Shaming for disapproval to avoid the argument, falsehood, irreciprocity, and failure of due diligence, is a demand for restitution, under test of reciprocity. The opposite is not.
Learn the law. You will be better for it.
Me: “Speak to the audience in a compromise grammar.”
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 15:29:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246822205083791361
Reply addressees: @MillikanTamzin @DudeMaximus
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246816467791872001
REVERSE ACCUSATIONS OF GSRRM
GSRRM must be used to avoid an argument by substituting disapproval for truth. Shaming is necessary and warranted demand for restitution by suppression of the crime of avoiding an argument by substitution of disapproval.
—“Doolittle: “do as I say not as I do”—Tamzin Millikan @MillikanTamzin
Shaming for disapproval to avoid the argument, falsehood, irreciprocity, and failure of due diligence, is a demand for restitution, under test of reciprocity. The opposite is not.
Learn the law. You will be better for it.
Me: “Speak to the audience in a compromise grammar.”
So:
(a) I’m speaking to the audience in a compromise grammar (market).
(b) You are disapproving without doing due diligence (assuming you understand and not asking why I’m doing so),(c) counter-signaling my shaming of your for failure of due diligence.
Learn the law. End error. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 11:34:00 UTC
Yep: Divination, Astrology, Numerology, Scriptural, Stock market, Noise-Data interpretation.
(Today: the minor racial delta in Detroit mortality without the obvious age, smoking, and other lifestyle risk given the left leaning distribution of the African American demographic.)
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 19:46:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246162166404743169
Reply addressees: @toad_spotted
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1245801768543494144
—“I’m not sure making being wrong and lying the same is going to work. Intent is an incredibly powerful part of our system. It’s the only substantial difference between murder and justifiable homicide. Judging just action/outcome without judging the intent isn’t going to create a workable system”—Greg Hamilton
That can’t be true, because our legal system already does it. It always has. All this does is extend it from commercial to political speech.
Think of it this way: philosophy was invented as a competition to the law to give permission to lie.
—“Well I’m missing something because it appears you are saying being wrong is lying. … That without intent to deceive to are as guilty as if you had intent. “—Greg Hamilton
Being wrong, or failing due diligence?
You can perform due diligence and still be wrong without fault. You cannot avoid due diligence and still be wrong without fault.
This is why the law distinguishes between Restitution, escalating to Punishment, and escalating to Prevention.
Means motive and opportunity.
We cannot know intent.
We can however know due diligence.
Which is how we test your truth or lie in law.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 11:33:00 UTC
INTENTION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ONE TO LIE
The difference between testimonial truth and honesty is substantial, but perhaps the most surprising is that that we do not need to intend to lie to lie. We need only speak a lie whether we intend to or not. Most of us are carriers of lies. Because we do not know how to perform due diligence against lying. And worse, because we do not desire to stop using our most precious lies. So in P-law, we are guilty of a failure of due diligence against lying, rather than just intent to lie – just as in our existing law we are responsible for restitution whether we intended harm or not. And we are additionally subject to punishment and prevention if we harm by intent.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 09:40:00 UTC
Astrology, Numerology, Fortune Telling, Divination, and the Bible all depend on the same process: you can find anything there that you want to.
There is a value to these tricks however, in that they free you from responsibility for free association. And they bypass cognitive bias and error the same way that a praying to god bypasses our ability to lie to ourselves.
In other words, you find what you want to, and astrology, numerology, fortune telling, divination, and religious scripture serve to bypass our ability to lie to ourselves and bypasses our reason, so that we rely entirely on intuition. And in some things, intuition defeats reason.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 09:03:00 UTC
THE DIFFICULT IDEA TO GET ACROSS
(important)
When I say “the big problem is switching people from idealism (homogenous bias) under which each person seeks whatever bias fits his, to realism (heterogeneous bias) that is aware of the market competition. In other words, monopoly is endemic in western moral thinking bcause we’ve been homogenous since our beginnings. So we have no means of defense against the LIE of the value of diversity.
This is yet another example of the f—king stupidity of libertarian tropes (sophistry).
If you build high trust high value commons, then diversity increases transaction costs that all ancestors worked to reduce. So the reason we seek SOME diversity is to increase novelty because we seek to hyper-consume cheap novelty (consumption that destroys commons) rather than expensive novelty (innovation, continued capitalization of commons).
I don’t know how to explain this more simply. I would appreciate anyone who could.
Leftists spend down inheritance to feed herd instinct for numbers.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-01 14:52:00 UTC
One of the most common tactics of the left, popularized by Alinsky, and that is an application of the female strategy of undermining alphas, is to personalize a movement. Trump is the result of us, not we him. He’s disposable. And he’s the only thing stalling a hot civil war.
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-30 01:07:56 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244431129123438592
Reply addressees: @ArthurHolmberg
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244428899678814209
So I was trying (for two years now) to avoid doing to Molyneux what I did to mises, rothbard, fridman and hoppe. Because I wanted to preserve his utility in shifting the well meaning fools.
But. I guess, I’m just going to have to take out his foundations entirely instad.
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-29 18:57:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244337794517958656
Reply addressees: @LLaddon
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244337264811036673
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@LLaddon (Under P-Law you are accountable for a failure of due diligence against baiting into hazard.)
Moly did nothing Kant didn’t do better. Kant gave us marx who gave us adorno-fromm, derrida, friedan, rothbard – and molyneux. Continental rationalism is just jewish pilpul via xianity.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1244337264811036673
(Under P-Law you are accountable for a failure of due diligence against baiting into hazard.)
Moly did nothing Kant didn’t do better. Kant gave us marx who gave us adorno-fromm, derrida, friedan, rothbard – and molyneux. Continental rationalism is just jewish pilpul via xianity.
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-29 18:54:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244337264811036673
Reply addressees: @LLaddon
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244336575569371136
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@LLaddon So ‘people expect too much’ of not being lead by the pied piper.
UPB, KI, Rothbardian Libertarianism are just another false promise, baiting well meaning fools into hazard, advancing the strategy of the enemy using the enemy’s favorite technique: sewing conflict by false promise.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1244336575569371136