Curt Doolittle

Theme: Responsibility

  • Indentured servitude isn’t a problem and rarely has been. I’ve argued elsewhere

    Indentured servitude isn’t a problem and rarely has been. I’ve argued elsewhere it’s simply a transfer of responsibility to exit the market competition for employment. I mean, for all intents and purposes that’s how the military is operated.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-18 11:56:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174291217653403649

    Reply addressees: @Darren_B_Lane @KralcTrebor @primalpoly

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174285627011059713

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174285627011059713

  • So you mean, oxycontin? What about heroin? What about drugs that kill people? Wh

    So you mean, oxycontin? What about heroin? What about drugs that kill people? What about scams?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-18 11:05:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174278166157897733

    Reply addressees: @sovereignfamily @primalpoly

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174139123529134081

    IN REPLY TO:

    @sovereignfamily

    @gmiller The right to manufacture, buy & sell pharmaceuticals free of intervention or regulation shall not be infringed.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174139123529134081

  • It’s exasperating that a hole in our constitution that neither demands ascent of

    It’s exasperating that a hole in our constitution that neither demands ascent of the supreme court, nor demands warranty by its legislators, nor provides means of returning an undecidable case to the state, is obfuscated by discussions of independence instead.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 21:42:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174076257140649985

    Reply addressees: @JoshMBlackman @CatoInstitute

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174075760807677952

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @JoshMBlackman @CatoInstitute But judicial independence is a consequence of that one law of reciprocity. Government is just a means of producing commons under that law. And the insurance of that law, those judges, against that government and the people who would usurp it, the only insurance possible.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174075760807677952

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @JoshMBlackman @CatoInstitute But judicial independence is a consequence of that one law of reciprocity. Government is just a means of producing commons under that law. And the insurance of that law, those judges, against that government and the people who would usurp it, the only insurance possible.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174075760807677952

  • We had laws against scolds (what you’re doing), and under the duel you would be

    We had laws against scolds (what you’re doing), and under the duel you would be silenced by threat, and until mid 20th you would be silenced by defamation laws for your action. When, in retrospect, this is a group strategy of females, jews, muslims and christians: undermining.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 20:27:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174057349197258752

    Reply addressees: @Simon_Whitten

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174056778583162880

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Simon_Whitten I mean, you don’t know that you’re doing it right now. You think (as would all cognitively female humans) that you’re making an argument but you’re just engaging in reputation destruction rather than argument, and from a position of presumption bias and ignorance.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174056778583162880

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Simon_Whitten I mean, you don’t know that you’re doing it right now. You think (as would all cognitively female humans) that you’re making an argument but you’re just engaging in reputation destruction rather than argument, and from a position of presumption bias and ignorance.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174056778583162880

  • Abortion? Ok. One Immoral Trade for Another.

    —“I have been fighting for reproductive rights for over 40 years, yet some forced birthers still appear to think that their justifications (exclusively religiously based) are so persuasive they will magically change my mind. Save your emails people, I’ve heard ’em all.”—Jane Caro @JaneCaro

    An excellent example of Pilpul (Sophism). So, you want to restore the right of mothers alone to kill fetuses, just as women have killed newborns, and young children for thousands of years by exposure, suffocation, and strangulation when they were too much of a burden. Women have murdered more children then all the wars of men combined. In fact, women’s murder of children is outdone only to the great plagues and Islamic conquest. But let’s not pretend it’s not murder. It is. It’s just justifiable murder in a woman’s eyes. How about a trade? End alimony and child support in exchange for juridical license to murder before their born, rather than after? Restore man’s choice if we are going to restore woman’s? That is a Just trade. Men want their offspring and their genetic lines to survive because they have no other choice. Women don’t want the burden of bearing, birthing, surrendering to adoption, or caring. If women will not pay to birth them then men should not pay to raise them. That is a reciprocal exchange. Trade license for one immorality for another. Or is your moralizing just a shallow attempt to obscure the underlying costs and privileges? Are you just seeking another privilege for women at another cost born by men?    

  • Abortion? Ok. One Immoral Trade for Another.

