the fundamental purpose of the right to bear arms, is to resist government tyranny. everything else is nice and all, defense and hunting. but fundamentally, it's to stop government tyranny. that doesn't change regardless of tragedy.
to paraphrase shapiro, it's because his grandparents didn't think tyranny was possible that they are now ashes.
the america character was once, and still is for many, that the ultimate guarantor of your liberties is you.
i don't think you're defining religious and secular properly. or not really understanding them so. both the religious sentiments that underpin western civilization, as well as the religious sentiments that underpin religious bigotry are religious in nature. just because those that underpin western civilization are less obvious on their face to be religious in nature, does not make them secular.
eugenics is secular. kill the weak to remove them from the gene-pool. kill the infirm, sterilize.
these are wrong, why are they wrong. because people have a right to life regardless of their utilitarian value. why do we believe that this is the case? because there is intrinsic value to all people etc. etc.
the secular case devolves into utilitarianism to a large extent, there is no focus on the individual, or that case can be argued.
my belief as i can elucidate it now, is that innately we know that the individual matters, that we matter, and i see that reflected and delineated in the judeo-christian ethos. hate the sin love the sinner. etc. etc. it still says to love the sinner, that resonates with me on a fundamental level. peterson has convinced me that there might be something there, in those texts, that describe how people have found best to live their lives.
as peterson would describe it. get a group of people together, extract out the leader, take 100 leaders combine their stories and you get a hero myth. take a 100 myths and combine them and you have the basis for a religion. at each step you're extracting the common aspects, and the aspects that people 'look up to'.
and the underlying structure that's being described, is the male power hierarchy regulated by female selection.
because apparently, every person alive has twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. as do most animals in the animal kingdom.
the core of it though, is the intrinsic value of human life. there's very little rational about it.
those are details, minor details at that. in this country, murderers have rights.
why is it good to be truthful, is that something you've thought of. what is good?
as jordan peterson says, that text you're criticizing, even if you say it's flawed, and no doubt there, even if it's contradictory in parts, even if even if... it is still a text that represents the received wisdom of 2000 years. throw out the parts that aren't good, but saying it has no value is being petty.
he would say that rationality can take you far, but it simply elucidates what the world is, not how to operate in it.
actually, the example that peterson makes is with regard to high-power attorneys.
he claims, through his work consulting for law firms, that the really big firms can't keep their women. they don't know how to, because once the women hit 30, they ask themselves what the hell they're getting out of the job. they can either put in 60-80 hour work weeks for 300k or do a 9-5 at some other firm for 100k. and typically their partner, because women tend to marry up, is making as much or more than them. the firms don't want to lose their women, because they're exceptionally qualified, and exceptionally qualified is a small enough pool as it is... but they have nothing to offer them except more money and more stress.
exceptionally qualified is a tiny pool. and willing to put in 80 hours a week is vanishingly small, and those all tend to be men.
in addition, my point about 'providing for the family' is about the average male female... but that is not necessarily the governing principle at the high end. a certain amount of drive there isn't about money at all, in absolute terms, but in comparative terms. that subset of men just wants to be better than the son of a bitch to his right and left, and get more than them. ie) male aggression.
at the high end, resting on your laurels isn't a thing, vacation isn't a thing, winning is everything.
also, someone further down has made the observation that apparently, the authors of this study were looking at absolute numbers or something... so there is less likelihood of groups with women getting funding because there are less groups with women.
someone else says yeah, you get two pairs, and if you can correct to 20/20, but are blind as a bat probably not. but it also depends on how friggin desperate they are for bodies. also, colorblindness is limiting for certain roles.
well, alex mauer has effectively burned every bridge and may have committed perjury a couple hundred times due to going on or going off hormones... among other things limited to but not including being a giant bag of crazy.
perhaps the nature of business contributes to this. business is aggressive and competitive intrinsically, all-male teams may lack a moderating female influence and their presentations are on average more aggressive 'hungrier' than those with female team members, if only the creme of the crop, hungriest, most competent, stellar ventures and teams are going to get money, who's to say?
