Livemike

"Molefe, who was head-hunted from state-transport company Transnet SOC Ltd. to become Eskom’s sixth chief executive officer within a decade, " If he does well he might get a permanent position.

Let me tell you why the State continues to exist. It's because people like you (and I'm not blaming you, I thought the same and it's the result of decades of lies) think that the best way to deal with it is to deal with it. The State will continue to exist as long as everyone tries to change it by it's rules. Almost everyone is disadvantaged by the State and will gain by abolishing it, but almost nobody is trying. That's because they've bought the lie that trying to change it will yield better/faster/cheaper results. The State doesn't just use propaganda, it IS propaganda. The only way to defeat it is for people to acknowledge this. But as long as they're trying to minimize it's effects, they're treating it as a real thing that needs to be dealt with, instead of imaginary boogie man that needs to be ignored.

Jurors can vote how they like for whatever reason they like, and the system can't do anything about it. Their verdict is their verdict. They can't be punished for it in any way no matter how little it followed the law or how immoral the judge thinks it was. Of course it's always possible that the authorities will retaliate another way, but they're not allowed to punish you for a jury vote. So no, no line in the sand legally.

To be fair she's not saying she's OWED a hero or that the hero has to do it for free or against his will. She's just saying she's really screwed.

Explain something to me. I offer my job to anyone who says they're unemployed or aren't working. This happens several times a day. Not one person has taken the offer in over 10 years. So what the hell does "Unemployment" even mean?

Oxygen deprivation also increases sexual feeling. This has been known for some time, as has the risks. Auto-erotic asphyxiation has led to many deaths. Anyone adding choking to their sexplay should be very careful.

Either the way the universe is gives rise to objective moral values or it doesn't. If it does then it does whether God made the universe that way or not. If there is a God and the universe is such that it gives rise to moral values, then an identical universe that didn't have a God would give rise to the same objective moral values. If your "objective" moral values depend on God himself, then they're not objective unless you can confirm God's existence, which is impossible*. So they're not objective at all. Any true objective morality doesn't depend on God. * It is impossible to tell a very, very powerful and knowledgeable being from an omnipotent/omniscient one. Even if the "commands" "God" gives were valid, why would they depend on God's word to be valid? If their validity depends on what an intelligent being says about them then _they are not objective_.

So the thousands of seismologists who recorded atomic explosions, the hundreds of atmosphere measurements of radioactive remnants of atomic bombs and the DOZENS OR MORE OF DEAD ABORIGINES are just propaganda? You sir are a sick fuck.

While 2 is unlikely, it's impossible to know at what stage money would be viable. Like all subjectively valued things, the market is the only way to decide when it's worth going to the effort of making it. Remember medieval villages were almost entirely barter economies due to the rarity of precious metals and the inability of making small change (and almost all transactions were fairly small). As the population grew more and more of the trades would be in money. How far in the other direction could it go before money wasn't worth bothering about? Hard to say.

I love Herman's Head. Lust had the best lines of course.

I think piecing and tattoos are deliberately altering your body to be more pleasing/interesting to others. It's the behaviour of what Ayn Rand called "Second Handers", people who get their own sense of value form others believing they are valuable, regardless of whether they are. Dyed hair and heavy make up aren't as drastic as they aren't permanent, thus showing that someone can conceive of a time when impressing others isn't the most important thing. However the more time you can looking after your appearance (beyond a certain minimum) the more you're saying "I have nothing to offer in reality, therefore I'll concentrate on looking good.". Given these symptoms I'd say that shows trauma of some kind, or at least neglect.

Ok, firstly it has to be said it's a complete ripoff of "The Magnificent Seven". Just kidding. But they aren't really a DRO. They're mercenaries. It's an example of a non-state solution to a problem, and it's implicitly condemning the State, after all, they hired mercenaries because the state was effectively absent. Although I'm sure they still collected taxes from the peasants.

Well considering the response to the first international men's issues conference many feminists don't object to hearing about the issues. They object to them being framed as men's issues. So you can talk about any of the subjects in the conference, a feminist said live on TV that there was no problem with the agenda. They just don't want "men's issues" to be a thing. I have my suspicions why.

I was once nearly caught by the fashion police. One of them was sauntering directly towards men and I was sure I was done for. Then she stopped, twirled around and sauntered back in the opposite direction.

Police body cameras do reduce police misbehaviour according to the all the research I've heard about. They are resisted by police hierarchies of course.

I apparently figured out early that Santa was BS. So I told my mum (my only source for this story btw) who then told me that people who didn't believe in Santa wouldn't get presents, and I immediately said I did believe. Is it just me or is that wrong on about 3 or 4 levels.

One time when I was roleplaying I announced that I wouldn't worship anything built on less than 4,000 points in that system. From memory a power adventurer character could be built on 350. Another player pointed out that it would be really hard to distinguish a 1,500 point "god" from a 4,000 point one. Once they get so far ahead they seem all-powerful. So how would you tell a real God from someone who just had some powerful abilities, like a high-tech alien? There is no real way to distinguish between these two possibilities. So basically anything as powerful as God is un-confirmable and un-falsifiable. Which means that God expecting us to know what he is and distinguish him from "false gods" is absurd.

I have a friend who was a school teacher, he says it's a matter of time before any teacher gets accused of sexual abuse. Not if but when. Of course the men are the ones who get their schedules rearranged to suit the mostly female part-timers who choose to have kids.

