(Strict construction of natural law.)
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 21:34:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244015077352669184
Reply addressees: @spacepencilcase
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1244012402682839041
Theme: Reciprocity
-
“IF WE CANNOT HAVE ANCESTOR WORSHIP THEN BY RECIPROCITY YOU MAY NOT EITHER.” Fin
“IF WE CANNOT HAVE ANCESTOR WORSHIP THEN BY RECIPROCITY YOU MAY NOT EITHER.”
Fin.
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-28 16:43:00 UTC
-
That’s because we don’t enforce the law of reciprocity including reciprocity in
That’s because we don’t enforce the law of reciprocity including reciprocity in truthful speech.
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-27 13:29:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243530538658471936
Reply addressees: @EricLiford
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243527487432339457
-
Due Diligence: realism, naturalism, sensory, identity (categorical), internal (l
Due Diligence: realism, naturalism, sensory, identity (categorical), internal (logical), operational (actions in time), external (empirical), rational (bounded rationality), reciprocal (moral – reciprocal rationality), limited, fully accounted, warranteed, restitutable.
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-27 13:03:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243524014288654337
Reply addressees: @KANTBOT20K @Doland58655726
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1243522978811392002
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@KANTBOT20K @Doland58655726 Epistemology: Observation > Free Association > Hypothesis (reason tested) > Theory (operationally tested), > Surviving Theory (market tested) > Limitation > Falsification > Repeat.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1243522978811392002
-
Reciprocity is decidable, just as bounded rationality is decidable. you can’t fa
Reciprocity is decidable, just as bounded rationality is decidable. you can’t falsify reciprocity any more than you can falsify bounded rationality. why? They’re synonyms. Now, that’s a logical necessity. Now we test the logical necessity and it holds up in across all civs.
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-24 21:01:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1242557083729506304
Reply addressees: @PaulKnowsBest2
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1242556495709028352
-
Under natural law you can say whatever you want as long as you warranty the trut
Under natural law you can say whatever you want as long as you warranty the truthfulness of it.
Twitter would become useful rather rapidly.
Right now it’s just dompaine amusement.
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-24 20:58:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1242556478143299584
Reply addressees: @c25113297 @Sinj1 @MarkHarrisNYC @willwilkinson
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1242554215211376640
-
So all we must agree upon is defeat of the enemy, and the natural law of recipro
So all we must agree upon is defeat of the enemy, and the natural law of reciprocity. The excuses we use for both are merely frames of mind.
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-17 15:50:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1239942083206696961
Reply addressees: @FOSTERMMXXII @jamesfoxhiggins @JohnMarkSays
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1239941714632196098
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@FOSTERMMXXII @jamesfoxhiggins @JohnMarkSays One of the ways we use P-Law to identify false claims is the use of pseudoscientific language as a pretense of knowledge or claim. Will people still require Mythology, theology(Empathic), Literature and philosophy( Pragmatic ) in addition to History, Science, Law, (Ruling)? Yes.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1239941714632196098
-
And it’s far easier than you’d think. Because we don’t need to know if a claim i
And it’s far easier than you’d think. Because we don’t need to know if a claim is true or not, just whether it is testifiable, reciprocal, evolutionary, warrantable, restitutable or not.
P-Law, The Formal, Natural Law of Sovereignty and Reciprocity of the European Peoples.
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-16 17:14:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1239601002728300546
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1239601001658822662
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
We can end the century and a half of pseudoscience, sophistry, and lies by the false promise of freedom from physical laws of nature, the natural law of cooperation, and the evolutionary law of transcendence: marxism, neo-marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1239601001658822662
-
Our solution unites Science with Law in defense of the informational commons, re
Our solution unites Science with Law in defense of the informational commons, regardless of who testifies (speaks), and the manner in which he speaks (spoken, written, media) – and what he testifies to, when in public to the public about matters public.
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-16 17:14:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1239601000568291328
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1239600997271506944
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
Philosophy considers lying an act of intention. The Law considers lying (or any irreciprocity) a failure of due diligence regardless of intention. Science differs from Law only in Science’s defense of the informational commons from false testimony by scientists.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1239600997271506944
-
Philosophy considers lying an act of intention. The Law considers lying (or any
Philosophy considers lying an act of intention. The Law considers lying (or any irreciprocity) a failure of due diligence regardless of intention. Science differs from Law only in Science’s defense of the informational commons from false testimony by scientists.
Source date (UTC): 2020-03-16 17:14:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1239600997271506944
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1239600996088758274
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
Philosophy presumes the positive, and asks whether questions are true or false, and preferable or good, or not. Law presumes the erroneous, dishonest, or fraudulent, and asks whether questions are testifiable or untestifiable, and whether reciprocal and warrantable or not.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1239600996088758274