as jordan peterson is also likely to point out... the average might be the same, that doesn't mean that skimming the top or bottom won't mean that you're only getting men only. in terms of CEOs, his exact example was that you've got a group of men who are more different than both the average woman, and the average man than the average man is from the average woman. it's just a bunch of crazy guys at the top that are driven to do nothing other than work... and everybody else. crazy guys like Paul Erdos, who literally lived mathematics to the exclusion of literally everything else.
if men and women and their 'aggression' is only 1 percent apart on average... but that's something that factors into what a VC might select for in candidate group... and.5 percent of potential companies actually get funding... that would virtually exclude all female groups...
who's also to say that the VC's figure that a core member of a team is a hungry female, a hungry young female that might someday want to start a family and will most likely, if that were the case, at least take a quarter of a year to pop out a kid? and that's a core member of a team, which isn't great at crunch time.
women tend to value work-life balance, and men are more likely to value 'providing for the family' and put in extra hours to get that promotion... which as jordan peterson has also pointed out... having a good work-life balance is a healthier way to live, the women may not be wrong in terms of living their lives properly... on the other hand, we in society and businesses in general prefer that men work themselves to death. that's just the nature of the beast though.
jordan peterson might turn you around on a bit of that. go give him a watch. interesting take, and gives me a appreciation for the judeo-christian fundamentals of western civilization.
as he sometimes says. you might say you're an atheist, and you very well might think you believe it. but you're acting out a christian ethos so what do you really believe?
he comes at religious morality... from an interesting and deeply affecting direction.
and if farmer A were to luck into a crop that had twice the yield of B and C and could survive in their climates through breeding what would happen again?
no, my only proof of the threats and demands are their words that heavily implied a threat and a demand.
now, they might have made those threats and demands in error, as they claim... but the threats and demands still exist.
it's news to you, and it's news to them, you then might be one of the people still watching CNN. probably not though, because those people are going to be pretty damn rare these days. i'd say, sure thing, this is news to them... and nobody else.
i think you'll find that the only person saying he said he hadn't been threatened was the author of the piece after he had been criticized for writing the article in the first place and the tacit threat had been called out.
i will not just blindly trust the integrity of the person whose integrity is in question.
it does matter that he's not the direct source of the meme that was sent out. CNN didn't do its due diligence... in so many ways. if they were interested in finding the source of the meme, for whatever reason, and assuming they had a valid one to begin with, they did not find the proximate source of it.
it's CNN's fault for bringing a private citizen to national attention... for what reason? is this news?
i'll tell you, if this is CNN's standard, that's worse than an ethics violation, that's pitiful in and of itself. there's a reason CNN is doing worse than nick at night on viewership.
so i publish the home address, readily available for all the CNN journalists and tell people i'm not responsible for anything that happens to them. there'd be nothing wrong there either? and if they get death threats, no problems?
we make a distinction between private citizens and public figures for a reason, and that andrew character has made a career of abusing the privacy of private citizens as a "journalist." lest you forget, https://twitter.com/kfile/stat...
he was part of the people that essentially ruined justine sacco's life.
well the left learned how to use guns now, so maybe the meme-creator deserves to get shot.
it's only a consequence of his free speech. it's not government suppressing it, so it's OK.
that xkcd comic is for people that don't actually believe in the principle of free speech. it's just another set of rights to them, rather than the most important right.
and we let it be suppressed and abridged, in any form, at great risk to our collective society.
but fuck you, i can organize people to yell at you from the street outside your business all day. it's just a consequence of your speech, and it's ok because it's not the government.
trump's stated rationale was to keep the comey testimony honest by implying that he had tapes of the conversations. i find that fair if accurate, and not wildly outside the realm of imaginations for motives.
Slashdot Mirror
50 dead is 3.5 weeks in chicago.
most gun fatalities are from handguns
the fundamental purpose of the right to bear arms, is to resist government tyranny. everything else is nice and all, defense and hunting. but fundamentally, it's to stop government tyranny. that doesn't change regardless of tragedy.
to paraphrase shapiro, it's because his grandparents didn't think tyranny was possible that they are now ashes.
the america character was once, and still is for many, that the ultimate guarantor of your liberties is you.
i don't think you're defining religious and secular properly. or not really understanding them so. both the religious sentiments that underpin western civilization, as well as the religious sentiments that underpin religious bigotry are religious in nature. just because those that underpin western civilization are less obvious on their face to be religious in nature, does not make them secular.
