Form: Argument

  • A thing is not defined by what you claim it consists of but what it demonstrably

    A thing is not defined by what you claim it consists of but what it demonstrably consists of. WOKE as a movement is just the race-marxist movement. And we know that because like abrahamic religions, the marxist sequence, including race-marxism, use the same techniques to seek the same ends: social construction of a criticism claiming intent and psychology when it’s a physical attribute of the existential universe. (tho that’s probably over your head)

    Reply addressees: @DiogenesLamp0 @moreywrites @bethanyshondark


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-29 14:03:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1641078741311844353

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1637253559308759040

  • THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER END. I’m an authoritative interpreter of the sec

    THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER END.
    I’m an authoritative interpreter of the second amendment, and there are others. The NRA has nothing to do with interpreting the constitution. There is a constitutional process for modification of that amendment. Use it. You can’t. Because it will fail. Why? First, it wouldn’t obtain the commonality of votes of the States. Second, and more importantly, because Rule of Law of Natural, Common, Concurrent, Discovered Law and the Constitution that embodies its application in institutions to govern under it, requires reciprocal insurance of individual sovereignty by every citizen by force of arms. In other words, the second amendment is the insurance clause that prevents the conversion of natural, concurrent, common, law – which is a total prohibition on ANY authority – to a document, and then a government, of authority that violates the natural concurrent, common, law. Which is what you want. You want to circumvent Concurrency and Commonality, The Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity, and the Responsibility of reciprocal insurance by all of all. In other words by attacking the 2nd you’re violating commonality, concurrency, reciprocity, sovereignty, and our right, obligation, and inalienation, to insure that sequence.
    Our constitution is an articulation of the science of cooperation – the culmination of five thousand years of prohibition on authority, respect for sovereignty, and demand for individual responsibility. To prohibit authority it requires as did our ancient laws it evolved from,
    Our constitution requires the second amendment, because the existence of rule of law, and the prohibition of rule of authority, requires the second amendment, and we are all citizens required to respect it, because that is where sovereignty and responsibility lies: in the people. Not the government. Not anyone else. And that individual sovereignty and responsibility are only possible under this constitution – the only constitution worth the paper it’s written on, on this earth. Every other constitution is a fantasy story imitation of ours.

    So, no. I don’t trust you in authority. Or anyone else. And if you’ve created a dysfunctional society, with a dysfunctional education system, and dysfunctional families, and dysfunctional individuals, by propagating dysfunctional lies that we can be free of the physical, behavioral, and evolutionary laws, by some sort of new religion by social construction – then you are the danger not only to us, to our country, to our civilization, but to all the goods past present and future that have come from European peoples over the past 5000 years, that have almost exclusively dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition, hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, the vicissitudes of nature all but hostile to man, in a universe that is other was a vast irradiated wasteland hostile to life.

    The West is evolved to maximize individual responsibility at the cost of greater possibility of internal conflict, which must be resolved by rational argument or a jury in court – because there is no authority other than the people and the law and the our law alone is the science of cooperation. Your attempt to violate the laws of nature, and to create a false fantasy religion, for the purpose of ending responsibility, so that you are no longer responsible for the reciprocal insurance of all of us against those very behaviors that lead to mental illness, criminality, and worse, — you’re the problem.

    Grow up. Man Up. Take Responsibility. Fix the people. And to fix people you must have a standard to conform them to, and the only standard is the laws of nature, and that law of nature of human cooperation is the natural, common, concurrent, judge-discovered law, or sovereignty reciprocity duty and truth-before-face, regardless of cost – that maximizes individual responsibility regardless of how much you wish to escape it.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-28 20:26:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640812658805952553

  • I’m an authoritative interpreter of the second amendment, and there are others.

    I’m an authoritative interpreter of the second amendment, and there are others. The NRA has nothing to do with it. There is a constitutional process for modification of that amendment. Use it. You can’t. Because it will fail. Why? Because Rule of Law of Natural, Common, Concurrent, Discovered Law and the Constitution that embodies its application in institutions to govern under it, requires reciprocal insurance of individual sovereignty by every citizen by force of arms. In other words, the second amendment is the insurance clause that prevents the conversion of natural, concurrent, common, law – which is a total prohibition on ANY authority – to a document of authority. (which is what you want). You want to circumvent Concurrency and Commonality, The Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity, and the Responsibility of reciprocal insurance by all of all. In other words by attacking the 2nd you’re violating commonality, concurrency, reciprocity, sovereignty, and our right, obligation, and inalienation to insure that sequence.

