Form: Argument

  • THE ONLY MORAL EQUIVALENCY Any moral person can explain his or her reasoning beh

    THE ONLY MORAL EQUIVALENCY
    Any moral person can explain his or her reasoning behind his or her moral actions, and collectively they will produce an infinite number of narratives, despite that their choices and actions that resulted with be the same – or at least indifferently so.

    All moral people are the same in word and deed, and all immoral people are different in word and deed.

    There is only one way to act and speak morally, and that is by reciprocity.

    Reciprocity may vary in context, but it does not vary across contexts. This is why the discipline of morality appears confusion. What consists of reciprocity on culture may not in the next. But across cultures it’s always the same, because there is no cultural context across cultures: just reciprocity.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-07 21:05:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633212259261456385

  • As I’ve said, “If it was an insurrection there wouldn’t be any doubt, because ev

    As I’ve said, “If it was an insurrection there wouldn’t be any doubt, because everything would have been on fire, lots of people would be dead, demands would have been made, and politicians would be hung from every horizontal beam in walking distance.”

    I didn’t go because I knew what would happen given who was organizing it.
    But I had a speech ready to make from the House floor if I’d made it there.
    And it stated demands, and those demands would have been moral, and constitutional, and then it would have been a revolution – to restore the constitution, and our republic and our rule of law, and our concurrent and common, natural law.

    Now, we will see whether another opportunity arises, or we have a civil war, or fall as did Rome.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-07 17:54:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633164175563268096

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633160755980693506

  • As I’ve said, “If it was an insurrection there wouldn’t be any doubt, because ev

    As I’ve said, “If it was an insurrection there wouldn’t be any doubt, because everything would have been on fire, lots of people would be dead, demands would have been made, and politicians would be hung from every horizontal beam in walking distance.”

    I didn’t go because I knew what would happen given who was organizing it.
    But I had a speech ready to make from the House floor if I’d made it there.
    And it stated demands, and those demands would have been moral, and constitutional, and then it would have been a revolution – to restore the constitution, and our republic and our rule of law, and our concurrent and common, natural law.

    Now, we will see whether another opportunity arises, or we have a civil war, or fall as did Rome.

    Reply addressees: @christophaa


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-07 17:54:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633164175399612422

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1633160755980693506

  • SOLUTIONS If we “science” the issue of sex, class, ethnic, civilizational, and r

    SOLUTIONS
    If we “science” the issue of sex, class, ethnic, civilizational, and racial conflict, then, we are left with the masculine “lions” of responsibility for the commons and the feminine “sheep” of irresponsibility for the commons. And in that case, the lions of responsibility need not suffer the opinions of the sheep of irresponsibility, where those sheep, because they ‘feel’ now rather than think over time, and as such, are still children. And seek to remain so.
    The only solution is “Let a thousand nations bloom.” Where the different factions can create states of their preferences without the necessty of war, civil war, conflict or repetition of milddle eastern, east asian, indian, stagnation and decay.
    -Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-06 16:52:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632786306840313858

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632747665321791488

  • SOLUTIONS If we “science” the issue of sex, class, ethnic, civilizational, and r

    SOLUTIONS
    If we “science” the issue of sex, class, ethnic, civilizational, and racial conflict, then, we are left with the masculine “lions” of responsibility for the commons and the feminine “sheep” of irresponsibility for the commons. And in that case, the lions of responsibility need not suffer the opinions of the sheep of irresponsibility, where those sheep, because they ‘feel’ now rather than think over time, and as such, are still children. And seek to remain so.
    The only solution is “Let a thousand nations bloom.” Where the different factions can create states of their preferences without the necessty of war, civil war, conflict or repetition of milddle eastern, east asian, indian, stagnation and decay.
    -Cheers

    Reply addressees: @ScottAdamsSays


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-06 16:52:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632786306731327488

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632747665321791488

  • LET’S SCIENCE SCOTT’S ISSUE: (a) Tort, (or tresspass), the basis of all law, sta