    —“I have been fighting for reproductive rights for over 40 years, yet some forced birthers still appear to think that their justifications (exclusively religiously based) are so persuasive they will magically change my mind. Save your emails people, I’ve heard ’em all.”—Jane Caro @JaneCaro

    An excellent example of Pilpul (Sophism). So, you want to restore the right of mothers alone to kill fetuses, just as women have killed newborns, and young children for thousands of years by exposure, suffocation, and strangulation when they were too much of a burden. Women have murdered more children then all the wars of men combined. In fact, women’s murder of children is outdone only to the great plagues and Islamic conquest. But let’s not pretend it’s not murder. It is. It’s just justifiable murder in a woman’s eyes. How about a trade? End alimony and child support in exchange for juridical license to murder before their born, rather than after? Restore man’s choice if we are going to restore woman’s? That is a Just trade. Men want their offspring and their genetic lines to survive because they have no other choice. Women don’t want the burden of bearing, birthing, surrendering to adoption, or caring. If women will not pay to birth them then men should not pay to raise them. That is a reciprocal exchange. Trade license for one immorality for another. Or is your moralizing just a shallow attempt to obscure the underlying costs and privileges? Are you just seeking another privilege for women at another cost born by men?    

  • That is a Just trade. Men want their offspring to survive because they have no o

    That is a Just trade. Men want their offspring to survive because they have no other choice. Women don’t want the burden of bearing, surrendering to adoption, or caring. If women will not pay to birth them then men should not pay to raise them. That is a reciprocal exchange.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 18:45:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174031716463325184

    Reply addressees: @JaneCaro

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174031347469430785

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @JaneCaro But let’s not pretend it’s not murder. It is. It’s just justifiable murder in a woman’s eyes. How about a trade? End alimony and child support in exchange for juridical license to murder before their born, rather than after?Restore man’s choice if we are going to restore woman’s.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174031347469430785

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @JaneCaro But let’s not pretend it’s not murder. It is. It’s just justifiable murder in a woman’s eyes. How about a trade? End alimony and child support in exchange for juridical license to murder before their born, rather than after?Restore man’s choice if we are going to restore woman’s.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174031347469430785

  • But let’s not pretend it’s not murder. It is. It’s just justifiable murder in a

    But let’s not pretend it’s not murder. It is. It’s just justifiable murder in a woman’s eyes. How about a trade? End alimony and child support in exchange for juridical license to murder before their born, rather than after?Restore man’s choice if we are going to restore woman’s.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 18:44:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174031347469430785

    Reply addressees: @JaneCaro

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1174030835361755136

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @JaneCaro Excellent example of Pilpul (Sophism). You want to restore the right to kill fetuses, just as women have killed newborns, and young children for thousands of years by exposure, suffocation, and strangulation. Women have murdered more children then all the wars of men combined.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174030835361755136

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @JaneCaro Excellent example of Pilpul (Sophism). You want to restore the right to kill fetuses, just as women have killed newborns, and young children for thousands of years by exposure, suffocation, and strangulation. Women have murdered more children then all the wars of men combined.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1174030835361755136

  • You have rapidly changed from a credible candidate to a denizen of clown world.

    You have rapidly changed from a credible candidate to a denizen of clown world. Instead, we should restore defamation to pre-leftist standards and prosecute these women for their misrepresentation, and the media and lawyers for conspiracy.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-15 23:35:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173379740771766273

    Reply addressees: @KamalaHarris

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173250953103007745

    IN REPLY TO:

    @KamalaHarris

    I sat through those hearings. Brett Kavanaugh lied to the U.S. Senate and most importantly to the American people. He was put on the Court through a sham process and his place on the Court is an insult to the pursuit of truth and justice.

    He must be impeached.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173250953103007745

  • And “fire” bad customers, and tell them you’re firing them and why. You must be

    And “fire” bad customers, and tell them you’re firing them and why. You must be lucky to create a fortune 500 company, but only be ethical and disciplined to create a competitive one that makes you rich. Why? It’s hard to constantly deliver on what you promise. Most people don’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-15 16:17:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173269646860046341

    Reply addressees: @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173268847908069376

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @StefanMolyneux I’ve built a dozen companies depending upon how you count them. Why are they successful? Give the customer what they want, not what you want to give them; on the most ethical terms possible; with the most warranty possible, and seek customer retention over short term profit;

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173268847908069376

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @StefanMolyneux I’ve built a dozen companies depending upon how you count them. Why are they successful? Give the customer what they want, not what you want to give them; on the most ethical terms possible; with the most warranty possible, and seek customer retention over short term profit;

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173268847908069376