    No I don’t trust you in authority. Or anyone else. And if you’ve created a dysfunctional society, with a dysfunctional education system, and dysfunctional families, and dysfunctional individuals, by propagating dysfunctional lies that we can be free of the physical, behavioral, and evolutionary laws, by some sort of new religion by social construction – then you are the danger not only to us, to our country, to our civilization, but to all the goods that have come from European peoples over the past 5000 years, that have almost exclusively dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition,hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, the vicissitudes of nature all but hostile to man, in a universe that is other was a vast irradiated wasteland hostile to life.

    The problem is the west is evolved to maximize individual responsibility at the cost of greater possitibitly of internal conflict, which must be resolved by rational argument or a jury in court. Your attempt to violate the laws of nature, and to create a false fantasy religion, for the purpose of ending responsibility, so that you are no longer responsible for the reciprocal insurance of all of us against those very behaviors that lead to mental illness, criminality, and worse, — you’re the problem.

    Grow up. Man Up. Take Responsibility. Fix the people. And to fix people you must have a standard to conform them to, and the only standard is the laws of nature, and that law of nature of human cooperation is the natural, common, concurrent, judge-discovered law, or sovereignty reciprocity duty and truth-before-face, regardless of cost – that maximizes individual responsibility regardless of how much you wish to escape it.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @FrankMikeDavis1 @JoyceWhiteVance


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-28 16:31:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640753605123751936

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640428550074318883

  • I’m an authoritative interpreter of the second amendment, and there are others.

    I’m an authoritative interpreter of the second amendment, and there are others. The NRA has nothing to do with it. There is a constitutional process for modification of that amendment. Use it. You can’t. Because it will fail. Why? Because Rule of Law of Natural, Common, Concurrent, Discovered Law and the Constitution that embodies its application in institutions to govern under it, requires reciprocal insurance of individual sovereignty by every citizen by force of arms. In other words, the second amendment is the insurance clause that prevents the conversion of natural, concurrent, common, law – which is a total prohibition on ANY authority – to a document of authority. (which is what you want). You want to circumvent Concurrency and Commonality, The Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity, and the Responsibility of reciprocal insurance by all of all. In other words by attacking the 2nd you’re violating commonality, concurrency, reciprocity, sovereignty, and our right, obligation, and inalienation to insure that sequence.

    No I don’t trust you in authority. Or anyone else. And if you’ve created a dysfunctional society, with a dysfunctional education system, and dysfunctional families, and dysfunctional individuals, by propagating dysfunctional lies that we can be free of the physical, behavioral, and evolutionary laws, by some sort of new religion by social construction – then you are the danger not only to us, to our country, to our civilization, but to all the goods that have come from European peoples over the past 5000 years, that have almost exclusively dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition,hard labor, poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, the vicissitudes of nature all but hostile to man, in a universe that is other was a vast irradiated wasteland hostile to life.

    The problem is the west is evolved to maximize individual responsibility at the cost of greater possitibitly of internal conflict, which must be resolved by rational argument or a jury in court. Your attempt to violate the laws of nature, and to create a false fantasy religion, for the purpose of ending responsibility, so that you are no longer responsible for the reciprocal insurance of all of us against those very behaviors that lead to mental illness, criminality, and worse, — you’re the problem.

    Grow up. Man Up. Take Responsibility. Fix the people. And to fix people you must have a standard to conform them to, and the only standard is the laws of nature, and that law of nature of human cooperation is the natural, common, concurrent, judge-discovered law, or sovereignty reciprocity duty and truth-before-face, regardless of cost – that maximizes individual responsibility regardless of how much you wish to escape it.

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-28 16:31:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640753605421432832

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640428550074318883

  • Q: CURT: WHY DO MALE LIBERTARIANS AND CONSERVAITIVES TALK PAST EACH OTHER SO FRE

    Q: CURT: WHY DO MALE LIBERTARIANS AND CONSERVAITIVES TALK PAST EACH OTHER SO FREQUENTLY?
    Pretty simple really.

    1) Masculine systematizing predicts systems (physical), and feminine empathizing predicts emotions (emotional).
    2) Masculine disagreeableness means male systemizing prediction is less affected by search for agreement, and amplifies systematizing.
    3) In the absence of prediction of emotions and indentive for agreement, the male mind has no alternative but projection (presumption), that both parties are working from the same frame of reference.
    4) So we presume others share the same mind, despite that we are more different in mind than feminine, empathizing, agreeables.
    5) And as such we talk past each other.
    6) The same effect is mirrored by the feminine behavior, where they can’t imagine you feel differently than they do and can’t imagine that you think systemically.

    So that means:
    a) the feminine left can almost always understand each other.
    b) The Masculine rights can sometimes understand the feminine left.
    c) But the feminine left can never understand masculine rights.

    WHich is exactly what we see in all aspects of life.

