Theme: Responsibility

  • “there exists such a thing as better people. unfortunately, people contest this.

    —“there exists such a thing as better people. unfortunately, people contest this.”—Micah Pezdirtz

    —“To acquire virtue one must first have the the capacity and the desire. More so the desire.”— Anon

    —“Virtue isn’t an accident. It’s an acquired skill.”– Anon

    —“We never know if a man is good until after he is dead”– Montaigne

    Translated: Work at it. But, as long as we are still living, we have opportunity to screw it all up. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-10 19:57:00 UTC

  • THE JUDGEMENT OF THE LAW – ON THE LEFT 0. Reciprocity is the only reason for bot

    THE JUDGEMENT OF THE LAW – ON THE LEFT

    0. Reciprocity is the only reason for both sides to refrain from predation, parasitism, or boycott – cooperation or the option to cooperate is more valuable than non-cooperation, and the prevention of future cooperation.

    1. We create reciprocity via negativa by not imposing costs on others demonstrated interests

    2. The name we use for Demonstrated interests is property.

    3. In P-Law we use property in toto as the definition of property, meaning the empirical evidence of what demonstrated interests people defend.

    4. We are all dependent upon the informational commons for information.

    5. Some of us will defend the informational commons (or any commons) from other’s abuse of it. Some will not.

    6. When you make a truth claim to others, or others make a truth claim to you, the person making the claim can, if he errs, biases, justifies, or deceives, violates reciprocity with the audience (what we call unethical), causes you to harm the informational commons as a consequence (by externality), and if he makes that claim in public, harms the informational commons as well, and therefore violates reciprocity in the commons (what we call immorality).

    7. P-Law provides a definition of truth, and the means of falsifying (testing) statements for truthfulness by tests of testifiable, consistency, operational possibility, correspondence, rationality, reciprocity, completeness, full accounting, and possibility of warranty, and possibility of restitution upon error or deceit.

    8. Marxism, neo-marxism (cultural marxism), postmodernism, feminism, and hbd-denialism, are all attempts at deception by:

    (a) claiming european self determination (sovereignty, reciprocity), tripartism (military, legal-commercial), and religious(family-faithful), mediated by law, and limiting us to markets, so that we preserve natural selection by demonstrated behavior, and devoting the proceeds to the production of commons, thereby maintaining the health,prosperity, and wealth of the people, and their competitive advantage is oppression, when all other peoples that did not do so were mired in poverty and suffering.

    (b) that the solution was communism, or socialism, that would end our natural selection, our prosperity, and our competitive advantage, and our ability to drag mankind out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, hard labor, starvation, disease, suffering, and victimization by nature – when all civilizations that have tried any form of equality have died.

    (c) that to bring about communism, socialism, and the reversal of evolutionary transcendence, it was necessary to undermine our civlization at every level.

    Monopoly statism to undermine our tripartism.

    Atheism to undermine our tripartism.

    Anti-militarism to undermine our tripartism.

    Anti-rule of law to undermine not only our tripartism but the means by which we resolved disputes between the classes.

    Marxism to undermine the markets and cooperation between the classes.

    Cultural Marxism to undermine our culture, values, myths, traditions, and arts.

    Feminism to undermine the family as the compromise between the genders given our different reproductive strategies and biological differences.

    Postmodernism to undermine our ability to use social pressure to force conformity into realism, naturalism, operationalism, reciprocity, truthful speech, and defense of the commons so that it was optimu for the production of high trust citizenry; and again,postmodernism to deny the existence of truth or truthful speech – when truthful speech is the primary reason for not only our high trust society but our ‘european means of sense-making’ that made empiricism our laws, democratic participation, our science, medicine, and technology, possible.

    Postmodernism to use language for any purpose by which to obtain political power – abandoning all need for consistency, correspondence, rationality and liability.

    Political correctness to undermine the truth of the substantial differences between our advanced, neotenic, genetically, informationally, normatively, culturally, traditionally, and institutional superior people, so that they can be conquered quietly and slowly.

    Using immigration to reverse our darwinian history.

    Using frailty in our law and democracy to capture our territory and institutions.

    Using the academy to indoctrinate two generations of marxist-postmodernist-feminist-HBD-denialist “Priests and Priestesses” to indoctrinate our children by manufacturing their ignorance, feminizing our males, and making obese both genders.

    That’s only part of what they’ve done. I’ve just run out of tolerance for listing their crimes.

    JUDGEMENT OF THE LAW

    If the informational, normative, traditional, and institutional commons is common property of a people, then the (((anti-western left))) is an organized crime syndicate invading and conquering from within, in violation of the Westphalian peace. And as such these people are prosecutable for war crimes, and we shall have our restitution.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-09 23:02:00 UTC

  • CASTE VS CLASS Caste != Class Caste (static) vs Class(adaptable) EUROPEAN HIERAR

    CASTE VS CLASS Caste != Class Caste (static) vs Class(adaptable) EUROPEAN HIERARCHY: |Responsibility| Barbarian (animal) > Slave > Serf > Freeman > Citizen > Sovereign. EUROPEAN TRIFUNCIONALISM Military(M) < – Legal – > Religious(F)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 17:37:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246854588273250304

  • EXAMPLE: REQUIREMENTS FOR VIOLATING P-LAW OF SPEECH —“Well, I’ve got a friend

    EXAMPLE: REQUIREMENTS FOR VIOLATING P-LAW OF SPEECH

    —“Well, I’ve got a friend who’s really into manufacturing custom soaps. Let’s say she understates her soap expenses in a public space, because she’s embarrassed.”—

    That’s In public, but not to the public, ad not about matters public. In other words no attempt to use the coercive powers of government nor to undermine the law limiting them, nor to pollute the informational commons, upon which the people depend.

