RT @Turbo_Flux: @curtdoolittle Info-Parasitism.
Trespass of reciprocity by demanding the interlocutor (not himself – special pleading) pay…
Source date (UTC): 2023-01-21 23:01:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616934069874352133
Strategy:
When accused, attacked, or insulted, in lieu of rational reciprocal question and argument:
a) return the insult
b) state the central point
c) repeat until iteratively exposing the error deception or fraud committed by the opposition
d) Or until reciprocity restored.
Source date (UTC): 2023-01-19 17:14:21 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616121897036529665
Reply addressees: @TheRealNewsGeek
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616115208845402112
(explanation)
We aren’t debating you. We’re calculating the deviation of the testifiability and reciprocity of your assertions from what is testifiable and the natural law.
We can understand them or not.
We can calculate them or not.
If we can calculate them we can judge them.
Source date (UTC): 2023-01-19 15:33:39 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616096555194540038
3. This is profound, because anything not irreciprocal is either amoral or moral: a good. And groups train one another in their presumption of traditional ‘good’ claims in their group strategy. But it’s not those claims that matter, but their irreciprocal bads regardless of claim
Source date (UTC): 2023-01-19 15:06:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616089714314055682
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616089712745402370
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
2. This ‘via-negativa’ analysis – variation from truthful and reciprocal – isn’t tolerant or forgiving. And it explains why groups are superior in productivity or criminality. And explains why everything prosperous results from the institutional prosecution of the irreciprocal.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1616089712745402370
2. This ‘via-negativa’ analysis – variation from truthful and reciprocal – isn’t tolerant or forgiving. And it explains why groups are superior in productivity or criminality. And explains why everything prosperous results from the institutional prosecution of the irreciprocal.
Source date (UTC): 2023-01-19 15:06:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616089712745402370
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616089711155576832
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
1. Thoughts: I work in decidability and law. Meaning falsehood and criminality. Meaning language, behavior, economics, and politics – not philosophy. So I see individuals and groups by their falsehoods, lies, frauds, crimes, sedition, and treason: deviation from the natural law.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1616089711155576832
You levied an accusation.
I responded in kind.
That’s reciprocity.
See?
I work in decidability and law.
This work is declarative.
One only explains.
Not persuades.
Source date (UTC): 2023-01-19 14:17:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616077461392875522
Reply addressees: @TheRealNewsGeek
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1616057695257108481
You can certainly do that. The question is under what circumstances you may without provoking retaliation for it. While the rock-cat falsehood may be meaningless, the vast majority of political ambitions and seditions are not.
Source date (UTC): 2023-01-18 22:33:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1615839835025178624
Reply addressees: @oteycoueye
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1615838939910180864
I block for memes.
Why?
I teach decidability.
I deal in arguments.
Memes rely on ridicule.
Ridicule violates the terms of parley.
Parley limits us to truthful, reciprocal exchange,
and putting our arms aside.
Unable to engage in arms,
The only alternative is boycott.
-FIN-
Source date (UTC): 2023-01-18 22:30:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1615839003051163649
Whataboutism. Demonstration of moral relativism. As expected.
Canary test: Are you as the seller responsible, and will you warranty, that the buyer’s decision will not result in his hazard or harm, and that you wont benefit from either?
Source date (UTC): 2023-01-18 21:11:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1615819215507951616
Reply addressees: @oteycoueye @a325nuts
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1615818619245711360
Like I said, my work will only spread if we can produce the first dozen ‘practitioners of the natural law’ (jurists) so that they can produce the next hundred. With a few hundred we can end the warfare against us. With a few thousand we can govern prohibiting war against us.
Source date (UTC): 2023-01-18 15:19:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1615730576090337280