(Abortion is the ‘hard case’ since (a) child has no choice, (b) yes it’s murder (b) women killed more children in history than men killed men (c) we execute people for cause (d) and our court has wrongly decided that ‘murder is ok’ rather than making a local preference.)
Reply addressees: @TruthQuest11 @Nationalist7346 @victorkfranco @Ozpin_88
Form: Argument
-
(Abortion is the ‘hard case’ since (a) child has no choice, (b) yes it’s murder
-
(Abortion is the ‘hard case’ since (a) child has no choice, (b) yes it’s murder
(Abortion is the ‘hard case’ since (a) child has no choice, (b) yes it’s murder (b) women killed more children in history than men killed men (c) we execute people for cause (d) and our court has wrongly decided that ‘murder is ok’ rather than making a local preference.)
Source date (UTC): 2020-07-25 04:09:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1286876097532104704
Reply addressees: @TruthQuest11 @Nationalist7346 @victorkfranco @Ozpin_88
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1286871483172749312
-
“I believe in god” is very likely a truthful statement – and you can testify to
“I believe in god” is very likely a truthful statement – and you can testify to it. Although I can almost always demonstrate that you don’t.
“God exists”, “there is only one god”, cannot be. 😉 I can always demonstrate you can’t. 😉
Reply addressees: @victorkfranco @TruthQuest11 @Nationalist7346 @Ozpin_88 -
“I believe in god” is very likely a truthful statement – and you can testify to
“I believe in god” is very likely a truthful statement – and you can testify to it. Although I can almost always demonstrate that you don’t.
“God exists”, “there is only one god”, cannot be. 😉 I can always demonstrate you can’t. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2020-07-25 01:35:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1286837558123671552
Reply addressees: @victorkfranco @TruthQuest11 @Nationalist7346 @Ozpin_88
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1286827805162876928
-
I AM AND P IS NOT ANTI-CHRISTIAN – BUT ANTI-ABRAHAMIC. 1. I am not anti christia
I AM AND P IS NOT ANTI-CHRISTIAN – BUT ANTI-ABRAHAMIC.
1. I am not anti christian, I’m a jeffersonian Christian. Meaning jesus was a philosopher speaking in the language of parables that his people could understand. So jesus spoke in their wisdom literature: Abrahamism (false promise to obtain obedience). It may have been all he knew. But his lesson can be disentangled from the Abrahamic Deceit he preached with, just like it can be translated from Aramaic into Greek, Roman, Latins, Germanic, and English.
As for God, I may intuit deism, but in my job as a judge I cannot testify to it, and all evidence continues the trend of a universe lacking any agent.
As for My god, it’s definitely the god of my people: tiwaz, tyr, odin/thor, zeus, jupiter, an I ‘worship’ a lot of ‘gods’.
Why? Because our civilization has always been trifunctional: War, Law, and Faith. And My priority is War, Law, Faith. Because that is the hierarchy of dependency. Others don’t have this priority – because THEY CAN”T DO IT. I understand. But all of us have this set of priorities. We just don’t sit down and educate ourselves on our priorities and the moral intuitions that result from them.
2. Nor is P anti-Christian. In P, Jesus extended natural law into a via-positiva. That’s SCIENCE. This means Jesus is in the pantheon of European heroes – as a Philosopher. And philosophers are worthy of worship (respect). Because all gods of all sorts that we worship consist of information and they produce behaviors in us just as if they were still among us.
3. I am and P is, anti-Abrahamic, which to a Christian means anti-theological, anti-supernatural. To supernatural Christians, this is a contradiction. To those of us who seek only wisdom, it’s not the supernaturalists who practice contradictions. This is the conflict between Law and Faith. When faith claims theology, reason, and argument, and intrudes on truth and the law rather than faith.
4. I have contempt for Christians but my contempt isn’t for Jesus. It’s for cowards hiding behind his skirts while claiming virtue. Jesus didn’t hide. Jesus showed up. And he took the hit. I don’t see (many) xians showing up. I see them undermining – like leftists.
5. I have contempt for cowardice and most of Christianity that is visible to me is cowardly. Now I don’t care if you believe in magic if it doesn’t affect business, economics, politics, or war. I don’t really care of you abandon reality and live in a primitive fictional drama world – if you still show up for work and get the job done. And I don’t care what reason you choose to show up and fight for your people.
6. But so far, all I see from Christians is “I wanna play by magic rules or I’m gonna go home and help Rome Fall Again.” So instead I challenge Christians to prove historians wrong: prove that Christians weren’t responsible for the fall and failure to restore Rome. Weren’t responsible for the dark ages of ignorance and superstition. And instead man up, shut up, and show up.
7. I’m contemptuous of those who seek refuge on the right among men who put action in reality and joy of life before doing nothing, and worship of death. You hide behind Christian skirts, hide behind better men’s bravery, hide behind better men’s achievements, and do nothing except demand coddling like women.
8. I’m contemptuous of deniers, liars and sophists that were responsible for undermining the ancient world, and responsible aiding our enemies in our current condition. Christians have been communists for all of history. The only reason they bend Right is Marxism-Postmodernism a more influential cult. They shifted from supernatural false promise after death, to pseudoscientific false promise after revolution in the present world.
