If any of you have spent time in the high finance industry the vocabulary and grammar have been altered so that no one is ever accountable for anything.
All sorts of groups develop protocols that make speaking truth to power devoid of blame.
Much of what we read in history developed for the purpose of using the safety of the sacrifice (shared meal), as a means to issue opinions without threat to the dominance hierarchy.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-12 15:11:00 UTC
If any of you have spent time in the high finance industry the vocabulary and grammar have been altered so that no one is ever accountable for anything. All sorts of groups develop protocols that make speaking truth to power devoid of blame. Much of what we read in history developed for the purpose of using the safety of the sacrifice (shared meal), as a means to issue opinions without threat to the dominance hierarchy.
If any of you have spent time in the high finance industry the vocabulary and grammar have been altered so that no one is ever accountable for anything. All sorts of groups develop protocols that make speaking truth to power devoid of blame. Much of what we read in history developed for the purpose of using the safety of the sacrifice (shared meal), as a means to issue opinions without threat to the dominance hierarchy.
—” to be able to = have the freedom to = own the right to = be entitled to = own my personal body & mind. No ???”— No those things are not in any way equal. 1 – Able to: dependent on your ability to physically think, plan, and act. 2 – Have the freedom to: have purchased membership in a group that tolerates your consumption of opportunities to act in your self interest, as long as it is not contrary to the group’s interests. 3 – Possession is a fact, but ownership is determined by contract with others in the group that defends the order. 4 – A Right can only consist of a demand from a third party enforcer (insurer of last resort). The libertarian ethos of pastoralists “what I can get away with” is different from the sovereign ethos of landholders “what will not impost costs upon others”. This is why (((certain))) groups use polylogical ethics, and other groups lke northern europeans use logically consistent ethics. So the marxist -> postmodernist -> libertarian -> neocon spectrum uses many argumentative ’empty verbalisms’ that conflate the meaning of these terms in order to obscure their underlying lack of logical and empirical consistency. This is why the Crusoe’s island example is a constructive fallacy for the purpose of deception. The ocean forms the fortress walls of the island. The ghetto walls do the same in the city. And the borderlands that indefensible do the same in the countryside. But there are no territories not owned by empires. Only those that the empire grants certain privileges in order to encourage settlement by excess population unable to compete in more established areas.
—” to be able to = have the freedom to = own the right to = be entitled to = own my personal body & mind. No ???”— No those things are not in any way equal. 1 – Able to: dependent on your ability to physically think, plan, and act. 2 – Have the freedom to: have purchased membership in a group that tolerates your consumption of opportunities to act in your self interest, as long as it is not contrary to the group’s interests. 3 – Possession is a fact, but ownership is determined by contract with others in the group that defends the order. 4 – A Right can only consist of a demand from a third party enforcer (insurer of last resort). The libertarian ethos of pastoralists “what I can get away with” is different from the sovereign ethos of landholders “what will not impost costs upon others”. This is why (((certain))) groups use polylogical ethics, and other groups lke northern europeans use logically consistent ethics. So the marxist -> postmodernist -> libertarian -> neocon spectrum uses many argumentative ’empty verbalisms’ that conflate the meaning of these terms in order to obscure their underlying lack of logical and empirical consistency. This is why the Crusoe’s island example is a constructive fallacy for the purpose of deception. The ocean forms the fortress walls of the island. The ghetto walls do the same in the city. And the borderlands that indefensible do the same in the countryside. But there are no territories not owned by empires. Only those that the empire grants certain privileges in order to encourage settlement by excess population unable to compete in more established areas.
—” to be able to = have the freedom to = own the right to = be entitled to = own my personal body & mind. No ???”—
No those things are not in any way equal.
1 – Able to: dependent on your ability to physically think, plan, and act.
2 – Have the freedom to: have purchased membership in a group that tolerates your consumption of opportunities to act in your self interest, as long as it is not contrary to the group’s interests.
3 – Possession is a fact, but ownership is determined by contract with others in the group that defends the order.
4 – A Right can only consist of a demand from a third party enforcer (insurer of last resort).
The libertarian ethos of pastoralists “what I can get away with” is different from the sovereign ethos of landholders “what will not impost costs upon others”. This is why (((certain))) groups use polylogical ethics, and other groups lke northern europeans use logically consistent ethics.
