Theme: Responsibility

  • THE Turns out that at least the sequence of aristotle > aquinas > Smith > Blacks

    THE
    Turns out that at least the sequence of aristotle > aquinas > Smith > Blackstone is correct in that there is a universal at least via-negativa morality. But that without the christian ethic’s via positiva we might not have discovered how to integrate the lower classes and women into aristocratic civilization.
    That positiva consists of only four rules, and those four rules solve the problem of high trust in a counter-intuitive manner.
    Especially given that christianity is a personal religion more so than social or political – and it allows individual interpretation because it’s so imprecise that it doesn’t even state those four rules at any point or do so clearly.
    So while it’s true that there is nothing in christianity that was not in european culture at the time, christianity accelerated the rate at which the underclasses could integrate into aristocratic civilization – not because they had positive merit, but becuase they would do fewer wrongs.
    And that was enough.
    Unfortunatley, the forcible imposition of that religion prevented the gradual continuation of the evolution of the greco-roman tradition into what we assume would have been sol invictus, preserving the arististocracy AND incorporating the underclasses, instead of developing the church as a hostile competitor to the aristocracy, the greco croman traditions of thought and literacy, and thte consequence was a dark age.
    Because christianity as a personal religion is much more selfish than the pagan religions that were impersonal but political. Hence why christianity has such a hard time competing with judaism and islam both of which are political not personal religions.

    Reply addressees: @Airmanareiks @SydSteyerhart


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-02 17:35:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742238232325099520

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742227304405671995

  • (Lesson of the Day) —“Litter is not our fault, but it is our responsibility.”-

    (Lesson of the Day)
    —“Litter is not our fault, but it is our responsibility.”– @JoshuaLisec via @NoahRevoy

    —“By separating fault from responsibilty we allow people to take responsibilty for things, without blame for the thing – especially for women.”— @NoahRevoy


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-02 16:09:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742216485416697908

  • (Lesson of the Day) —“Litter is not our fault, but it is our responsibility.”-

    (Lesson of the Day)
    —“Litter is not our fault, but it is our responsibility.”– @JoshuaLisec via @NoahRevoy

    —“By separating fault from responsibilty we allow people to take responsibilty for things, without blame for the thing – especially for women.”— @NoahRevoy


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-02 16:09:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742216485328560128

  • Start with the beginning: After this it’s demonstrated interest, self determinat

    Start with the beginning: After this it’s demonstrated interest, self determinat

    Start with the beginning:
    After this it’s demonstrated interest, self determination, sovereignty, reciprocity, truth and duty. https://t.co/nOLwh65Vr4


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-02 03:37:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742027247836348561

    Reply addressees: @romanstatue_ @SydSteyerhart

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1742025121882087607

  • DEFINITION: Imposition of Costs |Severity|: Aggress <- Impose <- Infringe The wo

    DEFINITION: Imposition of Costs
    |Severity|: Aggress <- Impose <- Infringe

    The words “aggress,” “impose,” and “infringe” have distinct meanings but can sometimes be related in the context of actions that overstep boundaries.

    – “aggress” focuses on initiating conflict,
    – “impose” on causing unwelcome burdens (costs), and
    – “infringe” on violating rules or rights (opportunities).

    Here’s a comparison and contrast of these terms:

    Aggress
    Meaning: To “aggress” means to make a first attack or take the initiative in a conflict. It implies initiating hostility or confrontation.

    Usage: This term is often used in contexts of physical or military conflict, but it can also apply to social or verbal confrontations.

    Connotation: “Aggress” generally has a negative connotation, suggesting unwarranted or unprovoked offensive actions.

    Focus: The focus is on the initiation of an action that is hostile or confrontational.

    Impose
    Meaning: To “impose” means to forcibly put a burden, duty, rule, or penalty on someone or something. It can also mean to force one’s ideas or beliefs on others.

    Usage: This term is commonly used in social, legal, and personal contexts, such as imposing a tax, a penalty, or one’s views.

    Connotation: “Impose” often carries a negative connotation, implying a lack of consent or agreement from those affected.

    Focus: The focus is on the act of placing a burden or requirement on others, often without their consent.

    Infringe
    Meaning: To “infringe” means to actively break the terms of a law or agreement or to violate someone’s rights or property.

    Usage: This term is frequently used in legal contexts, such as infringing on copyrights, patents, or personal freedoms.

    Connotation: “Infringe” has a negative connotation, as it involves the violation of laws, rights, or agreements.

    Focus: The focus is on the act of violating boundaries, rules, or rights that are legally or morally established.

    Comparison and Contrast
    Aggression vs. Imposition: While “aggress” involves initiating a conflict or attack, “impose” is more about putting something unwelcome onto others. Aggression is about starting a hostile action, whereas imposition is about burdening others with something.

    Imposition vs. Infringement: Both “impose” and “infringe” can involve overstepping boundaries, but imposition is more about enforcing something unwanted, while infringement is about violating established rules or rights.

    Aggression vs. Infringement: “Aggress” is about initiating conflict, often actively and overtly, while “infringe” is specifically about breaking rules or encroaching on rights, which can be a more subtle form of overstepping.

    Summary
    In summary, while all three terms involve actions that overstep boundaries or norms, “aggress” focuses on initiating conflict, “impose” on enforcing unwelcome burdens, and “infringe” on violating rules or rights.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-31 12:02:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1741429708489732096

  • (NLI Conference Videos) Solutions for Family – Take Responsibility, Demand Accou

    (NLI Conference Videos)
    Solutions for Family – Take Responsibility, Demand Accountability
    by Brandon Hayes
    https://youtu.be/Vp8eDOGCinM?si=rHrjW5Z5JyWzuCuL


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-31 01:58:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1741277532194804098

  • (NLI Conference Videos) Solutions for Family – Take Responsibility, Demand Accou

    (NLI Conference Videos)
    Solutions for Family – Take Responsibility, Demand Accountability
    by Brandon Hayes
    https://t.co/9eJu4QFK3N


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-31 01:58:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1741277532069011457

  • RT @ThruTheHayes: CHILDREN CAN NOT CONSENT They’ve not the agency to consent. Th

    RT @ThruTheHayes: CHILDREN CAN NOT CONSENT

    They’ve not the agency to consent.

    Those making the case that children can consent are elevati…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-31 00:19:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1741252787306897527

  • RE: “Disingenuous” The difference between a crime(you should know not to do this

    RE: “Disingenuous”
    The difference between a crime(you should know not to do this) and a tort (you failed sufficient due diligence to defend against this) is intent.

    You are still guilty of stating a falsehood (lying) if you state a falsehood because you failed to perform the due diligence sufficiently to ensure you could testify to what you are saying.

    This is the ‘hole’ in free speech. Free truthful, testifiable, reciprocal(moral) speech must be free. There is no need to licence lying whether by positive assertion or negative due diligence.

    Reply addressees: @datepsych


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-29 18:32:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1740803065416921088

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1740800160861401398

  • They are also entrepreneurial but they haven’t had the middle class revolution t

    They are also entrepreneurial but they haven’t had the middle class revolution that forces the general poulation to adopt middle class ethics of responsibility for BOTH private AND common.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-27 21:47:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1740127267739885716

    Reply addressees: @quilty_dan @BlauGloriole

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1740052543928205356