—“WhatsApp lost $232.5 million in the first six months of 2014, compared to a loss of $58.8 million in the first six months of 2013.”—
(I’d like to lose that much money sometime, just because it’s like saying you wipe with silk…..wtf)
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-28 21:49:00 UTC
THE OTHER WHITE MEAT
I wonder what spices they used on roasted neaderthal?
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-28 16:29:00 UTC
We know progressives can’t imagine the minds of conservatives. We know conservatives can imagine the minds of progressives. What conservatives don’t stop to consider is that while they can understand progressives, they can’t imagine that progressives can’t reciprocate. The idea that someone else could not be just wrong, but morally blind – and possibly morally blind because dysgenia is an exceptional reproductive strategy for females. most of plant and animal kingdom practices it. It’s males in our species who are eugenic, not females.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-28 16:21:00 UTC
MOVING THE GOAL POSTS
—“The left is always moving the goalposts. If you point out that the welfare state (compassion + bureaucracy + taxes + regulation) generates sloth, parasitism, irresponsibility, etc, you might get the answer that “you, too, would be slothful, etc. if you had to face what the average poor person faces everyday”. In other words, the old model of poor people as poor people with middle-class values/sensibilities is gone. Apparently, capitalism is a game of economic musical chairs in which millions of (once) poor folks make it into the lower or middle-class but somehow a vast underclass gets left without jobs, thereby triggering the underclass traits we all know and love.”–
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-28 16:03:00 UTC
WHAT ABOUT THE BLEEDING HEARTS?
That begs the question: are the bleeding heart libertarians moral or immoral?
Or said correctly: (a) do they intuit and prefer an objectively moral society, and (b) would their vision produce via institutions a moral or immoral society? (c) And would this society produce sufficient morality to produce liberty? (d)Or would it produce increased or decreased demand for authority? (e) Are they creators of immorality, or are they vectors for lies or not?
I think that they are an interesting contrast against immoral libertines.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-28 08:14:00 UTC
The silly-tarians who argue from moral intuition, and nothing else – they aren’t harmful, or vectors for lies.
Traditional libertarianism (versus immoral libertinism) is a combination of what we consider morality, psychology and law.
It is a skeptical political science driven by historical evidence not a specific prescription for actions, not a claim to authoritarian scripture (as is all cosmopolitanism).
It raises the e question of whether the cosmopolitan moral blindness is an artifact of centuries of debating scripture versus reality – and like all cultures the cosmopolitans were blinded by enforced ignorance.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-28 08:05:00 UTC
I don’t have to do anything.
Let the bulls run.
Let loose the dogs of intellectual war.
Moral man needs only moral authority.
After that, it’s all his choice.
And his honor.
His glory.
Truth is enough.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-28 07:25:00 UTC
I understand the western moral man: he must have moral authority to coerce others into moral behavior.
He will not coerce others into any behavior without moral authority.
As such, we merely needed to give western man moral authority to act to coerce the immoral, in order to produce the true, the good, and the beautiful.
Because unlike scriptural or totalitarian civilizations, our western philosophy is not written down in positive form. It is written only in criticisms of the results of our unwritten behaviors and traditions.
That is why we had to write it down in aristocratic egalitarianism, Propertarianism and testimonial truth.
To give moral men moral authority to punish the wicked until they are no longer wicked, or the flee, or they die.
Truth is enough.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-28 04:04:00 UTC
The Open Society is merely a cosmopolitan ambition. It’s not ‘good’. Sorry. Yeah. I fell for it too…..
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-28 03:36:00 UTC
The problem scientists solved with the so called scientific method, was to train the mind to eliminate imaginary content, so that they could morally testify to the truth of their statements.
So, scientists needed to compensate … they need ed to tell the truth… As such, what we call the scientific method is not particular to science but to all human utterances. It is either just ‘the method’, or it’s the MORAL METHOD.
Now, scientists merely make use of a SUBSET of the Moral Method, given that they are both largely unaccountable, and pay no opportunity costs. Mathematicians likewise are unaccountable, and pay no opportunity costs.
But anyone engaging in the social rather than physical sciences, or in production, or in law, is likewise bound to not engage in adding imaginary content.
Source date (UTC): 2014-10-28 03:35:00 UTC