112024832

  • The historical evidence is that serial monogamy was the norm until property and

    The historical evidence is that serial monogamy was the norm until property and density causing atomization and alienation made it both necessary for individuals and societies as a whole.

    But given that trajectory it’s the combination of the law with birth control and possibility of workforce participation.

    But again that said as illustrated in my post, restoring the legal incentives wold restore the social stability

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-10 20:58:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1855716777743056896

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1855677297346400687

  • There is zero chance no fault divorce, alimony, and child support will survive t

    There is zero chance no fault divorce, alimony, and child support will survive the decade. So sorry, yes, those things are going to happen.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-11-10 18:04:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1855672938881794246

    Reply addressees: @Jake88777

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1855536803811405975

  • Christianity (via positiva) and Natural Law (via negativa) are compatible as lon

    Christianity (via positiva) and Natural Law (via negativa) are compatible as long as we follow Aquinas’ repetition of delivery unto caesar (natural law) and god (christianity). The problem arises when we seek to state scripture or dogma as other than wisdom that can be expressed in the natural law by the science. IN other words teaching and advising (christianity) is different from resolving conflict and deciding (natural law).
    I can see christian ethics surviving as as natural law (via negativa) combined with christian via positiva in legal prose. But we cannot solve the problem of differences in ‘authority’ between the fundamentalists (from god directly), traditionalists (The evidence of christian ethics is overwhelmingly positive), and scientists (it doesn’t matter how god exists because the natural laws and the laws of nature and christian ethics are the same.)
    Belief is not possible by more than 2/3 of the population. It requires early indoctrination, constant familial and social reinforcement, as well as genetics of trait agreeableness and higher empathizing that systematizing. So any unification of our people requires we express our rules in testifiable legal form – which is the tradition throughout history.

    Reply addressees: @ErectusRex @Aarvoll_


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-25 19:18:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1849893227366842370

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1849888303715074331

  • ps: ‘burdening the courts’, even if true, is hardly a reason to the continued un

    ps: ‘burdening the courts’, even if true, is hardly a reason to the continued undermining of our civilization by the industrialization of false promise, pseudoscience, wishful thinking, deceit, and sedition.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-24 15:49:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1849478288705716425

    Reply addressees: @BVanzytveld @MiriamEckhart @Sassafrass_84

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1849472359662842124

  • It takes on average eight to ten years for policy like this: “prohibiting lying

    It takes on average eight to ten years for policy like this: “prohibiting lying in public, to the public, in matters public” to work it’s way through the institutions and culture whether political, economic, or normative. It will work. It’s just an extension of commercial constraints on advertising to political constraints on propaganda.

    And your opinion is rational given your knowledge, but I (we) specialize in this subject, and unfortunately, in the vast science of lying, so it’s far easier than you’d think once you understand it. It’s understanding it in the first place given the history of thought on ‘truth’ that’s been the problem.

    (Sarcasm: Look what’s been done with ‘pronouns’ without legal enforcement. 😉 )

    Reply addressees: @BVanzytveld @MiriamEckhart @Sassafrass_84


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-24 15:48:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1849478034723831808

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1849472359662842124

  • “Either way, complicating an argument willingly is still not good, isn’t it?”–

    –“Either way, complicating an argument willingly is still not good, isn’t it?”–

    The opposite is true. Since it’s falsification that determines the truth content of a set of claims, and that justification like conflation determines the deceptive content of a set of claims, we can only falsify the set of alternatives sufficiently to leave a claim standing, which requires a breadth of supporting arguments necessary to do so.

    Since all but a fraction of humans have difficulty with other than single cause sequences, and no one below a certain threshold is capable of even one logical reversal, it means that without those of greater konwledge and ability assisting others in a descending hierarchy combined with those in the ascending hierarchy supplying ‘problems’ then the vast majority of people are incapable of significant thought other than mere imitation of what tactical influences that percolate through the commentariat.

    In other words (a) if we cannot agree on existence (b) if we cannot agree on scarcity, (c) if we cannot agree on teh good because of in-time experience vs over-time consequence, (d) if we cannot agree on demonstrated human behavior as self interested and acquisitional (e) if we cannot agree on neoteny, genetic load, natural selection, and its necessity then (f) we cannot possibly agree on anything else because those are the premises upon which all subsequent argument are dependent.

    This is the importance of shared understanding – a system of weights and measures reflecting the group evolutionary strategy of the population in response to others and the environment and the laws of nature – then we cannot seek compromises and trades (cooperation) and we are doomed to authoritarianism, civil war, or separation.

    My suggestion is that we emphasize separation (“Let a thousand nations bloom”) since there is no need to agree or compromise except in proximity within a polity. And as such like europe, the USA is too large to share social and political ambitions, and there is no strategic or economic utility in doing so. LIkewise europe is discovering this now and it’s producing the end of the attempt of the french to create a “USA out of Europe” using incrementalism of the EU, the currency, and policy.

    My job, which I openly state, is to provide those with the ability to engage in questions of such moment with the tools to do so, such that they can provide answers to those less able but just as willing – and so that together they can suppress the industrialization of false promise and deceit that has marked the public discourse of post 1914 western civilization, and the attempt at reproducing soviet authority to produce feminine > abrahamic > marxist > postmodern > feminist > woke uniformity – despite that it’s universally suicidal.

    Affections
    CD

    Reply addressees: @_Itsmrfoxy_ @geekprofessor @LittleMammith


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 15:35:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843314296669007872

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843308920942829996

  • 1. To the OP I have explained the “epistemic” (science of) feminine left consumi

    1. To the OP I have explained the “epistemic” (science of) feminine left consuming in-time, masculine right capitalizing over time;

    2. –“Okay but what makes your “theory” more factual than this persons”–
    I answered your use of postmodern sophistry of relativism by stating a fact requires a theory – a hierarchy of theories.
    I provided the foundations of the theory of political differences as largely genetic, or like religion, by indoctrination.
    I suspect the depth of those two statements might be non obvious to you and require explanation.

    3. –“… use ad homin attacks and appeal to intellect …”–
    Because you begin with false premises of wants and your opposition begins with the masculine premise of demonstrated behavior, both of you think the other is lacking in intelligence, while you think them oppressive and they think you thieves (parasites). (BTW: no criticism, but it’s ad hominem, oft shortened to ad hom.)

    In summary its easy to call one another stupid when ones premises about the universe and mankind are polar opposites.

    However conservatives are demonstrably correct in human behavior, the four sets of laws of the universe, economics, and Law. Progressives are only correct about ambitions and feelings. Why? masculine systematizing over time vs feminine empathizing in time.

    ie: genetics.

    Reply addressees: @matherspolitico @NotKLM @Will63541 @KaleWontSaveYou @LittleMammith


    Source date (UTC): 2024-10-07 08:50:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843212168285548545

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1843205340352938170

  • Thomas couldn’t care less what you donate to him – he’ll adjudicate the law and

    Thomas couldn’t care less what you donate to him – he’ll adjudicate the law and more correctly and precisely than any justice other than perhaps Scalia, and certainly more so than any other justice who has seated the court. He is one of the best justices we have ever had. And one of the most moral men to hold office.
    Which is why he (and we) find your attempts at feminine gossiping,s haming, rallying and undermining childish. But then, that’s what it means to be a feminist or a leftist.

    Reply addressees: @DarrigoMelanie


    Source date (UTC): 2024-09-27 00:08:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1839457117973184512

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1839344876514947100