"When I use the term 'market economy' I am simply referring to the core attributes shared by every major market system variation in the world today." Notice the weasel words start pretty quickly. What is a "core attribute" and what makes it "core"? What is a "major market system variation" and what makes it "major"? What makes it a "variation" of the "market system" rather than a different system that shares some characteristics with the market system? What is the difference between "market system" and "market economy"? If there is none isn't he using the definition self-referential and therefore useless? Only 3 basic basic characteristics are needed apparently. The first is "labor for income" but almost all systems have labor for income. People work so that they can gain economic goods. That's pretty universal and so useless for defining "market economy". He then refers to the "whole global economy being based on employment" and "this is how people gain money to survive". But income isn't necessarily money and labour for income isn't necessarily employment. He doesn't seem to realise this. For his definition to work a man who is given all his food for free, housing and utilities for free as part of his job is receiving exactly the same income as a man on the same wage with none of these. Additionally lots of people don't sell their labour but sell the products of their labour, but that doesn't mean it's not "free market". Theoretically a free market might have no wage labour. His description of the second characteristic is that everything is exchanged through a monetary medium, a condition that has never been the case in any society anywhere. There is literally no society where everything was for sale for monetary gain. Does he imagine that children but their mother's milk? This might seem pedantic, but the only rational response to such an amazingly bad definition. Some goods and services are exchanged through the monetary medium. Others are not. Some could be but aren't, some are inherently impossible to exchange for monetary reward, e.g. the love of a good woman. "And 3rd the overall incentive strategy" whose overall incentive strategy? In what context? Does he think that the incentive for everything follow the same pattern? "Is based on competition for demand." So how much of the "incentive strategy" has to be based on, say, punishment for it not to be a "market economy"? 10%? 20%? 40%? Of course when he talks about demand "institution to institution" it jumps over what it means for an institution to be able to "demand" something if it did not get it's resources consensually. "all orientated around the interest to a) save money on production" But nobody is orientated around that. What people are orientated around is saving VALUE on production. It might well cost a small businessman less to work 80 hours a week instead of work 60 and hire an apprentice for 40 hours. That doesn't mean he'll do it because the VALUE of his extra time is worth more than the VALUE of the money. "and b) maximise profits from final sales" In what time frame? Again he's confusing maximising the value of profits from maximizing the profits themselves. If people truly wanted to maximize profits they would never take a dividend but instead starve to death letting the profits accumulate in the company. This would be absurd, but it's what his insane model would say happens. "Question One: Given the market economy requires consumption in order to maintain demand for human employment." Well no, it doesn't. The market economy doesn't need to "maintain demand for human employment". If there is no "demand for human employment" the system doesn't suffer. It doesn't have "needs" in the sense humans do. If nobody is employed it doesn't suffer. People might prefer that people be employed but people are not the system. "and further economic growth as needed" needed by whom? Who does he think "needs" this and what can they do to make it happen? "is there any structural incentive to reduce resource use" Yes it's called "resources cost money or goods and services that could otherwise be exchanged for money". Resources that are rare compared to the amount that people desire to use are more expensive. It's remarkable that someone could live in the modern world and not know this. It's remarkable that they could live in the medieval world and not know this. "is there any structural incentive to reduce... biodiversity loss". This is a completely separate question unless you think biodiversity is a resource in itself, in which case it's covered by the answer to the resource question. Now if he actually cares about biodiversity loss there is an incentive, if you offer to prevent biodiversity loss Peter Joseph will agree to pay you. If he doesn't care about biodiversity loss then why should we? "Is there any structural incentive to reduce ... the global pollution footprint". Well that would depend on whether people require permission to pollute other people's property. Since in his definition everything is owned, any pollution is pollution of someone's property. If people are not allowed to pollute other people's property without their OK then those people are likely to demand resources/money to be allowed to do so, thus giving an incentive not to. This is only the start of his stupidity. I really don't want to listen to/read (the transcript is available online on blog.thezeitgeistmovement.com) any more of this crap.

Whose turn it to hand out the leaflets promoting rape culture at the shopping mall?

Yeah Stan spanks his kids, but one of the key jokes of the series is how bad a father he is. That someone like him spanks makes it look like incompetent fathers spank. The fact that he's unaware of his wife's sexual enjoyment of spanking shows how un-empathetic he is. So the clip doesn't really "promote" or "glorify" spanking. Given how his kids have turned out (socially awkward nerd pervert and useless spounger/"rebel" he's not presented as someone to emulate. "American Dad" is about BAD fathering, so it's not an endorsement that one of the least empathetic non-villains* on TV does it. * Maybe.

Amazon is making him pay $1000/quarter to store 1700 DVDs, or about 59c per DVD per quarter. That sounds like a lot. You can have bulk DVDs MADE for about that. Keeping DVDs in a box in a warehouse doesn't sound that expensive. So why charge that much? Are they trying to get rid of "bulk" items that don't sell in bulk? Just leaving their system clear for things that actually move? I don't know. What I do know is filled DVDs are made of Petrochemicals, computer processing and laser use, i.e. really cheap things. So this "waste" is bugger all in terms of resources we're actually short of. Listening to that *&$#head is waste in my time and patience which I'm far shorter of.

Were you being selfish in this conversation? Well if by that you mean "Were you pursuing your own goals?" then yes clearly, but so what? That's what people do. It's not wrong to pursue a desire just because it's yours. (see Ayn Rand). If you mean "Was I concentrating on my own desires to the exclusion of hers?", no. You wanted the facts of your relationship to be made plain. That's not an unreasonable request, and it's not something an honest person would resent or resist. There is no _legitimate_ desire of hers that you ignored. Her desire to ignore the importance of things you say and have you just accept that is not legitimate. She can't expect you to just accept that she won't say anything about something important to you and remain as friends.

"Free dating, well the freedom aspect sounds good, but these choices are not completely free, people can buy try to convince you to date them or use makeup or perfume to make people choose them".

The entire concept of the unemployment rate is suspect. I've been offering "unemployed" people my job for 10 years now, no takers. Sure it's a shitty job, but it's a job.