eugenics is secular. kill the weak to remove them from the gene-pool. kill the infirm, sterilize.
these are wrong, why are they wrong. because people have a right to life regardless of their utilitarian value. why do we believe that this is the case? because there is intrinsic value to all people etc. etc.
the secular case devolves into utilitarianism to a large extent, there is no focus on the individual, or that case can be argued.
my belief as i can elucidate it now, is that innately we know that the individual matters, that we matter, and i see that reflected and delineated in the judeo-christian ethos. hate the sin love the sinner. etc. etc. it still says to love the sinner, that resonates with me on a fundamental level. peterson has convinced me that there might be something there, in those texts, that describe how people have found best to live their lives.
as peterson would describe it. get a group of people together, extract out the leader, take 100 leaders combine their stories and you get a hero myth. take a 100 myths and combine them and you have the basis for a religion. at each step you're extracting the common aspects, and the aspects that people 'look up to'.
and the underlying structure that's being described, is the male power hierarchy regulated by female selection.
because apparently, every person alive has twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. as do most animals in the animal kingdom.
the core of it though, is the intrinsic value of human life. there's very little rational about it.
those are details, minor details at that. in this country, murderers have rights.
why is it good to be truthful, is that something you've thought of. what is good?
as jordan peterson says, that text you're criticizing, even if you say it's flawed, and no doubt there, even if it's contradictory in parts, even if even if... it is still a text that represents the received wisdom of 2000 years. throw out the parts that aren't good, but saying it has no value is being petty.
he would say that rationality can take you far, but it simply elucidates what the world is, not how to operate in it.
she wouldn't have gotten most of the 3rd party votes, libertarian i think did better than green.
a bunch of those people were running from trump too. but no way in hell would they have voted for the left.
you'll never get them to say it. media is biased as fuck.
actually, the example that peterson makes is with regard to high-power attorneys.
he claims, through his work consulting for law firms, that the really big firms can't keep their women. they don't know how to, because once the women hit 30, they ask themselves what the hell they're getting out of the job. they can either put in 60-80 hour work weeks for 300k or do a 9-5 at some other firm for 100k. and typically their partner, because women tend to marry up, is making as much or more than them. the firms don't want to lose their women, because they're exceptionally qualified, and exceptionally qualified is a small enough pool as it is... but they have nothing to offer them except more money and more stress.
exceptionally qualified is a tiny pool. and willing to put in 80 hours a week is vanishingly small, and those all tend to be men.
in addition, my point about 'providing for the family' is about the average male female... but that is not necessarily the governing principle at the high end. a certain amount of drive there isn't about money at all, in absolute terms, but in comparative terms. that subset of men just wants to be better than the son of a bitch to his right and left, and get more than them. ie) male aggression.
at the high end, resting on your laurels isn't a thing, vacation isn't a thing, winning is everything.
also, someone further down has made the observation that apparently, the authors of this study were looking at absolute numbers or something... so there is less likelihood of groups with women getting funding because there are less groups with women.
someone else says yeah, you get two pairs, and if you can correct to 20/20, but are blind as a bat probably not. but it also depends on how friggin desperate they are for bodies. also, colorblindness is limiting for certain roles.
well, alex mauer has effectively burned every bridge and may have committed perjury a couple hundred times due to going on or going off hormones... among other things limited to but not including being a giant bag of crazy.
perhaps the nature of business contributes to this. business is aggressive and competitive intrinsically, all-male teams may lack a moderating female influence and their presentations are on average more aggressive 'hungrier' than those with female team members, if only the creme of the crop, hungriest, most competent, stellar ventures and teams are going to get money, who's to say?
as jordan peterson is also likely to point out ... the average might be the same, that doesn't mean that skimming the top or bottom won't mean that you're only getting men only. in terms of CEOs, his exact example was that you've got a group of men who are more different than both the average woman, and the average man than the average man is from the average woman. it's just a bunch of crazy guys at the top that are driven to do nothing other than work... and everybody else. crazy guys like Paul Erdos, who literally lived mathematics to the exclusion of literally everything else.
if men and women and their 'aggression' is only 1 percent apart on average... but that's something that factors into what a VC might select for in candidate group... and .5 percent of potential companies actually get funding... that would virtually exclude all female groups...
