—“The beauty of having rule of law (natural law of reciprocity) + a militia is you have both top-down and bottom-up incremental suppression going at the same time.”—John Mark
—“The inescapable, inexorable, distributed dictatorship of free men…”—Ely Harman
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-22 13:13:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1021020313826492416
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
—“The beauty of having rule of law (natural law of reciprocity) + a militia is you have both top-down and bottom-up incremental suppression going at the same time.”—John Mark
—“The inescapable, inexorable, distributed dictatorship of free men…”—Ely Harman
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-22 13:12:55 UTC
—“The beauty of having rule of law (natural law of reciprocity) + a militia is you have both top-down and bottom-up incremental suppression going at the same time.”—John Mark
—“The inescapable, inexorable, distributed dictatorship of free men…”—Ely Harman
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-22 09:12:00 UTC
Men form packs. The more diverse we are, the more packs with different narrative. It is not rational to ask them to form herds. The narrative they use is irrelevant. The goals they achieve by those narratives must only coincide. As such, the market for pack cooperation need only agree upon POSSIBLE ends, not upon preferred ends or means. Packs (“Units” in military prose) are the optimum order.
Men form packs. The more diverse we are, the more packs with different narrative. It is not rational to ask them to form herds. The narrative they use is irrelevant. The goals they achieve by those narratives must only coincide. As such, the market for pack cooperation need only agree upon POSSIBLE ends, not upon preferred ends or means. Packs (“Units” in military prose) are the optimum order.
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
REVOLUTIONS AND THE MARKET FOR PACKS OF MEN
Men form packs. The more diverse we are, the more packs with different narrative. It is not rational to ask them to form herds. The narrative they use is irrelevant. The goals they achieve by those narratives must only coincide. As such, the market for pack cooperation need only agree upon POSSIBLE ends, not upon preferred ends or means.
Packs (“Units” in military prose) are the optimum order.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 19:10:06 UTC
There are a number of reasons that I foster these debates on uncomfortable topics. One is to bait the opposition into a debate. Another is to educate via the audience’s reactions. Another is because I am uncertain of my position. 😉 (Never assume you are right. Just try as hard as you can to determine if you’re wrong.) So far I haven’t determined I”m wrong in this matter. In my opinion, the slippery slope exists only because the question was insufficiently settled in law. I know how to solve that problem: to settle it as we do other sexual matters other than mate finding, by prohibiting it from the commons. That still leaves me with the reality that as far as I know the individuals behavior is determined in utero or by trauma. Neither of which (at least in males) are discretionary (unlike body issues, which are co-morbid with other psychological problems.) There is some evidence that female sexuality is extremely plastic as are most female behaviors. So as far as I know the functional test is the body issue not attraction. As such if the display does not make it out of the bedroom, then I do not consider it a matter of law. Since assortative mating is necessary for survival, I consider hetero reproductive signaling as necessary in the commons, up until the point of demonstration. As I have said elsewhere, as a matter of law it is a solved question. As a matter of aesthetics it is a choice. As such it is of course as sensible to create polities that ban individuals based upon traits, just as it is to accept or celebrate individuals upon traits. But that is a preference, not a good or a truth. And should be solved by the market. Thanks as always, for your thoughts and participation. 😉
There are a number of reasons that I foster these debates on uncomfortable topics. One is to bait the opposition into a debate. Another is to educate via the audience’s reactions. Another is because I am uncertain of my position. 😉 (Never assume you are right. Just try as hard as you can to determine if you’re wrong.) So far I haven’t determined I”m wrong in this matter. In my opinion, the slippery slope exists only because the question was insufficiently settled in law. I know how to solve that problem: to settle it as we do other sexual matters other than mate finding, by prohibiting it from the commons. That still leaves me with the reality that as far as I know the individuals behavior is determined in utero or by trauma. Neither of which (at least in males) are discretionary (unlike body issues, which are co-morbid with other psychological problems.) There is some evidence that female sexuality is extremely plastic as are most female behaviors. So as far as I know the functional test is the body issue not attraction. As such if the display does not make it out of the bedroom, then I do not consider it a matter of law. Since assortative mating is necessary for survival, I consider hetero reproductive signaling as necessary in the commons, up until the point of demonstration. As I have said elsewhere, as a matter of law it is a solved question. As a matter of aesthetics it is a choice. As such it is of course as sensible to create polities that ban individuals based upon traits, just as it is to accept or celebrate individuals upon traits. But that is a preference, not a good or a truth. And should be solved by the market. Thanks as always, for your thoughts and participation. 😉
(Quote of the Day)
—“I don’t agree that physical violence is always the answer, but thats only because I prefer to mentally violate people who cant be reasoned with, and I do it even better than them.”— A Female Friend
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 21:12:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1020416109521133569
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(Quote of the Day)
—“I don’t agree that physical violence is always the answer, but thats only because I prefer to mentally violate people who cant be reasoned with.”— A Female Friend
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 21:12:02 UTC