CONSIDER SIGNING
“Declaration of Military Accountability”
https://www.militaryaccountability.com/
Via Mark Bradshaw
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-10 18:01:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745143889311170669
Source: Twitter X
-
CONSIDER SIGNING “Declaration of Military Accountability” Via Mark Bradshaw
-
I am stunned you hold that position when if you studied law rather than literatu
I am stunned you hold that position when if you studied law rather than literature you would find the opposite. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-10 17:30:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745136103739298098
Reply addressees: @ArmoryOC
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745135328904819134
-
The Science of the Natural Law > The Constitution of Natural Law > Legislation U
The Science of the Natural Law > The Constitution of Natural Law > Legislation Under That Constitution > Regulation to Administer that Legislation > Findings of the Court in the Resolution of Disputes -> That Body of Rules Of Behavior that Prevent Irreciprocities.
Note that the science does not change, the constitution should very rarely change, the legislation should change according to shifts in aggregete need, the regulation should change a little more rapidly to adapt to changes, and the court should discover revisions which then propagate into the legislation, regulation, and findings of the court, and that body of rules we call norms. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-10 17:28:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745135552746184704
-
I read two books yesterday. One from Jones on the evolution of the concept of lo
I read two books yesterday. One from Jones on the evolution of the concept of logos. And one on the philosophy of law.
If you learn The Work – which takes time, but I’m no longer convinced it’s that hard – almost every work of thought in history reads as, and feels, amaturish, and almost silly by comparison. Word games.
The philosophy of law is S4!t really. Starting with Bentham and Austin it’s offensive, and by the time we get to Rez, Kelsen, Hart, Dworkin, and Rawls it isn’t even law any longer. It’s RULE.
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-10 17:23:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745134356706852864
-
No. One can testify or not. Especially to history. And there is no archaeologica
No. One can testify or not. Especially to history. And there is no archaeological evidence at all. Only speculation and justification regardless of what you wish to claim otherwise.
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-10 17:21:55 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745133881664164259
Reply addressees: @ArmoryOC
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745133510267220249
-
Hugs. 😉
Hugs. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-10 17:19:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745133198621679758
Reply addressees: @artus9010
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745132988696780922
-
I read two books yesterday. One from Jones on the evolution of the concept of lo
I read two books yesterday. One from Jones on the evolution of the concept of logos. And one on the philosophy of law.
If you learn The Work – which takes time, but I’m no longer convinced it’s that hard – almost every work of thought in history reads as, and feels, amaturish, and almost silly by comparison. Word games.
The philosophy of law is S4!t really. Starting with Bentham and Austin it’s offensive, and by the time we get to Rez, Kelsen, Dworking, and Rawls it isn’t even law any longer. It’s RULE.
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-10 17:23:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745132997395861504
-
I have read him. But then, I have read the same scientific papers and so his nar
I have read him. But then, I have read the same scientific papers and so his narrative isn’t novel, it is just a more sentimental narrative than the cold hard science. 😉
-hugs
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-10 17:13:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745131690521956437
Reply addressees: @artus9010
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745129314792673329
-
No. That is quite foolish. However, I will not seek to deprive you of your faith
No. That is quite foolish.
However, I will not seek to deprive you of your faith if you will not seek to claim your supernatural faith is equal to rational belief, or scientific confidence. It is only faith. Not reason. Not evidence. And as such not testifiable. And as such impossible to claim is true. Even if you may claim it is wise and good. But it is not true. Because to claim a thing is true, you must be able to testify to it.
If you do not agree then you are a threat to mankind, and the rest of us must seek to punish you for your irreciprocity.Reply addressees: @ArmoryOC
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-10 17:12:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745131417070116864
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745129346610974826
-
The persians tried three times to escape the mandatory ignorance of Islam. They
The persians tried three times to escape the mandatory ignorance of Islam. They were defeated all three times.
This is the fundamental problem. Islam is a religion of irresponsibility as a means of limiting conflict – not a means of resonsibility and resolution of conflict.
So this is why it is and has always been a cancer. Becuase there are always more humans seeking irresponsibility than those seeking responsibility.Reply addressees: @DaArmChairRebel
Source date (UTC): 2024-01-10 17:07:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745130328295915520
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745129628941844896