TheAuger

I just recently started reading "Free Women, Free Men". Here's her FIRST paragraph of the introduction: "History moves in cycles The plague of political correctness and assaults on free speech that erupted in the 1980s and were beaten back in the 1990s have returned with a vengeance. In the United States, the universities as well as the mainstream media are currently patrolled by well-meaning but ruthless thought police, as dogmatic in their views as agents of the Spanish Inquisition." She has essays titled, "The Nursery School Campus: The Corrupting of the Humanities in the U.S.", "No Sex Please, We're Middle Class", and "Coddling Won't Elect Women, Toughening Will". PLEASE, get her on!

Camille Paglia has a new book out called "Free Women, Free Men", which I've not read, but apparently is a tome of scathing essays pushing back against third wave feminists (nothing new for Paglia, herself a feminist), eviscerating PC culture's ruining of university scholasticism and turning higher learning into SJW indoctrination factories, and actually defends masculinity and traditional roles for the sexes as (*gasp*) biologically-based rather than entirely socially constructed. http://www.uarts.edu/users/cpaglia https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/booking-request.php?SpName=Camille-Paglia

@richardY Well done! I've followed this event quite closely in the news since the last Parliamentary elections, and I'm elated for the result! Though my elation is tempered by facts and ruthless political machinations. Parliament may just decide that the referendum isn't legally binding, and they'll just ignore the result. FT Headline: Can the United Kingdom government legally disregard a vote for Brexit? https://next.ft.com/content/5b82031e-1056-31e1-8e0e-4e91774e27f1 I have nothing but loathing for the majority of English speaking politicians. Mr. Farage has been a notable exception. He is, by far, his generation's most outstanding political orator utilizing the English language. I think Farage will be much studied for generations to come. I mean you talk about perseverance! This is a guy who got mad at the conniving of the political class signing the British people into the EU through Maastricht without a referendum, left a lucrative City trading career, co-founded his own political party, got elected the EP, made mincemeat of the pompous Eurocrats, and finally, decades later, forced "Dave" to put the referendum up as a ballot issue, and now here we are! Farage has had more success as a libertarian than has Ron Paul!

The problem with "climate science" is that they are comparing observed temperatures with these climate models (the IPCC has funded over 400 of them). This is not empiricism, and therefore, it isn't science.

Juncker...Juncker...oh, you mean this drunk cunt...? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3625257/EU-chief-Jean-Claude-Juncker-appears-drunk-bizarre-video-hopping-foot-foot-slapping-leaders.html

@Marlon, It seems what you might be asking is how can you detect someone lying or covering up for patterns of abuse. The answer is by asking them questions. If they'd rather not be open and honest with you, come back to the issue in a later conversation, perhaps scheduled. If they're still reticent and it's clear they're not being honest with you, or their story changes, then this would be a definite red flag for me.

Hi regevdl; interesting post. I get frustrated with the usage of the term "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" -- but for the opposite reason. I've noticed that when people use the term "conspiracy", they use it as a way to dismiss concepts and fact based arguments out of hand; it's something NOT to be believed, on it's face, without having to provide counter arguments. To me, this is extremely intellectually dishonest and lazy. (I'm not saying this is what you're doing, by the way). But simultaneously, "conspiracy" is a recognized legal concept in most systems all over the globe for a long time. So, for example, just look at the term you used -- 9/11 "Truther" -- which the MSM media uses as if the truth were something to be ridiculed, dismissed, ignored, etc (again, not saying that's the way you were using it). In fact, the term "conspiracy theory" was a creation of the CIA -- on record. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge https://books.google.com/books?id=TilCeCKDujQC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=cia+%22Conspiracy+on+the+large+scale+often+suggested+would+be+impossible+to+conceal+in+the+United+States.%22&source=bl&ots=R3UDlJbyo3&sig=FGKbeXrsfpMMDxWQSozPvh0ic20&hl=en&sa=X&ei=95fqVIb_ONXnoAT-pIDQDg&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=cia%20%22Conspiracy%20on%20the%20large%20scale%20often%20suggested%20would%20be%20impossible%20to%20conceal%20in%20the%20United%20States.%22&f=false

