(important)(core)(the consolidated idea) There are people who can make testimonial arguments, and those that can’t. And the reasons are lack of agency(consciousness), lack of innate ability (intelligence), lack of knowledge of how to do so (skill), lack of training of how to do so given all of the above (institutional habituation), and the intentional undermining of the ancient western tradition that speech as sacred and warrantied, and as such lack of environmental indoctrination. A Testimonial argument meaning categorically consistent, internally consistent, externally correspondent, operationally possible (meaning existentially audit-able), consisting of a sequence of rational choices, and with others, of reciprocally rational choices, and always parsimonious, limited, and fully accounted – which includes all the dimensions humans are capable of comprehending and expressing. By limiting our speech to the requirements of each of those dimensions, we perform due diligence against dependence upon ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, withholding, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit. Now, our courts force us into testimonial speech under threat of punishment, and under competition from offense and defense, and under the refereeing of a judge, and under the subjective testing of a jury. And, due to historical reasons we simply do not have the means of requiring testimonial (truthful) speech under ‘free speech’ they way we did with under libel, slander and judicial duel. And on the internet we do not have the opportunity to use violence to suppress untruthful (un-warrantied) speech. So we have produced vast incentives and industrialized means of untruthful un-warrantied speech. So, at this juncture, we can either descend further into deceit using Abrahamic Pilpul to continue to increase the frequency and universalism of fictionalisms (pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-wisdom literature/Theology) – or we can restore the ‘sacredness’ of one’s speech by the restoration of libel, slander, and the duel, and extend the demand for warranty of due diligence from services and goods to information and therefore speech – a logical evolution of the defense of the markets from fraud and harm, by the incremental suppression of parasitism using the natural, common law, of reciprocity. The strong choose the latter: prosecution, persecution, punishment, and eradication. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine. May 19, 2018 9:10am
Theme: Predation
-
OUR CHOICE. WE CHOOSE: PROSECUTION, PERSECUTION, PUNISHMENT, ERADICATION. (impor
OUR CHOICE. WE CHOOSE: PROSECUTION, PERSECUTION, PUNISHMENT, ERADICATION.
(important)(core)(the consolidated idea)
There are people who can make testimonial arguments, and those that can’t. And the reasons are lack of agency(consciousness), lack of innate ability (intelligence), lack of knowledge of how to do so (skill), lack of training of how to do so given all of the above (institutional habituation), and the intentional undermining of the ancient western tradition that speech as sacred and warrantied, and as such lack of environmental indoctrination.
A Testimonial argument meaning categorically consistent, internally consistent, externally correspondent, operationally possible (meaning existentially audit-able), consisting of a sequence of rational choices, and with others, of reciprocally rational choices, and always parsimonious, limited, and fully accounted – which includes all the dimensions humans are capable of comprehending and expressing.
By limiting our speech to the requirements of each of those dimensions, we perform due diligence against dependence upon ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, withholding, obscurantism, fictionalism and deceit.
Now, our courts force us into testimonial speech under threat of punishment, and under competition from offense and defense, and under the refereeing of a judge, and under the subjective testing of a jury.
And, due to historical reasons we simply do not have the means of requiring testimonial (truthful) speech under ‘free speech’ they way we did with under libel, slander and judicial duel.
And on the internet we do not have the opportunity to use violence to suppress untruthful (un-warrantied) speech. So we have produced vast incentives and industrialized means of untruthful un-warrantied speech.
So, at this juncture, we can either descend further into deceit using Abrahamic Pilpul to continue to increase the frequency and universalism of fictionalisms (pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-wisdom literature/Theology) – or we can restore the ‘sacredness’ of one’s speech by the restoration of libel, slander, and the duel, and extend the demand for warranty of due diligence from services and goods to information and therefore speech – a logical evolution of the defense of the markets from fraud and harm, by the incremental suppression of parasitism using the natural, common law, of reciprocity.
The strong choose the latter: prosecution, persecution, punishment, and eradication.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-19 09:10:00 UTC
-
THEY’RE COMING FOR WHITE WOMEN NEXT by Stephen Klostermeier I called this. Someo
THEY’RE COMING FOR WHITE WOMEN NEXT
by Stephen Klostermeier
I called this.
Someone asked me “who is next after INCELS?”.
I said “straight, white women.”
SJWs want all whites gone.
For good.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-10 01:02:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/994382187842719744
-
THEY’RE COMING FOR WHITE WOMEN NEXT by Stephen Klostermeier I called this. Someo
THEY’RE COMING FOR WHITE WOMEN NEXT
by Stephen Klostermeier
I called this.
Someone asked me “who is next after INCELS?”.
I said “straight, white women.”
SJWs want all whites gone.
For good.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-09 21:02:00 UTC
-
Sorry, but if you look at history genocide has an exceptionally successful and b
Sorry, but if you look at history genocide has an exceptionally successful and beneficial history for the victors. Which is why they’re doing to us what they did to the Itals (Romans).
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 13:57:54 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/993127719985610752
-
Sorry, but if you look at history genocide has an exceptionally successful and b
Sorry, but if you look at history genocide has an exceptionally successful and beneficial history for the victors. Which is why they’re doing to us what they did to the Itals (Romans).
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 09:57:00 UTC
-
( Yeah, it’s worth noting that the most expensive sex slaves sold by ISIS are bo
( Yeah, it’s worth noting that the most expensive sex slaves sold by ISIS are boys. High market demand, low scarcity of supply. O. M. G. What is wrong with people? Seriously!!!! )
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-02 00:43:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/991478266941886464
-
From what I can gather, the current price of a slave in Libya is $200. Which is
From what I can gather, the current price of a slave in Libya is $200. Which is about the going price of an AK-47 around the world.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-01 21:37:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/991431406520864768
-
( Yeah, it’s worth noting that the most expensive sex slaves sold by ISIS are bo
( Yeah, it’s worth noting that the most expensive sex slaves sold by ISIS are boys. High market demand, low scarcity of supply. O. M. G. What is wrong with people? Seriously!!!! )
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-01 20:43:00 UTC
-
The Cost of Social Optimism
by Steve Pender Extending someone the privilege of assuming them to be trustworthy is costly (risk of theft, personal harm). Not extending the privilege of trust is also costly (extra security costs, loss of trade). Granting trust to one person but not another hinges on choosing which costs you want to pay at that time. Since humans are more averse to losing what they have than losing a potential gain, humans err on the side of protecting themselves and property, that is, they more often choose to pay for costs that reduce their losses. If you want to gain privilege, you must first convince the privilege-grantor that not trusting you is more expensive than trusting you. This means you must work on reducing your perceived risk to them. If people who look like you have a much higher rate of violence, you have 3 essential choices: 1) change your look enough that you are no longer categorized with them, 2) reduce the rate of violence of those who look like you so you are no longer categorized as a risk, or 3) increase the cost for others to perceive you as a risk. This 3rd option only reinforces the idea that you are in fact a risk (someone who imposes involuntary costs), and is therefore counterproductive.