fractional slacker

As you all know and I think agree with, philosophy is first and foremost concerned with separating truth from falsehood and in turn right from wrong. One effective method of separating the right from the wrong is to run them through two filters of principle: self ownership/property rights and the non-aggression principle. If they don't violate either of those principles, the action/cause/situation can be excluded from the realm of ethics. At least that is my understanding. Correct me if I have mistated anything so far. for example I prefer not having my picture taken with red headed muslims from Yemen. I have never suggested or advocated they be harmed or aggressed against. Am I a hairist? Am I a gingerist? Does the term racism have any grounding, any basis for which can be derived from philosophy?

Heard of Amway. Never heard of World Wide Group. Are they similar?750k a year is completely doable.....on paper. Well maybe one or two folks have achieved that, but what percentage would they represent? Yeah, I am a little sceptical.What can you not buy on the internet or in a bricks and mortar that would make either one of these companies appealing? What service or value are they to a consumer?

Why is this in the General section when there is a Parenting section? About the retarded video, BTW aggrandizing used by nathanm is a fantastic description. It's the subtle deception by omission that gets me. It's reminds me of the nonsense one would encounter in a commercial for becoming a paid killer in a green costume. 1. Only one prerequisite/qualification: that you can have sex 2. You can't get fired 3. Your "associate" can become your slave up to including physical beatings which are not only tolerated, but in many cases encouraged by your peers 4. You can work part time hours even though everyone will assume you work full time 5. You have untold amounts of power 6. You will receive constant praise, at least initiallly, even if you suck at the job 7. You can discharge any fucked up shit from your past into your "associate" with little chance of getting caught or being held accountable 8. If after years of doing a lousy job, virtually no one will have the courage to reprimand you 9. Your peers and other associates, with few exceptions, will take your side should you choose to employ and inflict emotional or psychological distress on any associate that expresses a grievance towards you for a job NOT well done.

Uncle Marvin feels (not saying it's valid), via the ABC, he is entitled to a hug. One on one, a parent might find a way to subtly shield the child (she's been fussy all afternoon, etc). In a family gathering, that shielding could be seen as a slight and become the basis for Uncle Marvin to feel embarrassed or humiliated. The parent is in a difficult situation. At least that is what I observed the other day. Imagine a parent at a family gathering making a plea for the NAP in all family situations amongst a bunch of uninformed conformists. Again, a difficult situation. That would essentially be ripping off the band aid of illusion in fell swoop. I suppose if the parent is into philosophical parenting, they would have started this conversation long before the child was born. "You don't "love me," I'm bigger than you, I'll make you show affection towards me."That is the start and foundation for all family hierachy now isn't it.

Nah, nah, nah. It's not price controls. According to Madurro, Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, et al, it's those who peddle in hate speech, have O.D.D (oppositional defiant disorder), and oppose "the will of the people" that are causing an economic holocaust. What is needed is more central power so we can acieve more freedom. I wonder why the American press has pretty much ignored this story?

Easter Sunday I witnessed this situation and it made me cringe. I was a guest of the family and did not feel it my place to say anything. The child was 15 months old and not happy. I think everyone has experienced, or at least observed the following situation. You are at at family gathering. It's time to leave. There are many ways this situation can play out. I will illustrate just 2 of them. 1) age 6-17. You are instructed to go hug Uncle Marvin, in which the entire focus of the room is suddenly bearing down on you. Uncle Marvin has giant (possibly creepy) smile from ear to ear as he says come give me a hug. 2) More egregious- being the age is 0-6. Uncle Marvin approaches, picks you up gently tossing you in the air in playful manner and then hugging you. Your attempts to resist are futile. Is this a violation of the NAP?Is this a form of child abuse? When, if ever, should you say something to the parent, to Uncle Marvin? Anything else you want to add is welcome. I know this is minor in the realm of child abuse, but it just occurred to me how frequent this situation comes up.

Coward Dr. Drew throws in this little tidbit of weaselness at the end (paraphrase) : Spanking makes them more likey to have troubles. I am not saying all kids who are spanked will be negatively affected.

I am guessing most of you have heard of "Yes Parenting." If you haven't, it's another form of peaceful parenting. One woman's story putting this into practice. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2605613/Ice-cream-breakfast-Of-course-poppet-Draw-walls-swear-How-creative-Brace-meet-The-mother-NEVER-says-No-children.html

Conclusions, whether false or true, without methodology are useless. If your conclusion is intended to strike fear in children and you have no methodology for establing your claim other than "faith," you are simply a bully perpetuating llies and superstition at the expense of innocence.

Reality check:“Based on fear about not having superior fire power on the ground, and in consultation with our gun thugs, we have made a decision to cease stealing this guy's cattle because we are bullies and cowards” BLM director Neil Kornze said.

"First know thyself."Kevin's video, while amusing, is questionable philosophically given the demographic. The only way it could be more skewed is if it were conducted at a single's bar.Steve Harvey? Not a great comedian and his thinking skills lag far behind his mediocre comedic skills. His argument, like most folks is: I can't, therefore the world can't. It's easy to show why men and women can be friends. Ever hear of brothers and sisters who are friends? Maybe you buy into the Freudian thing- the something or other complex where daughthers secretly want to sleep with their fathers, and by extension, their siblings? Interesting theory, however, not sure what the null hypothesis would be. Oh, and for those that are shaking their finger at me and saying "Yeah, but that's family - flesh and blood!" Come on now. This is FDR. The family thing is easy to put to the test. Just look at adoption. No biology shared, and yet they are friends with the opposite sex with no romantic inclinations.Someone brought up a good point when they mentioned the bisexual angel. They can't have friends? Male/female friendhsips void of any alterior romantic feelings are probably the exception. But mistaking the world for yourself seems the default position of most folks who argue no such thing as a platonic friendship between men and women.

