Theme: Truth

  • 1. Not an argument that contradicts anything I’ve said. 2. Yes, the purpose of a

    1. Not an argument that contradicts anything I’ve said.
    2. Yes, the purpose of adversarial debate on social media is to educate the audience. The purpose of ALL debate is to educate the audience. The audience is the jury.
    3. The reason being that almost all people (all but a tiny few) are bots justifying genetic and developmental biases, by collecting means of satisfying them, while claiming they have competency.

    Like I said, Jesse. You are shallow and transparent. And. you opened with insult, you doubled down with evasion, and now you’re doubling down with rallying.

    You don’t know you’re a bot. We do. You’re just a midwit enough to perform better in your use of feminine sophistry, manipulation, and deceit which is why you make a better example.

    Reply addressees: @jcallahanbryant


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-16 17:01:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669752155799015424

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669750649595265026

  • Once someone has established they engage in magical and justificationary thinkin

    Once someone has established they engage in magical and justificationary thinking, the practice of pilpul and critique, respond with intellectual dishonesty, and worse, demonstrated that they can’t identify, dismiss, or deliberately ignore the pattern between their words and others’ criticism of it, that individual is irredeemable, and all investment is sunk cost. Because instinc-bots, addicts, and criminals do not reform until they have no other choice.

    Simple questions from existing exchanges:
    (a) Are you denying the existence of your recent article (post) on conservatism?
    (b) Are you able to reduce your own bias to first cuases such that you can compare your presumptions with the opposition’s presumptions?
    (c) Are you ignoring the criticism of your use of the feminine > abrahamic > leftist method of undermining and virtue signaling in lieu of argument, or are you just unaware of the differences between the systematic and empirical method of masculine and european criticism and the empathic and social method of feminine and abrahamic criticism?
    (d) Why did you evade the sex differences in cognition as the origin of interpersonal, moral, and political bias? And claim I had no specific criticism?
    (e) If you are so unaware of the scientific and logical foundations of your own and others bias and understanding, then why are you even vaguely fit to comment on it as other than gossip? (You are, because that’s what you’re doing. Using feminine GSRRM – gossip.

    Because that’s all you are capable of.

    1. If you were intellectualy capable you would recognize the patterns betwen the arguments I’m making and your writing.
    2. If you were intellectually informed you would respond with specific questions that illustrated your understanding (you haven’t).
    3. If you were intellectually honest as well, then you would seek to understand rather than object.

    So you have failed all three tests of capacity, knowledge, and honesty. Why should I or anyone else take you as anything other than seeking attention to confirm your bias, create a false self image, and a pretense of ability and status, by your act of calling the science you are ignorant of ‘esoteric’ rather than your own work as consisting of nothing more than atention seeking conformity and populist drivel?

    Adulthood is seeking to do precisely the opposite of every behavior you are demonstrating. The purpose of governing by demonstrated competency instead of credentialism is precisely to prevent your kind of folly from being politically imposed upon others who are, quite opposite from you, competent and moral.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @jcallahanbryant @Thaeus4


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-16 16:32:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669744846351872005

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669737433888591872

  • I read a series of articles on your substack. I chose the recent article on cons

    I read a series of articles on your substack. I chose the recent article on conservatives as the most obvious one to demonstrate your incompetence.
    While largely an epistemologist unifying the sciences, I have had to specialize (unfortunately) in differences in lying, and in particular the sex differences in cognition and lying, and the expression of sex differences in lying in different classes ethnicities and civilizations.
    So, you are as transparent to me as a psychopath is to a psychiatrist.
    Science and logic are not esoteric. It’s just that you’re as far behindt he science and logic as theologians were behind the post newtonian scientists.
    You are merely unaware of your own ignorance and immorality because of it.
    Why? Positive feedback for your attention seeking.

    Reply addressees: @jcallahanbryant @Thaeus4


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-16 15:45:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669732827162656769

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669730917999599620

  • There might be a cultural difference in the understanding of these terms. I don’

    There might be a cultural difference in the understanding of these terms.
    I don’t know what christians making up a quarter of the world’s population has to do with anything.
    Truth is truth regardless of whether we like it or not.
    I am very, very good at what I do.
    I will invest in helping you understand if you seek to understand.
    If you seek justification of priors by seeking to disagree then discourse is pointless.

    Reply addressees: @uwemudofia10 @Nefertiiti


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-16 15:00:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669721736470835203

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669715628729442304

  • The truth doesn’t have anything to do with approval. One of the properties of th

    The truth doesn’t have anything to do with approval. One of the properties of the feminine mind, is the confusion (conflation, reversal) of true/false with approval/disapproval. In fact, most women can’t tell the difference whatsoever. Same with NAXALT/AXALT fallacy, and female hyper-consumption and attention seeking vs male capitalization and responsibility seeking.

    Economies, demographics, the universe, nature, and evolution don’t care whether you like laws of the universe or not.

    Reply addressees: @theelegantbomb


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-15 16:21:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669379687796047874

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669362100580360192

  • Testimony: Repetition

    Testimony: Repetition. https://twitter.com/WalterIII/status/1668999604434792448

  • It’s lying. We cannot be compelled to lie. Period. End of story. Sorry. No more

    It’s lying. We cannot be compelled to lie. Period. End of story. Sorry. No more lies.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-14 17:23:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669032826073743360

    Reply addressees: @LambdaLegal

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1667949842683904000

  • Communism’s Intellectual Dishonesty @Whatifalthist’s test of intellectual honest

    Communism’s Intellectual Dishonesty
    https://youtube.com/shorts/LUJgCHdnePM?feature=share

    @Whatifalthist’s test of intellectual honesty: “What evidence would you need to see?” Dishonest people then move the goalpost. This is the via negativa version that mirrors the via-positiva ‘rolling accusation’ means…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-14 16:27:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669018770852003843

  • Communism’s Intellectual Dishonesty @Whatifalthist’s test of intellectual honest

    Communism’s Intellectual Dishonesty
    https://t.co/EpBZtMjcqV

    @Whatifalthist’s test of intellectual honesty: “What evidence would you need to see?” Dishonest people then move the goalpost. This is the via negativa version that mirrors the via-positiva ‘rolling accusation’ means of deception.

    Communism is just the biologically female mind in most sophomoric and pseudoscientific form: the confusion(reversal) between the desirable/good and the possible/true.

    There is no science in leftist thought. It’s all feminine instict using Abrahamic deception migrated from sophomoric and supernatural to sophomoric and pseudoscientific prose.

    Unfortunatley our Christians, use the same strategy in defending the theology of their cult despite adhering to natural law, and pursuing the responsibility that the left does nothing but seek to evade, producing demonstrated virtue in everything but argument. (Which is odd when you think about it.)

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-14 16:27:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669018770692603906

  • RT @StevePender: @LexLegisEuropae @ThruTheHayes The discovery that perfection is

    RT @StevePender: @LexLegisEuropae @ThruTheHayes The discovery that perfection is to be discovered rather than that we descended from perfec…


    Source date (UTC): 2023-06-13 14:27:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1668626049058635777