9. I’m contemptuous of pretense that the Christian alliance with the right hasn’t been a disaster – Christians aren’t Right – they oppose the right. They always have. Church-Christianity (Churchanity) is the counter-revolution against the martial aristocracy. They’re historically and presently leftists. They use the female means of disapproval. They use the female means of argument. They put approval before truth. they put conformity before adaptability. They put safety and security before achievement. They don’t show for defense of the polity, don’t show for counter-protests.
10. Islamism is a better historical supernatural religion of undermining host peoples, and Marxism is a better present pseudoscientific version of Judaism. Postmodernism and political correctness are just a better present version of Christianity. But fundamentally, whether you practice Islam or Islamism, Judaism or marxism, Christianity or postmodernism, you are still practicing the female method of undermining, and the Abrahamic method of deceit to do it.
11. The weak will turn on us no matter what we do. and as we have seen the majority of those that turn on us are Christians, because Christianity uses the same values and techniques as the left.
12. There is nothing that will bring Christians other than the cover of men who don’t put religion first but people and results first. If the dominance of faith must be greater than the dominance of people first, the dominance of law second, and faith third, then these people are merely walking hand mental grenades (I was just in a revolution. You know who fights? Men who like fighting. You know who those men hide among for cover? Christians chanting.)
13. I must break the concept that I am P. I am not, any more than darwin was evolution, einstein relativity. I just discovered it. I am not someone the grunts will follow. worse, I can be destroyed like every other ‘leader’. P cannot be a heroic leader cult no matter how badly people want it. It has to be an idea. That idea is pretty simple and concrete now.
14. We must attract men who will act for the policies, and let the others fill in if we have the numbers. A popular movement is impossible. A ‘loyalty’ (elite) movement is possible, and the grunts will follow the elites if there are numbers.
15. We need to recruit ‘a few good men’ and say what that means. That few good men needs to be ‘enough’.
Truth is enough. And I cannot compromise on the truth.
Source date (UTC): 2020-07-24 22:03:00 UTC
-
1) Show me any evidence in history that law must be justified? 2) If P is false
1) Show me any evidence in history that law must be justified?
2) If P is false then falsify reciprocity as providing decidability in matters of conflict.
3) If P is false then falsify the P-Truth checklist.
4) P explains lang, psych. soc. law, as extensions of physical laws.
Source date (UTC): 2020-07-24 11:54:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1286630947966853121
Reply addressees: @victorkfranco @Ozpin_88 @Nationalist7346 @TruthQuest11
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1286514642785677312
-
1) Show me any evidence in history that law must be justified? 2) If P is false
1) Show me any evidence in history that law must be justified?
2) If P is false then falsify reciprocity as providing decidability in matters of conflict.
3) If P is false then falsify the P-Truth checklist.
4) P explains lang, psych. soc. law, as extensions of physical laws.
Reply addressees: @victorkfranco @Ozpin_88 @Nationalist7346 @TruthQuest11 -
Q&A: POSITION ON FEMINISM AND PATRIARCHY? (Note: Impulsive boys demand certainty
Q&A: POSITION ON FEMINISM AND PATRIARCHY?
(Note: Impulsive boys demand certainty – patient men understand human determinism)
—“Where does P stand on feminism and patriarchy”—
1) “FEMINISM: the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.”
EQUALITY IN THE LAW:
The only equality is in our necessary equality before the law, in matters of dispute resolution. This is the only equality that does and must exist.
OTHERWISE INEQUALITY
“Males and females divide the reproductive, sensory, perceptive, cognitive, advocacy, and labor of a civilization by population and time, with females in the shorter term and between individuals, and males in the longer term between polities.”
This division of labor is rather obvious because men generally allow women to control their female relative’s reproduction, and men’s reproduction is limited by the pool of available females in the polity, and the male polity’s ability to maintain a quality stock of females, who will happily defect to other men or polities (hypergamy) if it’s in their individual advantage, regardless of the cost to the polity (males).
CONSEQUENCES
We demonstrate inequality in our abilities, preference, and interests, and this inequality of ability, preference, and interests favors empathy, consumption, the interpersonal, and social among females, versus empiricism, capitalization, the economic, political, and military among males – and the more liberty we have to express those inequalities in our abilities, interests, and preferences the more we bias to pursue them.
The evolutionary and competitive value of adversarial competition is demonstrably a majority male bias, reinforced by loyalty at the cost of adaptability to different groups.. The evolutionary and competitive value of consensus-seeking internally to any group is demonstrably a majority female bias – though lacking any loyalty, but grater individual adaptability to different groups.
Men and women coddle women for evolutionary reasons. And Women drive down adversarial competition in all organizations so that they can tolerate participation. This is why women drive down the competitive advantage of innovative and capitalizing organizations, and drive up the uncompetitive costs of accommodation and consumption. This is why any industry women enter into and become a majority declines in innovation, income, and associated prestige.