I know this is preaching to the choir, but it's like all references/books of history have been erased from Russia circa 1921 to Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge. Students must sacrifice their appetite to make a stronger country!Maybe it's a just another psychopathic game to amuse the ruling class. Let's see how horrible we can make public school all the while celebrating how great it is?http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/05/students-fed-up-with-michelle-obamas-school-lunch-overhaul-menu-item-snapshots-spell-out-why/

The easiest method is anyone who endorses the use of a violent system to rule others. In other words the parasites that seek approval (votes) from the victims they steal from and threaten. For some reason the author forgot to mention that little tidbit.Anywho yesterday I was listening to an old Radiolab (NPR podcast) titled Blame. They have a great discussion in it where they talk about mapping the brain in the future so as to determine if criminal will reoffend. It then takes on the distinct flavor of the determinism vs. free will debate but without using those terms in order to say there is no such thing as right and wrong, or in this case blame because our behavior is just a matter of our (brain) matter. I found it a delightful listen and a perfect set up for this article. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10737827/Psychopaths-how-can-you-spot-one.html

Adam Carolla, of all people, was a big influence on me as far as appreciating fitness goes. Back in the Love Line ( late 90s I think, the radio show with Dr. Drew) days, he was talking about about sleeping issues. At that time I was battling depression and a messed up sleeping routine. Carolla shared a little analogy that just stuck with me. He said you ever notice how the people who have sleeping issues are never brick masons, ditch diggers, or roofers? It's always people who lead a sedentary lifestyle. His point being our bodies require some form of physical stress for health.Of course he said it in the funny way Carolla is known for and for which he has parlayed into a career.IMO sleep is a key component to evaluating one's health. It is also one of the easiest components to neglect, not without costs.

Friend is one of thoe words easily tossed around but rarely gets an objective definition. Person B does not sound like a friend to me.You already knew or know this. But after this little incident, the truth can no longer be denied. Perhaps your pain and discomfort is realizing you mistook a person of low quality for being high quality?

Gun thugs are useless and have no place in a free society. Why do we care if a slave owner can't understand what language the slaves speak?

Should violence be used to fund education, and college athletics? I would argue that is the primary question that needs to be addressed and shown the light of day. Everything thing after that is up for debate.

As with the concept of justice, if you have to preface 'libertarian' with left or right, it seems you aren't really a libertarian but you wish others to think you are. Same goes for the latest non sensical terms du jour: brutalist, humanist.

A couple of gems for those who don't have time or patience but would like a quick laugh. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/investing-in-bitcoin-has-a-dangerous-flip-side/2014/02/28/09af7f54-9e5e-11e3-9ba6-800d1192d08b_story.html "The value of a bitcoin isn't based on a currency you know, such as the dollar or euro. But you buy bitcoins by transferring real money to a person or an exchange." "Regulators across the country are warning investors about the volatility of bitcoins both as a currency and investment." (MtGox closing) "Therein lies the problem. The company doesn't have to answer to any authority or regulator, so it can't be made to tell folks what's happening with their money." A testament to 12 years of public schooling + 4 years of college. "In fact, digital currency made the North American Securities Administrators Association's list of new investor threats. “The value of bitcoins and other digital currencies is highly volatile and the concept behind the currency is difficult to understand even for sophisticated financial experts,” NASAA said in its alert.

A year without getting on the boards? Better late than never. Welcome.

JT penned another article ,in defense of the original article, when he was amused to "...find the debate and frenzy to be great. A writer aspires to write a piece that achieves that." And so he goes on kicking more sand in the eyes of 'brutalists' all the while exclaiming how great his idea is. This is not what I consider an open and honest approach to proposing an idea. "If I had any doubts that my piece was necessary, the reactions, some of them give new meaning to the phrase “violent prose,” removed them all." In other words, they were upset I found a fancy new term/label for racists so I must be correct in my labeling because they were upset. RBE redux http://libertarianstandard.com/2014/03/18/what-explains-the-brutalism-uproar

Interested. skype name: paintedsquare (correction/edit Wednesday 8:30 EST)

The poor per se are not a protected class according to the 'humanitarians.' To be a 'brutalist' you would need to hate poor women and poor 'minorities' but be quite charitable towards all other poor. Does that make sense?

There are two recent articles that deal with this topic. The first proposes there is such opposing camps within the libertarian camp. You can read more in this link. http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/against-libertarian-brutalism The second article takes exception to/criticizes the notion that such a distinction can, or should be made. http://www.christophercantwell.com/2014/03/12/jeffrey-tuckers-case-libertarianism/ If you accept such a distinction, which camp do you identify with?

Larken Rose- direct and has no fear Josie Outlaw- arguments from morality Daniel Bostock- good vids where he tells coppers to piss off Charles Veitch- entertaining and smart enuf