    LET’S SCIENCE SCOTT’S ISSUE:
    (a) Tort, (or tresspass), the basis of all law, states that your intention doesn’t matter. In a crime (a severe tort or trespass) your intention may matter or not.
    but;
    (b) The question is what shall we prohibit trespass against? What is the scope of our demonstrated interests?
    and;
    (c) Westerners alone, developed military reporting, testimonial (empirical) truth, and truth-before-face, in confession, commons, and court. Truth before face regardless of cost to self image, reputation, the competence or dominance hierarchy, is a DUTY. That duty is the reason the west developed jury, democracy (jury), thang and sentate debate (jury), and the reason, empiricism, and science, that almost alone dragged mankind out of superstition, ignorance, and poverty.
    And;
    (d) Truth before face is horoic, a contribution to the commons (a tax, sacrifice), and a status symbol for men, who demonstrate they are willing to risk conflict for the common good. But it is an risk for women and effeminate men, because they seek to avoid conflict at a cost to the common good. Ergo men ‘adult’ the sexes, ad women “infantilize” the sexes, in any and all matters of the commons. The cognitive difference between men and women is male systematizing over time seeking responsibiity and capital even by risk for status, vs female empathizing in time seeking evasion of responsibilty and capital accumulation in favor of huperconsumption at low risk. Hence female irresponsibility for the commons, hyperconsumption, and hypergamy.
    But;
    (e) The introduction of women into the voting pool without either training women to avoid their evasion of responsibility for the commons, or placing a requrement for demonstrated competency in matters of the commons, opened teh door for postwar ‘feminization and infantilization’ of the institutional, political, economic, educational, social, familial, informational, and familial commons. Thereby destroying truth before face, realism, naturalism, empiricism, testimony, law, social norms and traditions, and the family as the first system of intergenerational production. And it’s unconsious, involuntary, instinct. And it resulted in the same as it has in every other past condition including the feminization of the french court, the christian destruction of the classical world, and the fall of spartans and their civilization.
    Therefore;
    (f) We must fight in war, we must forgoe crime, we must pay taxes, we must adhere to the natural law (law proper), and we must speak the truth before face regardless of cost, or we cannot have rule of law, jury, democracy, the high trust society, the economic, innovative, adaptive, evolutionary gains of the west that evolved faster than the rest whenever possible in the bronze (indo european), iron (mediterranean) and steel (atlantic) ages. And with that evolution we ended 2000 years of stagnation, poverty, disease and suffering, and dragged mankind kicking and screaming of ignorance, superstition poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, and early death.
    Therefore;
    (g) the biological differences between classes, ethnicities, civilizations, and races is as significant as the difference betwen the sexes. And for the same reasons: i) the degree of neotenic evolution of the race ii) the degree of genetic load in the classes iii) the asymmetry of classes between races and ethnicities iv) and the necessity of and the tendency for sexes, classes, ethnicities, civiliizations, and races to rely on kin preference and kin selection simply because they have more INTERESTS IN COMMON than those otherwise. As such given that the most scarce resource is cooperation, and that indifference between individuals and groups is a NECESSARY behavioral economy that cannot be evaded.
    (h) So this creates a conflict between the needs of our cooperation in particular commons, and the needs of our cooperation by general trade.
    ie: Separation is the only possible solution.
    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-06 16:48:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632785273774915585

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632747665321791488

  • LET’S SCIENCE SCOTT’S ISSUE: (a) Tort, (or tresspass), the basis of all law, sta

    LET’S SCIENCE SCOTT’S ISSUE:
    (a) Tort, (or tresspass), the basis of all law, states that your intention doesn’t matter. In a crime (a severe tort or trespass) your intention may matter or not.
    but;
    (b) The question is what shall we prohibit trespass against? What is the scope of our demonstrated interests?
    and;
    (c) Westerners alone, developed military reporting, testimonial (empirical) truth, and truth-before-face, in confession, commons, and court. Truth before face regardless of cost to self image, reputation, the competence or dominance hierarchy, is a DUTY. That duty is the reason the west developed jury, democracy (jury), thang and sentate debate (jury), and the reason, empiricism, and science, that almost alone dragged mankind out of superstition, ignorance, and poverty.
    And;
    (d) Truth before face is horoic, a contribution to the commons (a tax, sacrifice), and a status symbol for men, who demonstrate they are willing to risk conflict for the common good. But it is an risk for women and effeminate men, because they seek to avoid conflict at a cost to the common good. Ergo men ‘adult’ the sexes, ad women “infantilize” the sexes, in any and all matters of the commons. The cognitive difference between men and women is male systematizing over time seeking responsibiity and capital even by risk for status, vs female empathizing in time seeking evasion of responsibilty and capital accumulation in favor of huperconsumption at low risk. Hence female irresponsibility for the commons, hyperconsumption, and hypergamy.
    But;
    (e) The introduction of women into the voting pool without either training women to avoid their evasion of responsibility for the commons, or placing a requrement for demonstrated competency in matters of the commons, opened teh door for postwar ‘feminization and infantilization’ of the institutional, political, economic, educational, social, familial, informational, and familial commons. Thereby destroying truth before face, realism, naturalism, empiricism, testimony, law, social norms and traditions, and the family as the first system of intergenerational production. And it’s unconsious, involuntary, instinct. And it resulted in the same as it has in every other past condition including the feminization of the french court, the christian destruction of the classical world, and the fall of spartans and their civilization.
    Therefore;
    (f) We must fight in war, we must forgoe crime, we must pay taxes, we must adhere to the natural law (law proper), and we must speak the truth before face regardless of cost, or we cannot have rule of law, jury, democracy, the high trust society, the economic, innovative, adaptive, evolutionary gains of the west that evolved faster than the rest whenever possible in the bronze (indo european), iron (mediterranean) and steel (atlantic) ages. And with that evolution we ended 2000 years of stagnation, poverty, disease and suffering, and dragged mankind kicking and screaming of ignorance, superstition poverty, starvation, disease, suffering, and early death.
    Therefore;
    (g) the biological differences between classes, ethnicities, civilizations, and races is as significant as the difference betwen the sexes. And for the same reasons: i) the degree of neotenic evolution of the race ii) the degree of genetic load in the classes iii) the asymmetry of classes between races and ethnicities iv) and the necessity of and the tendency for sexes, classes, ethnicities, civiliizations, and races to rely on kin preference and kin selection simply because they have more INTERESTS IN COMMON than those otherwise. As such given that the most scarce resource is cooperation, and that indifference between individuals and groups is a NECESSARY behavioral economy that cannot be evaded.
    (h) So this creates a conflict between the needs of our cooperation in particular commons, and the needs of our cooperation by general trade.
    ie: Separation is the only possible solution.
    Cheers
    Curt Doolittle

