TakeYouToTasker

He wants to play again so he can try to go to four in a row is the rumbling heard around New England.

We have reached the point in American life where we no longer have shared values. It used to be that we agreed on the things we wanted but had differing ideas on how to achieve them, but now we have two stark and incompatible cultures opposing each other over every issue; with one side now demonstrating non only a willingness, but rather a desire, to undermine the concept of free and fair elections and self-determination in order to achieve their desired results. The level of discourse has reached the pitch of Bleeding Kansas, and I'm of the belief that when one side of the debate has thrown away the notion of a peaceful transfer of power to a side they disagree with, then it's time to dispense with the veil all together, and start shooting them.

Critiques of your positions are not personal attacks no matter how you feel about them. I'm of the opinion that folks who draw this particular sword deserve to die on it. People who hold this view are the reason we are going to have a shooting war in the streets in our lifetimes, and when it comes, I hope you suffer dearly in it, as this particular kind of stupid deserves to be painful.

I haven't insulted you, I've stated that your opinion is both stupid and naive; then I explained why. There's a difference.

This is an incredibly stupid and naive opinion. The line between republicanism and despotism is dangerously thin, and this exact place is where it lies. The reason you're free to hold terrible opinions, and voice them on the internet, or anywhere else, is because the government is not free to throw you in jail, or "disappear you" for political dissent as happens so many other places in the world. Freedom is fragile and delicate, and is easily violated by the powerful in the shadows is not checked very publicly.

The federal government using it's unlimited resources to first invent a reason via self-created "evidence" to initiate an investigation into a private citizen, and then use that sham in order to pursue an open ended drive to find criminality in other private citizens, and the first private citizen themselves doesn't bother you??? That is stunning, and dangerously stupid; and is the absolute antithesis of a free society under which the rule of law affords citizens the protection of their basic human rights under a Constitution.

That has to be in India, correct?

Golf is a sport.

I suppose I could, but then you'd be wrong.

I misunderstood your references initially, and the Smith quote is apt. The fines (again, a government directive), need to be punative enough that a company can't simply absorb them as a cost of doing business. They also need to be addressed as a criminal infraction as opposed to a civil one.

Non-compete agreements, as you allude to, are not a function of capitalism, but rather government intervention showing preference (picking winners). I think you'll find it very interesting.

My position is two fold. First, in terms of skilled and specialized labor, that power proposition is not necessarily true. Second, in terms of unskilled labor, I believe in the right of free association (a necessary component of any free society) which encompasses the right to unionize in order to shift power balances. I'm happy to have two conversations with you. I haven't completely formed my position on the issue, and more work certainly needs to be done. Murray's work is so important because it attempts to smash down a barrier and discuss important ideas which have been regarded as too taboo to consider, which is a terrible starting point in honest dialogue. I would disagree, however, with the conclusion that it would mean we don't have a shared lineage. There are many social, logistical, and economic impacts which have played out to contribute. Intergenerational malnutrition, difference in selective breeding amongst tribes, inbreeding etc. which cause lasting and ongoing impacts. My only argument is that the topic is far too important to be ignored, and that it's being broached is not a weaponization of race, but rather a conversation that may be vital to a human race without a harijan.

Only a person who hasn't read the book would say it's written to fit any specific conclusion. I would suggest anyone holding that opinion listen to Murray's interview with Sam Harris which I have provided above.

There are genetic differences between the races, and this is not up for debate. Data bears out that there may be significant deviations in intelligence. This is not to say that a member of a given race cannot be hyper intelligent, but rather that the mean regresses to a lower level. This has the potential to be incredibly problematic in an advancing society. 150 years ago a difference of 25-40 IQ points may not have made a huge difference, as nearly all people were subsistence farmers to some degree or another, and there was very low potential for variations in wealth accumulation. Fast forward the clock to today, and our technologically advanced world, and that same deviation is a massive gap in the potential for achievement.

This means a healthy, viable baby could be killed at 8 months, thirty days gestation. It means the abortion could be delayed or done in a manner to permit organ harvesting. It means that a fetus whose brain was sufficiently developed to experience pain could be torn slowly apart in the womb in the most agonizing manner. It would also allow sex-selection abortion and, if it were ever possible to determine, termination to prevent a gay baby from being born. And what are we to make of this provision? At the very least, it would fully authorize the horrible fetal-part selling practices in which Planned Parenthood was caught engaging (the videos about which have now been validated by a federal court). It could also permit odious practices beyond abortion, for example creating a free space for germ-line genetic engineering, as recently done in China. And what would prevent fetuses from being maintained in an artificial womb for purposes of experimentation — since they would have no rights, recognized human dignity, or legal status? Don’t scoff. Experimentation was conducted in the late 60s on living fetuses. One 1968 study — on a 26-week aborted fetus kept alive for five hours in an artificial environment — even received the Foundation Prize Award from the American Association of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Also note that there are no residency requirements. Since almost every jurisdiction in the world places restrictions on late terminations, Vermont could well become the viable-fetus abortion capital of the world. The 91 authors of this bill — think about that — want Vermont’s public policy to state explicitly that unborn human life has no value or moral worth that any born person is bound to respect. What are we becoming? https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/vermont-bill-pushes-abortion-without-limit/ This is monstrous and takes large steps toward legitimizing attempts on the lives of individuals administering abortions in the State of Vermont.

We'd have to completely rethink copyright and patent laws.

We do not have a capitalist economy. We have a mixed economy in which laws are written for the benefit of certain industries or companies, to the detriment of other industries or companies (legislating winners and losers). Much of this is in the form of regulations which create barriers to new market entry, which stifles competition.

Define viability as you're using it in order to assure we're having the same conversation. The definition I am using implies that the fetus has a chance of survival outside of the womb.

There are no medical scenarios which require a doctor to kill a baby before delivering it for the physical health of the mother. None. The baby is completely viable in the third term, and is being delivered either way. Killing is first is 100% elective, and serves no medical purpose. This is precisely the reason "health" was left vague within the law.

There are lots of problems which can be solved via murder. That doesn't make it moral.

Congratulations and God bless!

His point, as usual, was foolish. "The general welfare" is speaking to functions which have shared utility, and aren't provided by private enterprise. Healthcare meets neither of these standards.

No, it's not unreasonable. It's un understanding of how laws are written, and interpreted; and an acknowledgement that medical professionals (not even doctors, with the advent of this new law) who work in abortion mills will choose to look for ways to expand the understanding of "health" in order to achieve their desired results. Further, do you trust non-doctors to be able to make a determination about whether or not the "life or health" of the mother is threatened?