RT @freespeech4evah: The best analysis of this matter.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 20:53:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796646195856625842
Form: Reply
-
I’m not saying we agree upon standards. I’m saying that regardless of standard t
I’m not saying we agree upon standards. I’m saying that regardless of standard the matter is decidable or not as to whether one has engaged in reciprocity and a benfit to both or irreciprocity that provokes a retaliation. Because people always retaliate against irreciprocities…
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 20:09:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796635230423458100
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796633369050071062
-
(I certainly interpret our exchanges as curious discourse.) 😉
(I certainly interpret our exchanges as curious discourse.) 😉
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 20:08:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796634835387113955
Reply addressees: @radiofreenw
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796633656855003334
-
BTW: This is an other time for an “FU” with a smile, my friend. 😉 You don’t giv
BTW: This is an other time for an “FU” with a smile, my friend. 😉 You don’t give yourself enough credit. You’re the real deal. I’m a fan.
-hugs 😉
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 18:33:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796610964969734171
Reply addressees: @radiofreenw
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796610473485537724
-
Yeah. But the flip side is that people say ‘Doolittle, why do you talk like that
Yeah. But the flip side is that people say ‘Doolittle, why do you talk like that?” and saying “So I’m either understood or not, but at least not misunderstood.” lol
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 18:26:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796609122865172825
Reply addressees: @radiofreenw
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796607118407311850
-
Correct. The way I frame it is that there is rule of law of natural law (recipro
Correct. The way I frame it is that there is rule of law of natural law (reciprocity) and under that free trade is moral trade. And there is the absence of that rule of law and that is immoral free trade. You can guess which culture put forward the latter.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 18:16:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796606690214940775
Reply addressees: @radiofreenw
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796605840973259117
-
Well, of course. But they are better at capture of language than we are and they
Well, of course. But they are better at capture of language than we are and they will always be, so it is better to use operational langauge that is unambiguous and cannot be manipulated than to merely modify terms which can then be re=appopriated.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 18:08:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796604727616221605
Reply addressees: @radiofreenw
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796604337000771795
-
That is different from accusing them of failure or malintention. They had absolu
That is different from accusing them of failure or malintention. They had absolutely moral intentions for all humanity. That they were only half right still meant that they were half right. That means we must fix what they didn’t. Then hopefully we’ll be more right than they were. And we know how to do that. We just need enough people to understand that solution so that we can bring it about – the same problem they faced.
Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS @platypoo7 @TheHammurabi
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 18:07:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796604459339915264
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796603960247378284
-
yes. Though, it wasn’t free trade for free trade’s sake, but free trade to raise
yes. Though, it wasn’t free trade for free trade’s sake, but free trade to raise the world out of poverty so that the transition from that poverty to wealth wouldn’t be performed by communism that would lead to more wars. So it was a defensive measure.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 18:05:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796603823349432806
Reply addressees: @radiofreenw
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796589825077936163
-
Which they didn’t know. What we know is not what they knew. And knowing what we
Which they didn’t know. What we know is not what they knew. And knowing what we know is in large part because we have learned from our failures. Which is, frankly, how we learn nearly everything.
Source date (UTC): 2024-05-31 18:04:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796603559909482525
Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS @platypoo7 @TheHammurabi
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1796590222324662353