It’s why women are generally put in charge of organizations where the men can’t agree on a direction (holding place), are or in organizations in decline (provide cover), or are purely symbolic (appearances). And so few women (though they do exist) are at the top.
In the military, in any non-administrative, non-medical role – women drive down adversarial competition, largely put men at risk in combat, in jobs better done by men, have more job opportunities elsewhere, and so consume resources and jobs for men without those opportunities, and are wasting prime reproductive value. (period).
CONCLUSION
Forced integration prevents market from doing its job of teaching us the truth. The market solves these problems just fine if we let the market solve them. Forced integration of the sexes has been as damaging as forced integration of the races.
Equality under the law is the only necessary or desirable equality.
2) “PATRIARCHY: a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. Or, a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.”
My position is well documented, that there is value in a ‘house’ for any class with divergent interests, and that military, economic(biz, industry, capital), labor(salaried, hourly), and reproductive (female) houses force exchanges between the classes.
So we identify the political problem of enfranchising both labor and women without providing them with separate houses, so that the classes can negotiate trades, rather than parties which race to the bottom.
And that these differences are common sense and there is little evidence that constitutional monarchies hiring a professional cabinet, with voters limited to veto of appropriations, aren’t better than democracies – which as always, crash and burn.
In our constitution, we lay out the options for government given the demographics and economy and the polity can choose.
Source date (UTC): 2020-07-24 09:30:00 UTC
-
No the Constitution and Anglo Law are Not Philosophical but Empirical
NO THE CONSTITUTION AND ANGLO LAW RE NOT PHILOSOPHICAL BUT EMPIRICAL
—“What is the significance of a philosophical approach to the constitution?”—
1 – Contrary to popular belief, the constitution is not a philosophical document. 2 – Contrary to popular belief, the common law is not a philosophical discipline. 3 – The natural law of tort (demonstrated interests) is purely empirical (scientific). It’s not philosophical. Philosophers only sought to explain it. We discovered it by adjudicating differences in order to end conflicts and to ‘keep the peace’ meaning ‘cooperation between members of the community’ – in particular to prevent retaliation cycles (feuds). This is why the first laws do not state the law, they only standardize punishments – because the law existed, everyone knew the laws – they’re common sense. But the variation in punishments created retaliation cycles (feuds). A standard punishment demands the community enforce the punishment as ‘settlement of differences’ and ensure both parties against further feuds. 4 – This law is predicated on self-determination, individual sovereignty to achieve it, reciprocity to maintain it, jury and court to decide it, and markets in all aspects of life as a consequence of it. (This is what other civs can’t do – get past familism or tribalism) 5 – The constitution presumes the common law (not positive law), and articulates a market for the production of commons. It’s just another marketplace. 6 – The constitution contains processes for transactional modification of that marketplace. The bill of rights shouldn’t be necessary (and many of the founders didn’t think so) but their failure was to define the common law sufficiently that rights weren’t necessary. 7 – A constitution is a contract that produces a ledger for transactions under the rule of law of natural law of tort. it’s a recipe for running a legal accounting system, for the production of contracts under the natural law of tort. The ‘philosophical’ claims about the constitution are relatively recent attempts to undermine it and end rule of law. It’s the most boring empirical system known by man – which is why no other people in the world have constitutions – only ‘documents of nice words’.
-
No the Constitution and Anglo Law are Not Philosophical but Empirical
NO THE CONSTITUTION AND ANGLO LAW RE NOT PHILOSOPHICAL BUT EMPIRICAL
—“What is the significance of a philosophical approach to the constitution?”—
1 – Contrary to popular belief, the constitution is not a philosophical document. 2 – Contrary to popular belief, the common law is not a philosophical discipline. 3 – The natural law of tort (demonstrated interests) is purely empirical (scientific). It’s not philosophical. Philosophers only sought to explain it. We discovered it by adjudicating differences in order to end conflicts and to ‘keep the peace’ meaning ‘cooperation between members of the community’ – in particular to prevent retaliation cycles (feuds). This is why the first laws do not state the law, they only standardize punishments – because the law existed, everyone knew the laws – they’re common sense. But the variation in punishments created retaliation cycles (feuds). A standard punishment demands the community enforce the punishment as ‘settlement of differences’ and ensure both parties against further feuds. 4 – This law is predicated on self-determination, individual sovereignty to achieve it, reciprocity to maintain it, jury and court to decide it, and markets in all aspects of life as a consequence of it. (This is what other civs can’t do – get past familism or tribalism) 5 – The constitution presumes the common law (not positive law), and articulates a market for the production of commons. It’s just another marketplace. 6 – The constitution contains processes for transactional modification of that marketplace. The bill of rights shouldn’t be necessary (and many of the founders didn’t think so) but their failure was to define the common law sufficiently that rights weren’t necessary. 7 – A constitution is a contract that produces a ledger for transactions under the rule of law of natural law of tort. it’s a recipe for running a legal accounting system, for the production of contracts under the natural law of tort. The ‘philosophical’ claims about the constitution are relatively recent attempts to undermine it and end rule of law. It’s the most boring empirical system known by man – which is why no other people in the world have constitutions – only ‘documents of nice words’.