Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Provoke a constitutional crisis. Bring a new case before the court. Then take co

    Provoke a constitutional crisis. Bring a new case before the court. Then take command of the national guard and if necessary call on the citizenry to put up the razor wire and prevent illegal crossings. Texas can’t really close the border given how much trade exists between…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-24 23:18:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1750297041425621311

    Reply addressees: @Josh_Ebner @SaitouHajime00 @NatLawInstitute

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1750290821016944895

  • Let’s take the simple philosophical trope and expose it to both scientific (test

    Let’s take the simple philosophical trope and expose it to both scientific (testimonial) and legal (incentive) scrutiny.

    If a tree falls in the woods, given the absence of evidence of the silence of trees falling in the woods, and someone claims the falling tree made no sound, we are left with whether trees can in fact make no sound, the individual errs, the individual is engaging in soft deceit by sophistry, or the individual is engaging in hard deceit to justify some subsequent claim by deduction, inference or abduction – most likely conflation or inflation or all of the above.

    in other words the framing implied by question produces a false dichotomy which is, almost universally, how the sophomoric questions are positioned in quote ‘ philosophy ‘, and second only to abuses of grammar by the ambiguity of the copula (is,are, was, were, being, been).

    😉

    Reply addressees: @Gyeff0 @MarlinDBJr

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-23 18:49:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749866880364380160

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749864732029485336

  • I MAY BE WRONG BUT IT’S HARD TO IMAGINE THE COURT WILL DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN “L

    I MAY BE WRONG BUT IT’S HARD TO IMAGINE THE COURT WILL DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN “LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE”
    I may be wrong in how the court will decide (I think it unlikely unless it’s very close). If I am then I will read the decision and the resulting opinions and determine if they used sound reasoning or erred.
    IMO they are only taking on this case because the constitution is unclear in this matter and so is the law, and the consequences of ‘creating new law’ that allowed social construction of a claim of insurrection (court of public opinion constructed by media and political factions), would mean that the court would license future abuses on top of the present one.
    In reality if they were to allow these matters to stand, the chance of civil war will have crossed the threshold, and the millions waiting for their opportunity will decide they have moral license.
    I don’t see how the court can do anything but let the people decide.

    Reply addressees: @MaziZachary @NoahBookbinder

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-19 18:46:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748416552637026304

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748414983820414994

  • Calling january 6th Insurrection is an opinion. What I saw was a protest over a

    Calling january 6th Insurrection is an opinion. What I saw was a protest over a belief that an election was subject to corruption. And that’s precisely what the participants said they were doing. In their view the court should have stepped in to settle the matter, and by failing to do so they could not let corruption stand.
    It doesn’t matter if they were proven right or wrong over time – if at the time that was their state of mind.
    Compare it to the BLM-ANTIFA insurrection that was an organized attempt at insurrection. Vast destruction ruination of cities, pervasive violence, and an increase in the rate of murders we have not yet recovered from.
    It doesn’t matter what you think. You’re almost certainly an NPC. It matters what the court would decide.
    Otherwise, we’d have people calling every little demonstration an insurrection, and we’d have people staging pretense of insurrection against the opposition to have them removed from the ballot.

    I don’t miss the point. I think you can’t even imagine the field of points. Which is why you’re no one at all in life. And some of us have accumulated achievements in multiple fields in life….

    Reply addressees: @andrewnygard @NoahBookbinder

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-19 18:40:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748415169955323904

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748391440797884465

  • Q: LET’S SCIENCE THE RACE AND ETHNICITY ISSUE –“Race is above iQ. You need a fo

    Q: LET’S SCIENCE THE RACE AND ETHNICITY ISSUE

    –“Race is above iQ. You need a folk bound by blood”– Theobald

    Well, you’re expressing it as a preference, so how about I science it for you:

    –“Devotion in time and loyalty over time to ethnicity in reproduction, society, economics, politics, and war is an advantage over all other alternatives. And the only advantage of alternatives is trade of goods services and information that improve the responsibility, agency, productivity, and capital of the ethnicity.”–

    Why? This is why…

    Except at the margins, (very top and very bottom) of any population (ethnicity race species) ingroup cooperation whether genetic, reproductive, social, economic, or political is an advantage over outgroup cooperation because of the material differences in neotenic evolution, related personality traits, related intelligence, and accumulated genetic load (defects).

    In addition the aggregate neoteny, personality, intelligence, and genetic load composition of population is more influential on the conditions opportunities and outcomes than the same property of any given individual in that population.

    Therefore the optimum polity is a small, homogenous, low power distance, high trust, redistributive (commons) polity that is larger than the minimum reproductive threshold possibility of improvement and error correction) and smaller than the minimum divergence threshold (difficulty of improvement and error correction). This number is between ten thousand and ten million.

    But the minimum survivable polity appears to be three hundred thousand, and even then only when in association and alliance with others who, in total, constitute five to ten million.

    But even at five to ten million the survivability of those polities requires alliance into the tens to hundreds of millions for defense and trade policy.

    And subsequent alliance into the totality of others similar evolution, culture, and development for defense alone.

    This only means ‘let a thousand nations bloom’ so that we may construct polities (human intergenerational farms).
    Trading and visiting are different from cohabitating. 😉

    Cheers
    -CD

    Reply addressees: @Theobaldtho @radiofreenw

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-19 18:34:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748413642872070144

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748402765615755523

  • But that’s fine. It just turns out that we should have kept the vote to ourselve

    But that’s fine. It just turns out that we should have kept the vote to ourselves. And possibly kept all public sector employment to ourselves. It would make a great business to govern those less able of governance.

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-17 23:03:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1747756658938335413

    Reply addressees: @RickRockwelll

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1747755921575465454

  • The Privilege of Proximity in exchange for the Cost of Conformity. Why do people

    The Privilege of Proximity in exchange for the Cost of Conformity.
    Why do people who will not fully integrate have the privilege of access to european people their culture their economy their institutions and their civilization?

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-17 22:59:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1747755459522560471

  • The Privilege of Proximity in exchange for the Cost of Conformity. Why do people

    The Privilege of Proximity in exchange for the Cost of Conformity.
    Why do people who will not fully integrate have the privilege of access to european people their culture their economy their institutions and their civilization?

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-17 22:59:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1747755459463778304

  • The strong thesis is that it created a state within the state that as we have se

    The strong thesis is that it created a state within the state that as we have seen here with the marxist-to-woke sequence and as we have seen again with the ‘alien’ population running social media (most social media employees are not ethnic europeans). So the state within a state…

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-17 22:31:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1747748425938911710

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1747747807002251613

  • Truth is, that men will use the feminine means of toxicity especially if they’re

    Truth is, that men will use the feminine means of toxicity especially if they’re fundamentalist christians. Which, is one of those facts I wish I didn’t know. It simply reinforces my frustration that despite the positives that come from christian ethics, the christian teachings essentially teach people to lie, and when arguing to use the feminine method of argument. And I find this exasperating.

    Reply addressees: @feafij

    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-17 22:19:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1747745373106348032

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1747743842227372324