The microfoundation of micro and macro economics is Time, just like the microfoundation of law is Reciprocity. Just like the microfoundations of testimony is tests of Constant Relations across given dimensions (grammars).
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-26 13:32:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055814406087557120
yes, exactly.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-26 06:04:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055701683249074176
Reply addressees: @karlbykarlsmith
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055578558972809216
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055578558972809216
no. never surrender. ever.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-26 01:36:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055634182477619201
Reply addressees: @theodore_beza @TheGreatOrderIs @NoWhiteGuiltNWG
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055629952035573760
IN REPLY TO:
@theodore_beza
@TheGreatOrderIs @NoWhiteGuiltNWG @curtdoolittle I like Greg and share his desire for a homeland but let’s be realistic. The forces of the ruling elites are too powerful and show no signs signs of diminishing. We should probably discuss how to live as a minority.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055629952035573760
There were humans in britain weighing 190 pounds, and 5’10” tall and built like a boxer, half a million years ago.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-26 00:35:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055618781932851200
And if you,or they, had a positive solution (prescription) for a superior social order that you could put into operational terms, then you would. You don’t. Because if you did, the fraud and theft would be exposed for what it is: sophism for the purpose of institutional theft.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 23:37:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055604316906680320
Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558405501452289
IN REPLY TO:
@Jonas_Ceika
@curtdoolittle @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN The main confusion seems to be that you think I’m only talking about intent, I’m not. I’m literally showing how Hicks is misinterpreting the relevant theory and backing it up with sources. Again, you’re not addressing my points. You’re also not making arguments for your case.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558405501452289
I am not confused. I work on the evolution of deception and its means of eradication by law. The technique used by marxists and postmodernists and the abrahamists and platonists before them uses obscurantism to construct a pretense of knowledge, from which to criticize&undermine.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 23:36:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055604065286152192
Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558405501452289
IN REPLY TO:
@Jonas_Ceika
@curtdoolittle @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN The main confusion seems to be that you think I’m only talking about intent, I’m not. I’m literally showing how Hicks is misinterpreting the relevant theory and backing it up with sources. Again, you’re not addressing my points. You’re also not making arguments for your case.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558405501452289
My accusation is that each of your points “quotes” is a sophistry (lie) to cover the lies and intended thefts that your arguments seek to support. I deflated one of them, and I can (if I wish) deflate the entirety of them, showing the same attempted fraud in each case.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 23:33:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055603165691817985
Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558405501452289
IN REPLY TO:
@Jonas_Ceika
@curtdoolittle @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN The main confusion seems to be that you think I’m only talking about intent, I’m not. I’m literally showing how Hicks is misinterpreting the relevant theory and backing it up with sources. Again, you’re not addressing my points. You’re also not making arguments for your case.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558405501452289
I am not confused. I’m waiting for you to put together an argument. And since you haven’t, I’m framing the argument as we do (hicks and I), as marxists and postmodernists seeking to construct a fiction using sophistry and pseudoscience to replace the sophistry of religion.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 23:31:19 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055602738476785664
Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558405501452289
IN REPLY TO:
@Jonas_Ceika
@curtdoolittle @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN The main confusion seems to be that you think I’m only talking about intent, I’m not. I’m literally showing how Hicks is misinterpreting the relevant theory and backing it up with sources. Again, you’re not addressing my points. You’re also not making arguments for your case.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558405501452289
Actually, no. It requires understanding (scientifically) the vocabular, grammar, arguments, correspondence, non-correspondence, and incentive given the available options. In other words: The Science (Truth) of what is argued, not the MEANING.
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 23:29:01 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055602157213442048
Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558906066415616
IN REPLY TO:
@Jonas_Ceika
@curtdoolittle @MrKennan1948 @WorMartiN Putting forth an account of developments in philosophy requires actually understanding the debates within it.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055558906066415616
HONOR VS FACE? SEVENTH FOUNDATION?
—“This explains so much. Honor vs. face. The seventh moral foundation?”—Martin Štěpán
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 23:04:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055596011639463936