INSULT OF THE DAY
—“I don’t think you’ve ever met a female. More likely just other emasculated men who you’ve mistakenly misidentified.”— Robert Hayes
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-30 13:06:00 UTC
Form: Quote Commentary
-
INSULT OF THE DAY —“I don’t think you’ve ever met a female. More likely just o
-
Insult Of The Day
—“I don’t think you’ve ever met a female. More likely just other emasculated men who you’ve mistakenly misidentified.”— Robert Hayes -
Anne Drives Home The Right Answer
—“A woman’s alliance and allegiance depend on who is filling the role of husband for her… be it a man, party, or state.”— Anne Summers -
ANNE DRIVES HOME THE RIGHT ANSWER —“A woman’s alliance and allegiance depend o
ANNE DRIVES HOME THE RIGHT ANSWER
—“A woman’s alliance and allegiance depend on who is filling the role of husband for her… be it a man, party, or state.”— Anne Summers
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-30 13:03:00 UTC
-
Anne Drives Home The Right Answer
—“A woman’s alliance and allegiance depend on who is filling the role of husband for her… be it a man, party, or state.”— Anne Summers -
“Is Truth then Relative or Absolute?”—Ken Cavallon It’s a false dichotomy. We
—“Is Truth then Relative or Absolute?”—Ken Cavallon It’s a false dichotomy. We use the term TRUE for “agreement on correspondence”, |TRUTH CLAIM| Undecidable > Possible > Relative > Consensual > Contingent > Probable > Decidable > Necessary > Analytic > Tautological. As far as I know, all statements remain contingent, if only for the imprecision of definitions alone. I’ll deflate it further into TESIMONY, DEMAND, and WARRANTY. TESTIMONY: demand for agreement(x), degree of necessity(y) and degree of warranty(z). DEMAND: I can hold an agreement on correspondence with myself, with someone else, with others, with everyone, with anyone. WARRANTY: I can warranty my testimony corresponds to the possible, probable, contingent, decidable, necessary, analytic, and tautological. And agreement can be possible, personally actionable, collectively actionable, collectively decidable, and collectively irrefutable, and collectively tautological. We use ‘Truth’ for all those purposes: “true enough for the circumstance.” The question is whether one uses the truth that is sufficient for the circumstances. -
“Is Truth then Relative or Absolute?”—Ken Cavallon It’s a false dichotomy. We
—“Is Truth then Relative or Absolute?”—Ken Cavallon
It’s a false dichotomy. We use the term TRUE for “agreement on correspondence”,
|TRUTH CLAIM| Undecidable > Possible > Relative > Consensual > Contingent > Probable > Decidable > Necessary > Analytic > Tautological.
As far as I know, all statements remain contingent, if only for the imprecision of definitions alone.
I’ll deflate it further into TESIMONY, DEMAND, and WARRANTY.
TESTIMONY: demand for agreement(x), degree of necessity(y) and degree of warranty(z).
DEMAND: I can hold an agreement on correspondence with myself, with someone else, with others, with everyone, with anyone.
WARRANTY: I can warranty my testimony corresponds to the possible, probable, contingent, decidable, necessary, analytic, and tautological.
And agreement can be possible, personally actionable, collectively actionable, collectively decidable, and collectively irrefutable, and collectively tautological.
We use ‘Truth’ for all those purposes: “true enough for the circumstance.”
The question is whether one uses the truth that is sufficient for the circumstances.
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-30 07:17:00 UTC
-
Untitled
Source date (UTC): 2017-11-29 15:34:00 UTC
-
by William L. Benge When the state claims rights to a person’s agency, it is an
by William L. Benge When the state claims rights to a person’s agency, it is an egregious offense against the commons – because first, it is untruthful and damages the informational commons; and second, the presumption doubles it’s trouble to create an even greater crime of staking a false claim on life-property (one’s means of agency); and third, stakes a claim upon agency itself. When should this go unanswered? From here, natural law insists on prosecution: doors get kicked in and guillotine blades get sharpened. Oh yeah. Their presumption won’t be repeated anytime soon. Funny how memory works like that. -
by William L. Benge When the state claims rights to a person’s agency, it is an
by William L. Benge When the state claims rights to a person’s agency, it is an egregious offense against the commons – because first, it is untruthful and damages the informational commons; and second, the presumption doubles it’s trouble to create an even greater crime of staking a false claim on life-property (one’s means of agency); and third, stakes a claim upon agency itself. When should this go unanswered? From here, natural law insists on prosecution: doors get kicked in and guillotine blades get sharpened. Oh yeah. Their presumption won’t be repeated anytime soon. Funny how memory works like that.