(worth repeating)
NO, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CANNOT BE A FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL, RIGHT.
(read it) (learn it) (share it) (rhetorical weaponry)
—“Religious freedom is a fundamental right”— The… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=298139600782937&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-27 17:43:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1045368450141605888
(worth repeating)
NO, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CANNOT BE A FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL, RIGHT.
(read it) (learn it) (share it) (rhetorical weaponry)
—“Religious freedom is a fundamental right”— The Heritage Foundation
This cannot logically be true. No fundamental right can exist if it violates natural law.
Religion must be compatible with Natural Law or it is not religion but politics in religious dress, or warfare in disguise, but not religion.
If a religion is incompatible with Natural Law, then it is the merger of politics and religion – yet defense of the separation of church and state is the reason for our tolerance of religions.
So it is a logical contradiction to state that religions that are incompatible with natural law can be claimed a natural right – that is to say there are not natural rights.
So I have come to disagree with freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Instead: Require Truthful Speech and Truthful Religion: Compatibility with Natural Law.
Religion remains truthful despite the use myth, parable, allegory, scripture and ritual, as long as it conveys truthful principles by those analogies: compatibility with natural law.
Christianity is compatible with Natural Law. Poly-moralism and Dualist ethics are not compatible with natural law.
Christianity advises us how to act in concert with natural law. Islam, Judaism, and a handful of others recommend actions an expressly counter to natural law. And they state that they contain laws – the Talmud and the
Christians have been tolerant of heresies and competing religions in order to prevent the mandate of a state religion, and therefore to protect natural law, and the independence of religious wisdom based upon natural law from harm by the folly of men.
Neither Christianity nor Natural Law prohibit us from the expurgation of immoral religions that violate natural law.
Nor are we prohibited from philosophies that violate natural law: had we defeated marxism-leninism earlier then we would have saved a hundred million souls from suffering.
We threw Islam out of western europa for its violence and immorality, and failed to throw it out of eastern europa, north Africa, and Byzantium. Look at what our failure wrought wherever we failed.
We are in the midst of throwing of the second great deceit after the forcible conversion of the romans: the pseudoscientific attempt at western colonization: boazian anthropology, freudian psychology, marxist sociology, cantorian mathematical platonism, marxist-keynesian correlative economics, enlightenment equality, and the philosophical corners of marxist socialism, trotskyist-straussian neo-conservatism, and randian-rothbardian libertinism, and neo-puritanism+postmodern-feminism.
And we have come into contact with the third wave, this time not by force (islamic conquest), not by religious conversion (jewish christianity), not by pseudoscientific conversion (jewish cosmopolitanism), not by outright deception (postmodernism, feminism, and propaganda).
We the current conflict is our awakening will to evict this second attempt at colonization of the west, despite our century of tolerance – a tolerance that was abused by everyone we tolerated.
There are no unlimited general rules. Our delay in discovering the theory of Relativity taught us this. There are no unlimited premises. No infinite deontological theories other than tautologies.
The limit of religious tolerance is Natural Law.
Everything else is just another act of war wearing a mask of religion to deceive us by preying upon our altruism.
We are the people who invented truth. We rescued mankind from ignorance, mysticism, disease, and poverty using our technology of truth: science and natural law.
We are the only people to have done it.
They others hate it.
We must not perish from this earth.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertaria
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-27 13:43:00 UTC
The rothbardian argument originated in a bias to favor the concentration of savings for the purpose of redeployment as usury over the utility of credit. (yes, really, that’s the reason)
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-26 07:58:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1044858826539905025
Reply addressees: @Lord_Keynes2
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1044845610627674112
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/1044845610627674112
I’m your huckleberry.
Humans possess agency. Animals do not. If I say one lacks agency, it means one is insufficiently human to enter into rational debate, reason, calculation, and computation.
How is it that the inverse, as you suggest – which is the descent into animal instinct – and the abandonment of agency and reason somehow human instead of animal? Or are you saying that those who possess agency and reason are post-, or super-human?
( PS: I’ve dominated in everything I’ve tried. what have you accomplished other than avoidance of success? 😉 )
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-25 12:18:00 UTC
–“Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime.”— Feds.
