That’s the easy one. Try the hard one: How do we know a lender isn’t baiting a borrower into hazard? How can a lender warranty his liability against baiting into hazard?
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 20:53:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253789299172089857
Reply addressees: @judicialist @ComicDaveSmith
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253787088857817090
RT @ThruTheHayes: It’s time for restitution, punishment, and prevention.
-@curtdoolittle
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 17:18:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253735008566681602
But it’s certainly possible. And if we change law and education so that people are as aware of criminality, including female anti-social and interpersonal and social criminality, then we should be able (over time) to suppress it as we have suppressed other anti-social behavior.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 13:34:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253678634205839366
Reply addressees: @unfinis06265716 @YouTube
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253678232626495489
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@unfinis06265716 @YouTube If it’s genetic then as I’ve suggested our laws must evolve to protect against cognitively female anti-social and social-criminal behavior (Undermining, Seduction,False promise, Baiting into Hazard, Magical Thinking). But it is difficult to imagine females or Ashkenazim changing.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1253678232626495489
PATERNAL REBUKE OF THE INFANTILIZED (worth repeating) (rebuke) We are not equal. We can engage in reciprocity. In doing so we can engage in reciprocal loyalty and insurance. But the weak are not equal to the strong, the woman to the man, the child to the adult. That is why we must have reciprocity to cooperate despite our differences. The purpose of what you [theology, philosophy, ideology] and those like you desire is to use saturation in falsehood to socially construct emotional cognitive political and military arrested development. And to drag mankind down to your level of infantile primitivism. Where the aristocracy took the opposite position: can we drag mankind kicking and screaming from easily manipulable female infantilism to maintain her ability to cheaply manipulate, into young adulthood to question her with philosophy, to agency with which we can rule with evidence and action, over the infants, infantile, young, limited, and those of arrested development. And yes I realize that indoctrination, choice, and truth constitute of spectrum of child, young adult, mature adult. And I recognize that there is value in theology for children, reason for young adults, and truth for adults – because mirrors the possible intellectual development of the mind. I also know that I am working in the language of adults, not young adults and women, or child. If you can calculate it’s science, if you can’t it’s philosophy. I do operational law. It’s calculable. Just as mathematics is the formal logic of the physical, operational law is the formal logic of sentient life. The only reason I use the framework of philosophy is, by design, to destroy philosophy with operationalism, as our ancestors destroyed theology empiricism. The only thing for philosophy now is choice within the limits of truth. The only thing left for theology is indoctrination into mindfulness within the group strategy independent of choice or truth. As far as I know philosophy is done. What remains as philosophy is but the history of the development of secular theology. If you understand that paragraph you will understand what I have done. Are these statements arrogant as if between equals, or truth from parent to youth, or teacher to student? One is only arrogant if he both errs and is equal. One is merely disciplining if one is parent and unequal. -Quod Erat Demonstrandum
PATERNAL REBUKE OF THE INFANTILIZED (worth repeating) (rebuke) We are not equal. We can engage in reciprocity. In doing so we can engage in reciprocal loyalty and insurance. But the weak are not equal to the strong, the woman to the man, the child to the adult. That is why we must have reciprocity to cooperate despite our differences. The purpose of what you [theology, philosophy, ideology] and those like you desire is to use saturation in falsehood to socially construct emotional cognitive political and military arrested development. And to drag mankind down to your level of infantile primitivism. Where the aristocracy took the opposite position: can we drag mankind kicking and screaming from easily manipulable female infantilism to maintain her ability to cheaply manipulate, into young adulthood to question her with philosophy, to agency with which we can rule with evidence and action, over the infants, infantile, young, limited, and those of arrested development. And yes I realize that indoctrination, choice, and truth constitute of spectrum of child, young adult, mature adult. And I recognize that there is value in theology for children, reason for young adults, and truth for adults – because mirrors the possible intellectual development of the mind. I also know that I am working in the language of adults, not young adults and women, or child. If you can calculate it’s science, if you can’t it’s philosophy. I do operational law. It’s calculable. Just as mathematics is the formal logic of the physical, operational law is the formal logic of sentient life. The only reason I use the framework of philosophy is, by design, to destroy philosophy with operationalism, as our ancestors destroyed theology empiricism. The only thing for philosophy now is choice within the limits of truth. The only thing left for theology is indoctrination into mindfulness within the group strategy independent of choice or truth. As far as I know philosophy is done. What remains as philosophy is but the history of the development of secular theology. If you understand that paragraph you will understand what I have done. Are these statements arrogant as if between equals, or truth from parent to youth, or teacher to student? One is only arrogant if he both errs and is equal. One is merely disciplining if one is parent and unequal. -Quod Erat Demonstrandum
I’m arguing the greater harm caused by the crimes of the past than minor point increases and greater fiscal responsibility going forward. Why should i profit from credit to a state in order to extract rents from the citizens b/c politicians buying votes to fund political allies?
