https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/trump-us-troops-europe-leaders-scared-eu-panetta-germany-uk-france-baltic-a8437111.htmlhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/trump-us-troops-europe-leaders-scared-eu-panetta-germany-uk-france-baltic-a8437111.html
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 14:25:00 UTC
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/trump-us-troops-europe-leaders-scared-eu-panetta-germany-uk-france-baltic-a8437111.html?utm_source=reddit.comhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/trump-us-troops-europe-leaders-scared-eu-panetta-germany-uk-france-baltic-a8437111.html?utm_source=reddit.com
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 14:25:00 UTC
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 14:25:00 UTC
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 14:25:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
—“We depend upon Morality in the negotiation between oursleves and others for front row seats (or even seats half way) in the present theater of life. The strong have less of a need to negotiate than the weak. The weak are more fanatic about morality precisely because they lack the (inner) strength to manifest themselves in life. They need the approval of others. And the weaker you are, the more nonsense you drag into the moral negotiation.”—Roger Dols
Good articulation – yes. Also. If you are very wealthy (which i have been), with any degree of influence (power), then you come to understand that nothing changes whatsoever, other than the wealth and influence of those who you compete with, and their decreasing compatibility of interests with you. and you can trust no one. It is nearly as difficult to defend wealth as it is to make it.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 14:07:30 UTC
photos_and_videos/your_posts/36919686_10156484463217264_1121922513723457536_o_10156484463207264.jpg YES. WHAT HE SAID! 😉
(i’m too busy writing Doolittleism to Read Doolittleisms.)Connor CreeganI read that as “Trayvon Martin” for a hot second.Jul 09, 2018 1:36pmJon JonathanWhen was violence ever removed from politics? Politics is the continuation of warfare by other means.Jul 09, 2018 2:10pmJames KnowlesClausewitz said it right.Jul 09, 2018 2:20pmJon JonathanClausiwitz said it the other way around.Jul 09, 2018 2:24pmJosef Kalinin”Politics is the distinction between friend and enemy.” – Carl SchmittJul 09, 2018 3:36pmJames KnowlesHis reference to war being politics?Jul 09, 2018 6:09pmJon Jonathanwar is a continuation of politics by other means.Jul 09, 2018 6:11pmDylan KnowlesWar is politics in its simplist form. Without violence there are no politics there is no control. Violence aimed outward, Aimed inward, Aimed against everyone or no one. Without violence or the threat there of politics does not exist.Jul 10, 2018 12:21pmYES. WHAT HE SAID! 😉
(i’m too busy writing Doolittleism to Read Doolittleisms.)
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 13:26:00 UTC
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_43196237263/36919686_10156484463217264_1121922513723457536_o_10156484463207264.jpg YES. WHAT HE SAID! 😉
(i’m too busy writing Doolittleism to Read Doolittleisms.)Connor CreeganI read that as “Trayvon Martin” for a hot second.Jul 09, 2018 1:36pmJon JonathanWhen was violence ever removed from politics? Politics is the continuation of warfare by other means.Jul 09, 2018 2:10pmJames KnowlesClausewitz said it right.Jul 09, 2018 2:20pmJon JonathanClausiwitz said it the other way around.Jul 09, 2018 2:24pmJosef Kalinin”Politics is the distinction between friend and enemy.” – Carl SchmittJul 09, 2018 3:36pmJames KnowlesHis reference to war being politics?Jul 09, 2018 6:09pmJon Jonathanwar is a continuation of politics by other means.Jul 09, 2018 6:11pmDylan KnowlesWar is politics in its simplist form. Without violence there are no politics there is no control. Violence aimed outward, Aimed inward, Aimed against everyone or no one. Without violence or the threat there of politics does not exist.Jul 10, 2018 12:21pmYES. WHAT HE SAID! 😉
(i’m too busy writing Doolittleism to Read Doolittleisms.)
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 13:26:00 UTC
PROPERTARIANISM IS FALSIFIABLE BUT VERY DIFFICULT TO FALSIFY
—“Since you pride yourself in being honest, may I ask what exactly one would have to prove in order to fully refute Propertarianism?”—Josef Kalinin
—(Quoting Curt): “And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness.”— Nick Zito
—“Property En-Toto & Acquisitionism is quite central to the entire Propertarian framework. Provide a substantive refute of these and you may cause a dent. You can find the full scoped definitions of these at Propertarianism.com”—Nick Zito
^ What he said. In addition, add reciprocity and reasonableness(rationality) of choice. both of which i think are nearly impossible to refute.
The reason it’s falsifiable but difficult to falsify is that it’s not so much a model as a description of constant relations from physics through sentience. Three points test a line so to speak, and the more points the more certain the line.
1) The Grammars(metaphysics), 2) Acquisitionism + Property in Toto (psychology), 3) Propertarianism (Sociology), and 4) Natural Law of Reciprocity (Cooperation) are falsifiable but extremely difficult to falsify.
Even if we state how it can be done by stating the premises(dependencies) those premises are extremely difficult to falsify. The reason being that they are continuously consistent, correspondent, possible, and coherent with everything we know to date.
I mean… that was my objective. A scientific language of cooperation (ethics, morality, law, politics, group strategy)
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 13:20:00 UTC
PROPERTARIANISM IS FALSIFIABLE BUT VERY DIFFICULT TO FALSIFY
—“Since you pride yourself in being honest, may I ask what exactly one would have to prove in order to fully refute Propertarianism?”—Josef Kalinin
—(Quoting Curt): “And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness.”— Nick Zito
—“Property En-Toto & Acquisitionism is quite central to the entire Propertarian framework. Provide a substantive refute of these and you may cause a dent. You can find the full scoped definitions of these at Propertarianism.com http://Propertarianism.com “—Nick Zito
^ What he said. In addition, add reciprocity and reasonableness(rationality) of choice. both of which i think are nearly impossible to refute.
The reason it’s falsifiable but difficult to falsify is that it’s not so much a model as a description of constant relations from physics through sentience. Three points test a line so to speak, and the more points the more certain the line.
1) The Grammars(metaphysics), 2) Acquisitionism + Property in Toto (psychology), 3) Propertarianism (Sociology), and 4) Natural Law of Reciprocity (Cooperation) are falsifiable but extremely difficult to falsify.
Even if we state how it can be done by stating the premises(dependencies) those premises are extremely difficult to falsify. The reason being that they are continuously consistent, correspondent, possible, and coherent with everything we know to date.
I mean… that was my objective. A scientific language of cooperation (ethics, morality, law, politics, group strategy)
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 13:20:00 UTC
—“Existence is Persistence. Only Natural Law persists. Gods are a educational means by which we use Fictional Archetypes to understand and implement said Natural Law in an organized society consisting of people with a distribution of understandings due to age, experience, and ability – be it Pagan aspects or wholesale icons such as the ‘Logos’ as Jesus Christ.”—@Andrew Robert
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 13:10:00 UTC