PERMANENT EXILE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-23 12:38:00 UTC
AGAIN. USE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE TO AVOID THE FALLACIES OF IDEALISM, CONFLATION, AND PRETENSE OF KNOWLEDGE
We can speak truthfully, we can claim others speak truthfully, but it is our speech about existence, or experience, or the imaginary that ‘is true’ (coherent, consistent, correspondent, operational, and complete) or not.
No such thing as ‘truth’ exists that is not a promise by someone that a statement is coherent, consistent, correspondent, operational, and complete ENOUGH to satisfy the demand for infallibility.
Existence just exists. It’s state continuously changes (entropy). We can make statements about some state or change in state over some period of time (periodicity, frame), but only our promise to the coherence, consistency, correspondence, operational possibility, and completeness can be claimed as ‘true’ because that is the meaning of truth: testimony.
As to logic, logical must and only can me, constant relations (consistency) between two or more properties (identity) or states (logic). (Because that is all that neurons do: test for differences or their absence as differences.)
Therefore a statement is falsifiable. It is false (certain), true (possible), or undecidable (unknown). if a statement is undecidable, then deductions from it are undecidable, but in formal logic we state that the undecidable is to be treated as false.
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-21 11:46:00 UTC
September 21st, 2018 4:01 PM THE CORRECT ANSWER: OUR WOMEN WERE RECRUITED AND CONVERTED (a) genetics (we have higher neoteny), (b) homogeneity developed low clannishness although we maintain high disgust sensitivity, (c) commercial societies develop liberalism since everyone is a customer for either marriage, cooperation, business, or politics (d) christianity pushed universalism in there as well which caused the really bad consequences (e) WORSE women cause the openness to suicide by immigration. Men have voted consistently against it. So OUR WOMEN WERE RECRUITED AND DEFECTED JUST AS THEY DID UNDER CHRISTIANITY.
September 21st, 2018 11:46 AM AGAIN. USE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE TO AVOID THE FALLACIES OF IDEALISM, CONFLATION, AND PRETENSE OF KNOWLEDGE [We] can speak truthfully, we can claim others speak truthfully, but it is our speech about existence, or experience, or the imaginary that ‘is true’ (coherent, consistent, correspondent, operational, and complete) or not. No such thing as ‘truth’ exists that is not a promise by someone that a statement is coherent, consistent, correspondent, operational, and complete ENOUGH to satisfy the demand for infallibility. Existence just exists. It’s state continuously changes (entropy). We can make statements about some state or change in state over some period of time (periodicity, frame), but only our promise to the coherence, consistency, correspondence, operational possibility, and completeness can be claimed as ‘true’ because that is the meaning of truth: testimony. As to logic, logical must and only can me, constant relations (consistency) between two or more properties (identity) or states (logic). (Because that is all that neurons do: test for differences or their absence as differences.) Therefore a statement is falsifiable. It is false (certain), true (possible), or undecidable (unknown). if a statement is undecidable, then deductions from it are undecidable, but in formal logic we state that the undecidable is to be treated as false.
September 21st, 2018 11:46 AM AGAIN. USE OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE TO AVOID THE FALLACIES OF IDEALISM, CONFLATION, AND PRETENSE OF KNOWLEDGE [We] can speak truthfully, we can claim others speak truthfully, but it is our speech about existence, or experience, or the imaginary that ‘is true’ (coherent, consistent, correspondent, operational, and complete) or not. No such thing as ‘truth’ exists that is not a promise by someone that a statement is coherent, consistent, correspondent, operational, and complete ENOUGH to satisfy the demand for infallibility. Existence just exists. It’s state continuously changes (entropy). We can make statements about some state or change in state over some period of time (periodicity, frame), but only our promise to the coherence, consistency, correspondence, operational possibility, and completeness can be claimed as ‘true’ because that is the meaning of truth: testimony. As to logic, logical must and only can me, constant relations (consistency) between two or more properties (identity) or states (logic). (Because that is all that neurons do: test for differences or their absence as differences.) Therefore a statement is falsifiable. It is false (certain), true (possible), or undecidable (unknown). if a statement is undecidable, then deductions from it are undecidable, but in formal logic we state that the undecidable is to be treated as false.
People (women in particular) ameliorate differences through language and signal variation but do not vary in their moral and political biases. Men do so far less. People demonstrate overestimation of similarities, and overestimation of their cognitive abilities. Agency differs.
Source date (UTC): 2018-09-19 12:17:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1042387133506482177
Reply addressees: @HPluckrose
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1041127586900914177
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/1041127586900914177