domain:philippelemoine.com
It’s like Goku’s training weights, except they never take them off.
So an essential part of EA is extreme blank slatism to such extremes they even apply it to adults.
The slave owner doesn't provide zero value, they do serve similar to a factory owner in that they're the peak of management.
Which is a great deal larger than zero.
But unlike modern capitalism where people tend to get in that management position because of talent and skill at management, slavery tends to happen because of skill at other things.
Getting to the top of a hierarchy requires the same basic skills regardless of what the hierarchy is. A cynic would say "backstabbing and douchebaggery", though admittedly it's not ONLY that.
No one is talking about the Rothschilds and the Carnegies, we're talking about Bezos and Musk.
Don't the Rothschilds still run The Economist? If nobody's talking about them (aside from the DR, occasionally), it's because they don't want to be talked about.
But all of this is besides the point, which is that until very recently there weren't any successful non-slaveowning societies. Which very strongly suggests that slavery was an advantage.
What is that quoted from?
The options are to throw sand in the gears or to not do so. MAGA is in favor of the former. You cannot achieve a positive balance of trade with the methods Trump uses, especially not the particular ways Trump uses (Mercantilism doesn't work, but Trump isn't even doing mercantilism right)
This is the exact observation that, twenty years ago, cost Larry Summers his position as President of Harvard. It is called the "greater male variability hypothesis."
Interestingly, although many of the "greater male variability hypothesis" charts I find online "illustrate" the bell curve differences by showing a flatter but equally-centered curve for men (lower in the middle, higher at the edges), the only clear male-to-female comparison I can find (PDF warning, also cited here) that uses hard numbers shows male curves that are both slightly flatter, and also shifted higher (i.e. centered more to the right).
then research the 2002 Arab League peace plan, then at least read the wikipedia article on diplomacy and learn that it means give-and-take rather than just accepting people's demands.
Ah yes, the plan hamas refused to even acknowledge and included vague language about a "right to return" that was never clarified. Isreal has since normalized relationships with the member stares since then anyways. So say they went all in on 2002 what does that change today? Hamas wasn't party, iran wasn't party. The houthis weren't party(Yemen was but the faction of Yemen that isn't controlled by the houthis).
But the again the idea that the Israelis haven't been diplomatic is a lie. They just have a set of pretty reasonable non-negotiables like their ability to maintain security. And, the real sticking point, that they won't let in a vague number of refugees that would make them a minority. These requirements haven't prevented them from having normal relations with their neighbors like Jordan and Egypt or regional powers like the Saudis.
Your own theory is that Israel should intensify its bombing and destruction (with no further details provided, naturally), doubling down on a predictable political failure.
This is not my "theory", its what I believe the result of your plan to sanction Isreal world realistically result in.
Sloot and others have already covered it, but I thought I'd give you a youtube link to a Filipina who worked in 'tourism' and lays out the scam for you (warning NSFW language).
I sincerely doubt that the average person, or even well read feminists, are aware of the precise IQ stats here. I didn't know the how the skew worked a mere few years ago, and I've been keyed into the IQ 'debate' for ages.
Men are better leaders than women even when IQ is identical, though.
Yeah I have that impression too, primarily based on the fact that every progressive woman I have talked about it with in person, upon explaining the iq variance situation, immediately scoffed "Oh so men are smarter than women are they?" And when I say "Yes, but it also means men are dumber than women." They usually stopped being so angry. But their anger doesn't go away entirely, and it feels like wounded pride to me.
Spicy and educational.
This is the classic counterargument to the straight line proving OSHA's ineffectiveness.
TL;DR: Lots of provably important thing don't make jumps in other lines, so it's probably that people (governments, companies, the public) set a goal of X%/year, and that was one thing they used to reach it.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
It's perfectly legal to have an air force.
There are significant concerns with such a flippant reading. The Constitution goes on to explicitly grant particular ways that such a thing can be done. One must read those clauses out of the Constitution in order to take such a broad reading here. A couple examples just to give you a sense of some of the gymnastics that are required. It's pretty clearly motivated reasoning, saying, "I really think we should have an Air Force; how do I torture the Constitution (and my own interpretive system) in order to get the result I want?"
The real problem is that there are structural reasons why states get bigger, I think it's mostly due to technology.
I thought that was actually the crony capitalism business. Crony capitalists want growth of the administrative state and presidential power... so long as they feel they have a decent handle on their ability to steer it to their benefit.
As technology develops, there are more capital-intensive technologies that only states can manage efficiently.
This seems counter to the actual world in which non-states are efficiently managing extremely capital-intensive technologies.
Liberalism has a weak immune system because it is naturally liberal and open to new ideas
I think this is confusing what it means to be a Classical Liberal.
It betrays a reductionist, colonialist attitude toward a country with a rich history, a diverse region with a stunning variety of cultural and geographical beauty.
You've clearly never been there. And you misinterpreted a lot of what I said. so whatever. thanks for trying I guess.
The other day I started reading Speaker for the Dead by Orson Scott Card. Only about twenty pages in but I'm liking it so far.
Richard Hanania certainly agrees with you.