It's a good question, for sure. I've had some experience and success in this area. If you're wanting to approach women in public, then it's good to have a goal -- have a 5 minute plan to chat them up and get their contact info. There are all sorts of cheesy pickup lines -- don't use them -- women will thank you for sparing them the bullshit. It's best just to be completely honest and straightforward. This is the part that's disconcerting and uncomfortable for some men, I've noticed. So, for practice, just try approaching random people in public and striking up an upbeat conversation about something in your immediate environment. It's important to keep the conversation moving, and for some people this takes practice. Keep sustained eye contact. See if you can crack a joke, or compliment them in some way, and then know how to close and go about your business. Then, when you spot a woman that catches your fancy, just approach them in the same friendly, upbeat way. Non verbals are key. So, if you've made eye contact with them, that's a good sign. The best opener, I've found, is a direct approach. Something like, "Hey, I noticed ___x___ about you, and I think you're absolutely gorgeous. What's your name?" This will flatter them and demonstrate a certain confidence level on your part. But what you're really trying to do is gauge their interest level. So if they give their name and then ask yours -- that's a really good sign -- their interest level is high because they asked for your name. If they don't ask your name, it's still OK -- they maybe shy, in which case you'll have to work a little harder. Remember the goal here. Get them to a point where they're comfortable giving you their contact info. It's good to practice asking questions that don't have one word/yesno answers. At a key moment in the convo, you'll just have to say something like, "Well I wish we could chat more -- I'm meeting some friends and I have to run -- can you give me your phone number and we can go ___(something funny/semi absurd)___ sometime?" It's really that easy. Women know what you're after. If they're interested, they're going to notice the gesture and be flattered by it and help you through nervousness/awkwardness. A key hangup is if she's already dating someone else or has a boyfriend (or is already married...!)...The best thing to do in this circumstance is to say interestedly, without missing a beat or showing let down, "Oh, what's it like being in the perfect relationship?". Just listen to their mealy mouthing for a few seconds and say, "well I'm pleased to have met you, have a good day!" Then walk away confidently. Keep in mind what most women are looking for -- someone who is happy, upbeat, confident. If you're not that way naturally -- work on it -- it's a skill. Use that nervousness as energy. If you strike out -- there are always more fish in the sea. I've had literally hundreds of failures! You're a good looking guy -- if you ask a thousand women, a few hundred are bound to say yes! The key is to have a goal, practice, control the flow and duration of the conversation. Just KNOW that YOU have something GREAT to offer THEM!

Meanwhile, the Fed has commissioned white papers that support instituting NIRP. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-06/mechanics-nirp-how-fed-will-bring-negative-rates-us

Y'know, I already addressed all of these points in my second post on this thread.

Arguments of peace...? Attack people who want to control you...who advocate violence...enslaving people...blahblahblah? What does any of this have to do with Trump's stance on immigration?

Evidently, you didn't read Aaron's post that I cited...I literally just quoted his post...

So the third choice is "turn the tide"(whatever that means) and start killing people?

We need to be able to discreetly separate the policies of government, and then be able to look at overall the effects of those policies on the aggregate power of the State. So, yes, if Trump is elected and builds his wall, the amount of State power and resources in the area of border security will increase. However, that doesn't mean that the overall power of the State will also increase. Why? Well, fewer illegals getting free stuff from the Welfare State means less violence and theft against We, The Tax Chattel. In the aggregate, State power is lessened with a stronger border. Though the State itself, I believe, is illegitimate, the legal function of the State to secure the borders of a country is been, historically, the prime (and I believe a legitimate) concern of the State. In other words, if a society is going to have a state, then it's first priority (and really only priority) ought to be defense of borders. Even a free society will have borders, at least initially, because neighboring countries with governments will have defined borders. I'm still curious about the straw men you detected in one of yagami's post. Example? It seems to me, rather, that the straw man shoe is on the other foot. I don't ever recall reading yagami just claiming he believes the wall will work just because of "faith and hope" -- he's given you actual reasons. This is a demonstrable straw man fallacy you've made.

Ben Garrison was interviewed on the Alex Jones show today. He explains the ways in which he has been death threatened and persecuted -- even forced to quit his job -- because of his exercise of free expression. https://youtu.be/ti9F6UVXniA?t=2977

Yes. Dude. Where are the straw men? Can you provide an example?

Wait, what straw men?

A new Facebook group promotes the practice of female genital cutting/circumcision/mutilation. https://www.facebook.com/Islamic-Female-Circumcision-480676625476877/ Not surprisingly, they use a health benefit argument to support savagery and barbarism (without citing any actual evidence supporting their claim): "If you love your husband, get yourself circumcised because germs unders your prepuce can reach his mouth when he pleasures your clitoris and cause him oral cancer". https://www.facebook.com/480676625476877/photos/a.480682795476260.1073741828.480676625476877/481252645419275/?type=3

Just like Peter Schiff predicted -- that the Fed would come out and imply they would raise rates as a signal of overall confidence in the strength of the economy, when really it's just a bluff in order to spur consumer and institutional confidence. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/27/yellen-rate-hike-probably-appropriate-in-the-coming-months.html

1) You can't just claim my original claim was obviously wrong -- you actually have to go through the steps of creating an argument refuting my original claim. This is called a rebuttal, and it helps when it's backed by reasoned evidence. 2) This is not an argument, either. "You keep making easily disproven, silly claims" is itself an "easily disproven, silly claim". Just because someone happens to disagree with statements you've made does not make them a "troll". Your post is just a big ad hominem fallacy. And if you already conceded that it's a bit of a silly debate anyway, then why on earth would you continue?