    Reply addressees: @ScottAdamsSays


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-06 16:48:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632785273389035526

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632747665321791488

  • The west is wrong to tolerate the marxist spectrum from marxism to neoMarxism, t

    The west is wrong to tolerate the marxist spectrum from marxism to neoMarxism, to postmodernism, to feminism, to PC and Woke. It’s wrong to place the individual’s expression over that of the production of people capable of producing healthy productive intergenerational families. This decadence, yes.

    The RU is wrong, the CN are wrong, and the IR are wrong, because the evidence in every culture is that people want self-determination, natural and human rights, and to prohibit empires of conquest against their will. They are not just wrong they are immoral and evil for oppressing others. Just like the communists and Islamists before them.

    So if you think the west is ‘bad’ you confuse the best with perfect. We are the best that can be. We have raised mankind out of poverty. And we can be better still if we end the marxist-to-woke enemy’s cult forever.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-05 23:54:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632530151970930688

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632524470572154880

  • The west is wrong to tolerate the marxist spectrum from marxism to neoMarxism, t

    The west is wrong to tolerate the marxist spectrum from marxism to neoMarxism, to postmodernism, to feminism, to PC and Woke. It’s wrong to place the individual’s expression over that of the production of people capable of producing healthy productive intergenerational families. This decadence, yes.

    The RU is wrong, the CN are wrong, and the IR are wrong, because the evidence in every culture is that people want self-determination, natural and human rights, and to prohibit empires of conquest against their will. They are not just wrong they are immoral and evil for oppressing others. Just like the communists and Islamists before them.

    So if you think the west is ‘bad’ you confuse the best with perfect. We are the best that can be. We have raised mankind out of poverty. And we can be better still if we end the marxist-to-woke enemy’s cult forever.

    Reply addressees: @dingmanschoice @IAmAsaJ


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-05 23:54:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632530151815753728

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632524470572154880

  • We are europeans. There is no agreement that can supercede the natural law of se

    We are europeans. There is no agreement that can supercede the natural law of self determination by self determined means, by tests of sovereignty in demonstrated interest, and reciprocity in display word and deed. This is the origin of natural rights and human rights. It is not man’s law. It is a law of nature, and if there is one, nature’s god. Yet, violating this one rule is what all empires depend upon for survival: depriving others of the right to self determination by self determined means.

    There never has been a postwar threat to RU security. Instead, RU has been a threat to it’s neighbors. And no governmnet has a right to conquer and rule another and remove it’s right to self determination. And while we have little interest outside of europe, other than maintaining the energy markets, aggression against Ukraine was the last straw.

    There shall be no ‘next’ Russian empire. And Russian security like the security of all sovereign people must be obtained by alliance in reciprocal defense of borders. Russia is too untrustworhty at home and abroad for that agreement until it has a change of government. Yes, we should have worked to integrate RU into NATO but this is as much RU’s fault as the West’s. There will be no RU in the future without integration with the west. If not, then CN will take asia, RU population will continue to contract, and it will be limited to west of the urals again, and surrounded by enemies of three different civilizations on three different sides.

    I don’t make a lot of errors. And this isn’t one of them.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-05 02:15:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632203174579691528

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632198872197103616