Reddit is really not a good place to have reasoned arguments with people who are interested in actual engagement. I tried getting back onto there under an alt account talking mainly about non-political topics, and made a fairly long post where detractors (including a small number of self-proclaimed credentialed professionals) came in and decided to soapbox at length while refusing to address any of the statistical data posted. The overwhelming sense I got was "I don't have time for this crap".
Just reminds me how much better this forum is as a place for discussion. Not perfect, but stepping foot back onto Reddit is like debating with a bunch of bad actors who really just want to soapbox about how right they are, and who love engaging in selective myopia as soon as something doesn't confirm their viewpoint. It's not the kind of forum I'm interested in anymore.
I've been thinking that perhaps the woke/liberal/feminist (there is a lot of overlap between these groups) hatred for intelligence research and FUD-creation around the IQ concept is not merely about the incendiary topic of "race" or ethnicity and IQ that might pop up if society takes IQ seriously, and not just about the basal opposition to anything that goes against "tabula rasa", but perhaps also because men are more extreme in IQ than women. Nature takes more risks with men, while women are somewhat more clustered around the mean. Why does that matter, if the average IQ is almost the same for women and men? Because most of the geniuses are going to be men. Even at 130 IQ there is a major difference. Something like 6/10 of individuals with 130+ IQ are men. If you go up to 145+ IQ, there are fewer and fewer women compared to men. With high intelligence being one of the key ingredients to make for better leadership of groups and societies, this should naturally lead to an overweight of positions in the highest offices being filled by men in a meritocratic society concerned with getting the best results for its future. Feminists may have discerned this IRL and in data, and of course do not want to be ruled over by men. Thus they seek to obfuscate and mislead around the topic. Thoughts?
So, what are you reading?
I’m finally on ‘The Far Side of the World’ – perhaps the most famous novel in the Aubrey/Maturin series.
Captain Jack Aubrey, expert sloth debaucher, knowingly recruits enough lunatics and mutineers to fill out the complement of the ‘Joyful’ Surprise, before pursuing an American cough ‘French’ Man of War around Cape Horn and into the Pacific.
And after spending nine novels vociferously proselytizing his hatred of alcohol abuse to anyone who will listen, Dr Stephen Maturin has now chewed, injected, snorted, smoked, enema’d, or otherwise ingested most drugs found anywhere in, on, or adjacent to, the entire Seven Seas.
Aware of his addiction to the laudanum from his own medicine chest (that somehow didn’t make it into the screenplay), junkie Maturin decides that the only sane course of action is to wean himself off with the aid of a new wonder drug; Cocaine.
And that’s before he tries to cover up a fellow officer’s cuckoldry.
Unhappily, Peter Weir somehow felt the need to rewrite the film version to appeal to a broader audience.
For shame.
I found Giuffre more sympathetic than, say, Maria Farmer, who seems a little crazy (but at least said No to Maxwell). I also think it's clear from Giuffre's own barely readable biography that she was definitely whoring herself out from a very young age, well before Maxwell marked her for Epstein. Now did she have a terrible home life? It certainly seems so. But Epstein didn't make her a prostitute. That she happened to be working at Mar-A-Lago was an absolute fluke. It's also clear she ran the game as far as she could until she felt she was fed up with it, at which point she bailed to Thailand on Epstein's coin and decided to run for it. It's a compelling dramatic story but the narrative (now set in stone after her death) that she was always Epstein's victim leaves out a lot of her own really shitty choices. I do feel bad for her, but hers is a tragedy in the Greek drama sense --her determination, her ability to push through and survive, ended up leading to the life that destroyed her.
Epstein making allusions is peak Epstein. There’s nothing in this statement. What did he know? As usual, unreported because there’s a good chance it was either third-hand hearsay or nothing.
It’s just extremely disingenuous to suggest that warlords raping 8 year old boys is the same as Prince Andrew having sex with a 17 year old who may or may not have been a prostitute.
I support the latter being illegal, but there are obviously tiers of criminality. The sad reality of prostitution is that a large, disproportionate number of prostitutes are 16/17 and lie about their age, particularly in the poorest parts of the west, street walkers and truck stop sex workers, sometimes escorts on seeking arrangement / sugar baby sites too. Underclass and working class men hire them all the time without consequence, buying into the implicit suggestion they are adults if their conscience cares at all (it usually doesn’t).
It’s like the outrage over rich young actresses fucking ugly fat producers to become movie stars. I sympathize, but these are not the top victims of male predation. The purchasers of sex do something I think is wrong, but they aren’t worse than the millions of other men who do the same every day.
The reverse uno option here is genius and the absolute best move for you here Bah. If there is one thing that is clear from your replies in this thread, it's that you really want to have a kid with a Pilipina dame. You aren't so much asking for advice as you are looking for a reason to believe her when all your instincts tell you not to. Sloot's strategy will prove one of you is right.
What's currently the most cost-effective and practical method of getting ahold of Ozempic/whatever weight-loss drug in the US without a diabetes diagnosis?
Also, is it worth messing with oral delivery, or are they flat-out less effective than the injection method?
I'm tired of people lying to me that I'm not fat when I observe the differences in the way the world treats me vs other people every day.
More options
Context Copy link