Well how convenient for you! You seem to want to just sort of nibble at my argument and then swim away, merely having played a semantical word game... To me, this is quite a disappointment...! If it's a bit of a "silly debate", then I shouldn't expect a reply from you, should I?

Wow, we just got back from The Witch, and it was really, really well done. There are some very strong performances in this film, including by some very young actors -- I'm not usually a fan of films with children in leading roles...a lot of cringing...by me... Some of the themes and tropes I noticed, which I've listed in the topic tags, were very compelling and explored to varying degrees over about 90 minutes. I'll just touch on a few of these themes, and they may contain spoilers. Superstition and Theocracy and Child Abuse -- This film is set in one of the early Puritan "plantations" -- probably Massachusetts Bay colony sometime in the 1630s or 1640s if I had to guess. The opening scene is the convening of a religious court where a man stands trial for blasphemy, which leads he and his family's excommunication (a la Thomas Hooker). The farmer and his family establish a farm in a remote area, praying all the while for providence from sky daddy. Every plan, every action, every is considered in relation to God. An entire family -- a pregnant wife, a set of twins, and another brother and sister -- is cut off from the protection and the resources of the community for a mere disagreement on some mundane theological point. One of the sons of the farmer is tortured with thoughts of his dead younger brother roasting away in hell because he wasn't baptized before he was (spoiler alert) ...kidnapped by a witch, ritually murdered, and pounded into jelly, and then rubbed all over the witch's naked body, allowing her to fly. Destruction of the family -- The exile of the family embeds them more fully into the stress and hardships of living in nature, as they hack a living "out of the wilderness with their own two hands, bearing their children along the way" (Last of the Mohicans, 1992). The stress and toil have real consequences on the relationships between the family members. Thomasin, the eldest daughter is suspected of having been complicit in her brother's disappearance and another brother's death. The father sells his wife's prized silver cup to purchase animal traps, and fails to tell the truth when it would have saved Thomasin from the suspicion of her mother. Later, the mother seems to hint at infidelity back in England after the father comes clean about selling the cup. Witchcraft and Satanism and Feminism -- I couldn't help but think about Hillary Clinton, watching the witch smear bloody baby ointment all over her wrinkly old lady backside -- symbolic of the State destroying the futures of the as yet unborn tax chattel. She apparently lives alone in a remote hut in the woods and is possibly able to transform into various animals (usually a brown hare -- not sure what it's supposed to symbolize). As you may know, there was a story perpetrated by the "vast right wing conspiracy" that Hillary and her gal pal and former "spiritual advisor", Jean Huston, who is a New Age mystic and once helped Hillary conjure the spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt in a seance in the Green Room -- oh but don't worry it was just "roleplaying"...in preparation for "It Takes a Village". The pay off at the end of the movie (major spoiler) ...is Thomasin conjuring Satan, selling her soul to him, and then following him, stark naked, at night, into the woods where there, a coven of 7-10 witches are gathered around a bonfire wailing in arcane tongues and levitating against the night sky...summoning the egregore of the future America...when women will wear the pants(suits) and use the power of the state to destroy their men and extract their resources through their urethras and call NASA sexist because it crushed their dreams of flying in space. I'd give The VVitch 82 out of 100 NuvaRings. The sound editing could have been a little crisper, especially since they were speaking in the Thee and Thou form of English. Visually, it's pretty bleak, which is an obvious choice in keeping with the stark emotional tone of the film. Great debut for Robert Eggers -- looking forward to seeing what he does next.

Oh come on...you really want to do this? I think this post ^ is really, really, really nitpicky. "You know it's not all the time." The context I was thinking of here is not one individual incessantly lying lying lying; The context, if you'll notice was "people", not "person". Somewhere in the world at some t=n, at least one person is telling a lie. There's no way to prove it, of course. But this wasn't clear to you and that's entirely on me. What is a dishonest action? It's either not doing what you say you're doing to do, or doing something other than what you've committed to. And there are a variety of motives, but the most common is deception. In my opinion, I think the whole nose picking vignette is a way minimizing dishonesty into in-consequentialist miasma of...boogers and snot...I mean, maybe you really don't know what a dishonest action is... I never claimed "a word itself" was dishonest. Again, maybe it's entirely my fault in miscommunicating what I meant, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not throw down the straw man gauntlet, but for the sake of this argument, then, lets just say "words" in my original post are actions (e.g. speech, or writing). I look forward to your responses, kikkakutonen. What do others think?

Regular people do. All the time. I'm not excusing it; but let's be real. Yes, there is such a thing as a person. Per se.

I'm not sure if there is such a thing as a dishonest person, per se, only dishonest actions and words. It may be the case that it is immoral to have children with people who have a history of lying and habitually, pathologically continue to lie.