    This is why I teach construction from first principles of the sciences: because everything turns out to be pretty simple if you think through rather than just ‘feel’ or ‘intuit’ differences in human behavior.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 18:00:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640413511435141121

  • Q: CURT: WHY DO MALE LIBERTARIANS AND CONSERVAITIVES TALK PAST EACH OTHER SO FRE

    Q: CURT: WHY DO MALE LIBERTARIANS AND CONSERVAITIVES TALK PAST EACH OTHER SO FREQUENTLY?
    Pretty simple really.

    1) Masculine systematizing predicts systems (physical), and feminine empathizing predicts emotions (emotional).
    2) Masculine disagreeableness means male systemizing prediction is less affected by search for agreement, and amplifies systematizing.
    3) In the absence of prediction of emotions and indentive for agreement, the male mind has no alternative but projection (presumption), that both parties are working from the same frame of reference.
    4) So we presume others share the same mind, despite that we are more different in mind than feminine, empathizing, agreeables.
    5) And as such we talk past each other.
    6) The same effect is mirrored by the feminine behavior, where they can’t imagine you feel differently than they do and can’t imagine that you think systemically.

    So that means:
    a) the feminine left can almost always understand each other.
    b) The Masculine rights can sometimes understand the feminine left.
    c) But the feminine left can never understand masculine rights.

    WHich is exactly what we see in all aspects of life.

    This is why I teach construction from first principles of the sciences: because everything turns out to be pretty simple if you think through rather than just ‘feel’ or ‘intuit’ differences in human behavior.

    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 18:00:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640413511640596489

  • There is no disagreement that I know of in the field – only willingness to discu

    There is no disagreement that I know of in the field – only willingness to discuss it. Among the top IQ researchers there is unanimity and there has been for decades now. Among the newer entrants into the field, they fear attacks on their careers and some who I won’t mention have left the field because of it.
    The top lab in the world, run by David Reich, who is the top scholar in the field, and who is clearly biased against this outcome, has been warning the academy, the literate public, and anyone who will listen, that we must come to terms with race differences – because they are substantive.
    It’s not a matter of what I want.
    It’s a matter of failing to produce education and economic policy to compensate for different rates and depths of sexual maturity, the difference in behavior that results, and the form of education necessary because if those factors, and the difference in norms among groups with different intelligence and maturity distributions. Ergo, I want to help people. You want to lie. We know why you want to lie. We know why people who are at the bottom want to lie – status is the most important behavioral incentive among humans – and it determines everything from access to asociation, cooperation, opportunity, consumption, and sexual reproduction. The question is – why does that animal instinct matter?

    Reply addressees: @TheKesh666


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 17:50:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640411041711419393

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640402708757725207

  • There is no disagreement that I know of in the field – only willingness to discu

    There is no disagreement that I know of in the field – only willingness to discuss it. Among the top IQ researchers there is unanimity and there has been for decades now. Among the newer entrants into the field, they fear attacks on their careers and some who I won’t mention have left the field because of it.
    The top lab in the world, run by David Reich, who is the top scholar in the field, and who is clearly biased against this outcome, has been warning the academy, the literate public, and anyone who will listen, that we must come to terms with race differences – because they are substantive.
    It’s not a matter of what I want.
    It’s a matter of failing to produce education and economic policy to compensate for different rates and depths of sexual maturity, the difference in behavior that results, and the form of education necessary because if those factors, and the difference in norms among groups with different intelligence and maturity distributions. Ergo, I want to help people. You want to lie. We know why you want to lie. We know why people who are at the bottom want to lie – status is the most important behavioral incentive among humans – and it determines everything from access to asociation, cooperation, opportunity, consumption, and sexual reproduction. The question is – why does that animal instinct matter?


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 17:50:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640411041828880395

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640402708757725207

  • So for self ownership to exist, we have to insure one another’s self-ownership (

    So for self ownership to exist, we have to insure one another’s self-ownership (legal: ‘sovereignty’). To insure one another’s sovereignty, we have to agree on what we insure, and the terms of insurance. Reciprocity is the only possible means, but we would have to agree on the terms of reciprocity. To form a polity of sovereignty and reciprocity we have to insure ENOUGH that a polity can form, produce, survive, compete. And we have to suppress that which prohibits a polity for forming, producing, surviving, and competing.
    So what does that look like?

    Reply addressees: @IanISSawesome @BobMurphyEcon


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 01:29:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640164212235198465

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640162403110232071

  • So for self ownership to exist, we have to insure one another’s self-ownership (

    So for self ownership to exist, we have to insure one another’s self-ownership (legal: ‘sovereignty’). To insure one another’s sovereignty, we have to agree on what we insure, and the terms of insurance. Reciprocity is the only possible means, but we would have to agree on the terms of reciprocity. To form a polity of sovereignty and reciprocity we have to insure ENOUGH that a polity can form, produce, survive, compete. And we have to suppress that which prohibits a polity for forming, producing, surviving, and competing.
    So what does that look like?


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-27 01:29:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640164212327546880

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1640162403110232071