So the marxist -> postmodernist -> libertarian -> neocon spectrum uses many argumentative ’empty verbalisms’ that conflate the meaning of these terms in order to obscure their underlying lack of logical and empirical consistency.
This is why the Crusoe’s island example is a construcitve fallacy for the purpose of deception. The ocean forms the fortress walls of the island. The ghetto walls do the same in the city. And the borderlands that indefensible do the same in the countryside. But there are no territories not owned by empires. Only those that the empire grants certain privileges in order to encourage settle ment by excess population unable to compete in more established areas.
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-10 08:15:00 UTC
As always, the problem is not sex, but causes and consequences: (a) pregnancy – and the damage this does to not only you, the child, but the society that must pay for your mistakes, (b) and single motherhood, (c) or immature parenthood, (d) the degree of interest in it, such that it detracts from other things. (e) the high correlation between multiple sex partners and unsuccessful families. The ‘intensity’ of the male sex drive in the teens is just …. amazing. Testosterone is the most wonderful drug of all. It’s just mind-consuming. I think for boys it doesn’t matter – we are evolutionary machines and the need for sex is purely physical. But girls are different – and should not use sex to ‘buy’ attention, or being liked, or ‘belonging’, or ‘status’ (which is all too common), and should not participate because of alcohol or drugs – if you need alcohol you aren’t ready yet. This is the best test: If you aren’t prepared with protection, aren’t ready to do it without chemical assistance, aren’t willing to plan it rather than stumble into it, and you aren’t willing to keep it between the two of you permanently, then you aren’t ready. Conversely, if you have protection, don’t need chemical assistance (drugs or alcohol), can plan it so that it’s private somewhere, and can keep it between the two of you permanently (the urge to tell everyone is very powerful), then you might be ready. General rule of thumb: What happens between male and female is no one’s business as long as you don’t make it anyone’s business. This is true in all walks of life. The problem is, do you need to tell anyone? If you do, then you aren’t ready.
As always, the problem is not sex, but causes and consequences: (a) pregnancy – and the damage this does to not only you, the child, but the society that must pay for your mistakes, (b) and single motherhood, (c) or immature parenthood, (d) the degree of interest in it, such that it detracts from other things. (e) the high correlation between multiple sex partners and unsuccessful families. The ‘intensity’ of the male sex drive in the teens is just …. amazing. Testosterone is the most wonderful drug of all. It’s just mind-consuming. I think for boys it doesn’t matter – we are evolutionary machines and the need for sex is purely physical. But girls are different – and should not use sex to ‘buy’ attention, or being liked, or ‘belonging’, or ‘status’ (which is all too common), and should not participate because of alcohol or drugs – if you need alcohol you aren’t ready yet. This is the best test: If you aren’t prepared with protection, aren’t ready to do it without chemical assistance, aren’t willing to plan it rather than stumble into it, and you aren’t willing to keep it between the two of you permanently, then you aren’t ready. Conversely, if you have protection, don’t need chemical assistance (drugs or alcohol), can plan it so that it’s private somewhere, and can keep it between the two of you permanently (the urge to tell everyone is very powerful), then you might be ready. General rule of thumb: What happens between male and female is no one’s business as long as you don’t make it anyone’s business. This is true in all walks of life. The problem is, do you need to tell anyone? If you do, then you aren’t ready.
My policy on drug dealers is that once you’ve been convicted of trafficking, you are no longer insured by the people. In other words, if you are murdered then there is no crime to investigate. Now, my definition of a drug is one that empirically results in dependency. My policy on drug use is that you can’t use them, drive, use powered equipment, weapons, or be responsible for other people. In particular as far as I know, tripping is good for you if you can handle it. Sedating drugs are useful. Pleasure center drugs are a problem.
My policy on drug dealers is that once you’ve been convicted of trafficking, you are no longer insured by the people. In other words, if you are murdered then there is no crime to investigate. Now, my definition of a drug is one that empirically results in dependency. My policy on drug use is that you can’t use them, drive, use powered equipment, weapons, or be responsible for other people. In particular as far as I know, tripping is good for you if you can handle it. Sedating drugs are useful. Pleasure center drugs are a problem.