Theme: Responsibility

  • That’s nonsense. Women’s voting is universally to evade personal responsibility,

    That’s nonsense. Women’s voting is universally to evade personal responsibility, while the entirety of the success of the west is the result of the western institutionalization of demand for personal responsibility for display word and deed in matters personal private and common.

    We would never have a single progressive-left president if it weren’t for women, and we’d have far fewer in government, and the parties would represent the regions rather than sexes and minorities.

    Our education woudn’t have been dumbed down. Our economy wouldn’t have been offshored, our debt wouldn’t have been extreme. Our immigration would never have been opened. Our cultural conflict wouldn’t have occured.

    Reply addressees: @HannahDCox @AutistMaxxing


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-19 16:07:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1825565201061810176

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1825171361263657141

  • We talk about women’s abortions all the time, but, men, especially men over 30,

    We talk about women’s abortions all the time, but, men, especially men over 30, how many women have you made pregnant, who later aborted – whether you had the choice or not?

    (It’s a rhetorical question. No I don’t want to know.)


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-14 18:45:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1823793108892471296

  • We talk about women’s abortions all the time, but, men, especially men over 30,

    We talk about women’s abortions all the time, but, men, especially men over 30, how many women have you made pregnant, who later aborted – whether you had the choice or not?

    (It’s a rhetorical question. No I don’t want to know.)


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-14 18:45:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1823793108951187842

  • This is a common prevarication. It is a matter of long standing common law, that

    This is a common prevarication. It is a matter of long standing common law, that it does not matter what you intend, it matters onlly whether you have performed sufficient due diligence to promise a truth claim.
    Since you cannot perform due diligence on claims, and you choose to anyway, while this is common, it is still deception and a tort (crime)
    You could say you have faith in such a thing, you can say you believe in such a thing, your could say you have confidence in such a thing, but you may not claim it is true.
    The reason being
    (a) you may be ignorant (honest) but irresponsible (b) you may have biases or agendas or commitments and again irresponsible for failure of self regulation, or (c) you may intentionally act irresponsibly. But you are not the judge of whether you commit a crime and whether your intent matters. Instead, we look for motive. You have a motive for (a) claiming truth that which is not testifiable, (b) a motive for doing so (c) even if that motive is petty and the consequences merely a common harm to the informational commons (others). (d) and forcing others (like me) to defend the commons from your irresponsibility.

    Reply addressees: @repairmanscully @martinmbauer


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-14 00:01:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1823510135588732928

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1823506863050088740

  • It does not matter whether you intend to lie, or whether you lie by a failure of

    It does not matter whether you intend to lie, or whether you lie by a failure of due diligence. A tort (a crime) is not dependent upon intent. Instead, it is your responsibility not to lie – to speak a falsehood.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-13 23:45:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1823506160437354816

    Reply addressees: @repairmanscully @martinmbauer

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1823438898694955174

  • RT @ThruTheHayes: TARGET BEHAVIORS There’s no quicker way to peace than punishin

    RT @ThruTheHayes: TARGET BEHAVIORS

    There’s no quicker way to peace than punishing unlawful behaviors; the swifter the better. Citizens are…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-09 16:59:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821954513051206016

  • @ItIsHoeMath Suggestion to add to your portfolio of wisdom: Doing what imposes c

    @ItIsHoeMath
    Suggestion to add to your portfolio of wisdom:
    Doing what imposes costs on others hurts everyone by either depriving the producers or disabling, creating dependency, and exaggerating the reproduction of the non-producers.
    Instead, we all benefit from NOT doing things that impose costs upon others.
    If enough of us live in proximity that we all benefit from not imposing costs on others we develop trustworthiness and trust.
    If we develop homogenous trustworthiness and trust when living in proximity, we lower opportunity costs, and lower the risk and in doing so lower transaction costs.
    If we create the informal commons of trustworthiness and trust, lowering opportunity and transaction costs, then can then use some percentage of proceeds from not doing things to one another, that we can create commons of both formal institutions, and physical infrastructure to further lower our opportunity, transaction, information, goods, and services costs.
    If we further lower our costs of opportunity, transaction, information, goods and services in an environment of homogenous trust in proximity to one another, we create an advantage that attracts others who will conform to those norms and institutions which again lowers opportunity and transaction costs further and increases the division of labor decreasing the costs of more complex and diverse goods, services and information.
    The lesson is that we all benefit from the prohibition on imposition of costs upon others, including the prohibition on others free riding on the production of commons that lower opportunity, transaction, and material costs.
    Conversely, we all experience harm from the tolerance for imposition of costs upon others, especially those directly, or indirectly by free riding on the production of commons – including the commons of trustworthiness and trust that made all our benefits possible.
    This is why we are converting from a high trust northern european population to a lower and lower and lower one – and discovering the informal, formal, and material costs that follow that decline.
    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @ItIsHoeMath


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-08 19:36:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1821631643129434112

  • Reciprocity. Inappropriate responses require equally inappropriate responses. Ag

    Reciprocity. Inappropriate responses require equally inappropriate responses. Again, grow up. What you mean of course is that you want someone else to solve the problem for you by easy means at no risk – not that you want a simple answer. Because moral demands, force, numbers,…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-06 16:33:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1820860753571713246

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1820840705180209498

  • The judge made a bad argument. The guy didn’t pull the machete and retreat. Inst

    The judge made a bad argument.
    The guy didn’t pull the machete and retreat.
    Instead he stood ground and threatened them.
    She should have criticized him for his over the top behavior rather than duty to retreat.

    Now, in addition to the right to bear arms for personal, private, and political ends, we need to constitutionally mandated
    ‘stand your ground’,
    ‘castle doctrine’,
    as well as:
    ‘initiation of defense’
    ‘necessity defense’
    ‘justifiable homicide’,
    and to expand:
    ‘defense of others’, and
    ‘defense of property’,
    into responsibilities rather than rights.
    The problematic law is ‘duty to retreat’ which is we need to expressly prohibit.

    Reply addressees: @steven_spo @covid_clarity


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-03 18:44:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1819806473784086528

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1819712415757451329

  • Our position is that the state, whose primary function consists of the insurer o

    Our position is that the state, whose primary function consists of the insurer of last resort, has the primary duty to protect the moral from the immoral meaning that the more people who engage in crimes of aggression against life and property who are deported, committed to long term camps, assigned to prisons and asylums, or hung, is the optimum social, economic, political and legal order.
    The experiment with levity has been a catastrophe and it’s the responsibility of women voting and the left – where the totality of the purpose of the left is to prevent the moral people from punishing the immoral people and preventing their freedom, their costs, and their reproduction.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-08-02 00:16:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1819165397079191554