who's also to say that the VC's figure that a core member of a team is a hungry female, a hungry young female that might someday want to start a family and will most likely, if that were the case, at least take a quarter of a year to pop out a kid? and that's a core member of a team, which isn't great at crunch time.
women tend to value work-life balance, and men are more likely to value 'providing for the family' and put in extra hours to get that promotion... which as jordan peterson has also pointed out... having a good work-life balance is a healthier way to live, the women may not be wrong in terms of living their lives properly... on the other hand, we in society and businesses in general prefer that men work themselves to death. that's just the nature of the beast though.
jordan peterson might turn you around on a bit of that. go give him a watch. interesting take, and gives me a appreciation for the judeo-christian fundamentals of western civilization.
as he sometimes says. you might say you're an atheist, and you very well might think you believe it. but you're acting out a christian ethos so what do you really believe?
he comes at religious morality... from an interesting and deeply affecting direction.
... i don't think that word means what you think it means.
i'm down 13 pounds over 5 weeks, but that appears to be mostly water weight.
cut out wheat and milk altogether, and i think i'm on a 700-800 calorie deficit, other than that, haven't changed much.
and if farmer A were to luck into a crop that had twice the yield of B and C and could survive in their climates through breeding what would happen again?
dwarf wheat.
no, my only proof of the threats and demands are their words that heavily implied a threat and a demand.
now, they might have made those threats and demands in error, as they claim... but the threats and demands still exist.
it's news to you, and it's news to them, you then might be one of the people still watching CNN. probably not though, because those people are going to be pretty damn rare these days. i'd say, sure thing, this is news to them... and nobody else.
i think you'll find that the only person saying he said he hadn't been threatened was the author of the piece after he had been criticized for writing the article in the first place and the tacit threat had been called out.
i will not just blindly trust the integrity of the person whose integrity is in question.
it does matter that he's not the direct source of the meme that was sent out. CNN didn't do its due diligence... in so many ways. if they were interested in finding the source of the meme, for whatever reason, and assuming they had a valid one to begin with, they did not find the proximate source of it.
it's CNN's fault for bringing a private citizen to national attention... for what reason? is this news?
i'll tell you, if this is CNN's standard, that's worse than an ethics violation, that's pitiful in and of itself. there's a reason CNN is doing worse than nick at night on viewership.
they contacted him, and he rushed, published a 'mea culpa' for his entire history, and deleted every post he'd ever made.
yeah, not threatened.
in addition. some, and most people are arguing, they got the wrong guy.
so i publish the home address, readily available for all the CNN journalists and tell people i'm not responsible for anything that happens to them. there'd be nothing wrong there either? and if they get death threats, no problems?
we make a distinction between private citizens and public figures for a reason, and that andrew character has made a career of abusing the privacy of private citizens as a "journalist." lest you forget,
https://twitter.com/kfile/stat...
he was part of the people that essentially ruined justine sacco's life.
fuck them all.
calls to violence are one of those things. selling secrets is one of those things.
but kkk, bring them on, neo-nazis A-OK. you know why? because this argument is important enough to some of us that there are no exceptions.
well the left learned how to use guns now, so maybe the meme-creator deserves to get shot.
it's only a consequence of his free speech. it's not government suppressing it, so it's OK.
that xkcd comic is for people that don't actually believe in the principle of free speech. it's just another set of rights to them, rather than the most important right.
and we let it be suppressed and abridged, in any form, at great risk to our collective society.
but fuck you, i can organize people to yell at you from the street outside your business all day. it's just a consequence of your speech, and it's ok because it's not the government.
trump's stated rationale was to keep the comey testimony honest by implying that he had tapes of the conversations. i find that fair if accurate, and not wildly outside the realm of imaginations for motives.
they also said that they did not release out of his concern for his and his family's safety.
if they released, would that concern for safety go away? or would they be paying for security to make sure nothing happened to his family?
also, 22 is a lot less likely to be fatal in the case that the girlfriend misses...
FROM 1 FOOT AWAY.
if they own a gun, they should have known better.
... how often do you see PSA's about jumping off bridges with umbrellas to break your fall?
some things are to stupid it's assumed that the majority of americans won't do it.