    1) not regular speech, but political speech: in public to the public in matters public.

    2) I would expect lawyers to handle those in our existing court system, although I have recommended specialization of the court system, similar to the european court system where family, criminal, private, and public suits are separated.

    3) Lawyers and judges and court officials are just as prosecutable under P-law as anyone else. So I expect that to shake up the industry.

    Marxists, postmodernists, feminists, etc, go to jail.

    Silly people are just silly.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 16:19:00 UTC

  • Shaming for disapproval to avoid the argument, falsehood, irreciprocity, and fai

    Shaming for disapproval to avoid the argument, falsehood, irreciprocity, and failure of due diligence, is a demand for restitution, under test of reciprocity. The opposite is not.

    Learn the law. You will be better for it.

    Me: “Speak to the audience in a compromise grammar.”


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-05 15:29:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246822205083791361

    Reply addressees: @MillikanTamzin @DudeMaximus

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1246816467791872001

  • DEGREES OF HOMICIDE VS DEGREES OF LYING (Discussion between Curt and Greg Hamilt

    DEGREES OF HOMICIDE VS DEGREES OF LYING

    (Discussion between Curt and Greg Hamilton)

    Degree of failure of due diligence determines severity.

    Example:

    … Murder > Homicide > ???

    … Lying > Deceiving > ???

    We don’t have via negativa terms for crimes, but P-law is a via negativa logic.

    So, in P, we call a failure of due diligence “Lying”, because we can’t determine intentions only whether you in fact did the due diligence, and whether you stated a falsehood, or irreciprocity.

    Lying by intent and Lying by failures of due diligence.

    This definition mirrors “Truth”:

    Truth means satisfying the demand for infallibility.

    We satisfy the demand for infallibility by due diligence.

    So, is it correct to use Falsehood(error) or Lying(failure of due diligence)? Well, how do we know the difference? 😉

    DEGREES OF HOMICIDE

    Murder first and second

    -vs-

    Voluntary, Constructive, and Involuntary manslaughter

    -vs-

    Negligent Homicide (esp. vehicular)

    -vs-

    Excusable Homicide: by accident and misfortune, or in doing any other lawful act by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent.”

    -vs-

    Justifiable Homicide (self or other defense)

    -vs-

    State Licensed Homicide (military, law enforcement)

    The key phrase being “with usual and ordinary caution”

    Again, I am (we are) stating that in public, to public, in matters public, one must use ordinary caution. We are are increasing the requirements for ordinary caution.

    We are increasing the burden on public speech such that by failure of due diligence you do not guard against the spreading of falsehood (lying) because we cannot judge your intent, we can only determine whether or not you enaged in due diligence.

    It works just fine. We do it every day in courts around the globe.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 17:16:00 UTC

  • THE DEMARCATION BETWEEN HUMAN AND ANIMAL What is the point of demarcation where

    THE DEMARCATION BETWEEN HUMAN AND ANIMAL

    What is the point of demarcation where Homo Sapiens is no longer guided by animal impulse and is fully human?

    The answer is ‘When his or her judgements are decidable without appeal to instinct’.

    In other words, when all judgements are calculable.

    Only when all judgements are calculable are we free of animal instinct.

    What do you think P-law provides?

    Universal calculability.

    Universal commensurability

    and universal calculability,

    regardless of grammar or context.

    P.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 17:03:00 UTC

  • “I’m not sure making being wrong and lying the same is going to work. Intent is

    —“I’m not sure making being wrong and lying the same is going to work. Intent is an incredibly powerful part of our system. It’s the only substantial difference between murder and justifiable homicide. Judging just action/outcome without judging the intent isn’t going to create a workable system”—Greg Hamilton

    That can’t be true, because our legal system already does it. It always has. All this does is extend it from commercial to political speech.

    Think of it this way: philosophy was invented as a competition to the law to give permission to lie.

    —“Well I’m missing something because it appears you are saying being wrong is lying. … That without intent to deceive to are as guilty as if you had intent. “—Greg Hamilton

    Being wrong, or failing due diligence?

    You can perform due diligence and still be wrong without fault. You cannot avoid due diligence and still be wrong without fault.

    This is why the law distinguishes between Restitution, escalating to Punishment, and escalating to Prevention.

    Means motive and opportunity.

    We cannot know intent.

    We can however know due diligence.

    Which is how we test your truth or lie in law.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 11:33:00 UTC

  • A CRITICAL PRINCIPLE By @[572499615:2048:Daniel Roland Anderson] If you ever wan

    A CRITICAL PRINCIPLE

    By @[572499615:2048:Daniel Roland Anderson]

    If you ever want to understand Natural Law, this is a critical principle.

    If you have not performed Due Diligence, and you serve as a conduit for falsehood, you are “lying” under the P definition of lying.

    So sometimes when we call you liar, we aren’t saying you are wicked. It could be you are simply . . . simple.Updated Apr 3, 2020, 10:46 AM


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 10:46:00 UTC

  • they have a long history of irresponsibility for the commons and a longer histor

    they have a long history of irresponsibility for the commons and a longer history of hatred of mankind.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-03 05:12:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1245942347399155713

    Reply addressees: @TruthRespecter

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1245789766320295937