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 09:56:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253261502066327552
Reply addressees: @CGoydich
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253259391475814401
COMPASSION IS AN INDIVIDUAL ACTION, NOT A COLLECTIVE ONE
by Matt MacBradaigh
One can only be compassionate as an individual action, not a collective one. When one tries to extend collective compassion, what happens is recipient (a small segment of society) benefits irreciprocally at the expense of others.
Examples:
“Compassion” for repeat criminal offenders, “It’s not their fault; it’s the system. Blah blah blah” is at at the expense of those whom are the next repeat criminal offender’s victims. It’s total LACK of compassion for everyone else to satisfy ones feelz. It’s actually downright selfish.
“Compassion” for the poor leading to voting for government to take other’s money instead of giving your own, and then engaging in GSRRM to shame anyone who balks at being stolen from.Updated Apr 22, 2020, 5:38 PM
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-22 17:38:00 UTC
LAW ENFORCEMENT BE UNDER P-LAW
—“How different would the function of law enforcement be under P-law than how it operates in today’s society?”—
Primary differences are:
1) adopt sheriff public service model rather than police (corporate revenue generation) model,
2) to increase the number of officers in each incident so that force isn’t required
3) coupled with the ability to call large numbers of ‘trained’ citizens (militia) to assist (similar to volunteer fire departments); This increases the chances that someone who knows the individual can talk him or her down.
4) the population would be trained by continuous pubic service announcements on how to react to police officers.
5) Restore more discretion by senior officers, and lower the number of people who are put into the system.
In other words ‘make time for human beings’.
The acceleration of human behavior into rat-utopia panic is due to alienation, and the consequences. Social pressure and getting attention on one’s ‘ir-reciprocities’ and ‘feeling the social pressure (guilt)’ does not accelerate conflict behavior as does a relationship between an ‘oppressor / opponent / authority” with an officer. Shame is more effective than we think. Which is something we used to know.
6) We would restore all rights of self defense and all OBLIGATIONS to defend the commons: physical, normative, informational, and institutional. Meaning that a lot more criminals would be shot for ‘starter crimes’ – my favorite being porch-thieves, and within a decade behavior would return to ‘normal’.
What does this amount to? Restoring the number of people protecting private and common.
ORIGINS
Where does this come from? Study of dutch british and german police forces, and study of how french citizens are taught to react to police.
Source of the problem is distributed us population vs concentrated european population, and associated coverage costs. In effect we are forcing officers into a position where they cannot use numbers to encircle (see italian method) remain calm, and de-escalate, and so must use force to obtain control and bring into the system.
The ability to storm someone’s home rather than wait to take them in public is another that needs to be changed.
In effect we are trying to be too efficient with expensive officers, and we are paying the cost in increased distrust of the police courts, and political institutions becasue of it.
We don’t need wild west sheriffs. We need to encircle, show consideration, de escalate, and if escalation is necessary it’s because there is no other choice, not because of the power ratio between officers and subjects.
I can write more but in general, Americans suppress more petty crimes than europeans which is important and why we have nicer suburbs – and we want to keep it that way, and we are better at investigation – esp FBI – than european countries, but they are better at civil policing than americans.
We are a more militarized society
However, what I’m recommending is that we are a more “MILITIA-ISED” at the local level so that we restore investment in the material, social, political, and informational commons.
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-22 11:55:00 UTC
P CONSTITUTION HAS ROOM FOR EVERYONE … JUST…
—“From what I’ve read in the P Constitution, it has room for almost everybody. It just restricts those everybody’s from harming anyone else. In the P Constitution made a great effort to strengthen many of the amendments in the US Constitution.:–Robert Danis
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-22 10:36:00 UTC
—“That’s what it always comes down to, freedom from consequences. The false promise of freedom from consequences is baiting into hazard as ignoring consequences must necessarily result in destruction.”—Andrew M Gilmour
Source date (UTC): 2020-04-18 15:43:00 UTC