Wednesday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. An interesting question at the end.
  2. Somebody from South Carolina needs to get his facts straight. Taking a failing company and holding it for 8 years trying to give it a chance, is not corporate “rape.” Blaming someone for the eventual failure, which occurs two years after you leave … if the former is rape, what is this mis-characterization? Blood slander?
  3. So. Constitutional or just wrong?
  4. Why are people so adverse to noting that there are physiological differences between peoples that can have an impact on physical and mental performance.
  5. I wonder if this Bishop would be allergic to this Akathist service?
  6. Is the question here that you cannot base your meta-ethics on religion? Visit Mount Athos.
  7. Tragedy of the commons (ToC), if government was the solution to ToC then why do Communist countries have a worse problem with that than not.
  8. Free will.
  9. Oh, that’s just silly … nobody’s going to kill the President … Biden is his insurance plan. No assassin in his right mind wants that nitwit to have real power.
  10. Mr Obama goes after straw men on the campaign trail. If that were his only reason, then it wouldn’t make sense. If the predicate is false, of course the statement is true. Alas, it is also meaningless.
  11. Lunch for the Klingon.

10 responses to “Wednesday Highlights

  1. Why are people so adverse to noting that there are physiological differences between peoples that can have an impact on physical and mental performance.

    Because they don’t want to be associated with the crypto-racists (Derbyshire, until recently) and open racists (Sailer, etc.) who magnify, distort, and leap to various wrong and hateful conclusions that conform to their prejudices.

  2. JA,
    Reality based indeed. So that’s where hewing to the truth no matter where it takes you has fallen, now it’s hew only to what keeps you in the “right” crowd. ‘Splains a lot.

    Are you saying you’d say you were a theist if associating yourself with atheists meant you were in the wrong crowd?

  3. Mark,

    I wasn’t defending them, I was answering your question, i.e., they don’t say it because it’s “not PC.”

  4. 7.Tragedy of the commons (ToC), if government was the solution to ToC then why do Communist countries have a worse problem with that than not.

    Not sure I really get this. Tragedy of the commons happens when you have something where the law doesn’t assign a clear property right too. If there’s no law, then everything is ‘commons’. If there is law then were is it coming from, who is enforcing it, if not a gov’t?

    Not really sure communist countries had a necessarily bigger ToC problem. It was certainly NOT the case in the USSR that because private property was kept to a legal min. that property was ‘common’. You could not, say, just grab an acre of land and start farming it or put a house on it. Property was owned by state enterprises and they enforced their property rights.

  5. JA,
    Sounds like your defense is a euphemism for PC speech policing.

  6. … and that’s why I rarely bother anymore.

    Me: “I wasn’t defending them”

    You: “Sounds like your defense is…”

  7. JA,
    I’m sorry. I was being sloppy. My apologies.

    It sounds like your explanation (not defense) is …

    On a side note however, do you really think people back off for not appearing as a crypto-(bad thing) at any time?

  8. Well I think another factor is that biologically racial traits have often been offered as hypothesis for observed differences and they carry a lot of intellectual appeal but ultimately have ended up totally false. For example, consider the theory that Western nations had genetic traits that made their economies more dynamic than Asian ones. North and South Korea and East and West Germany created an almost perfectly controlled experiments where you had peoples with more or less shared racial DNA living under two different systems and the result seems to be the system not the DNA generates the outcome.

    So it’s not surprising that a hypothesis which so often has been tempting to many but ultimately lead to false conclusions would be treated with a lot of reluctance, so much so that even in a few areas where it might have something too it it finds itself treated coldly.

  9. On a side note however, do you really think people back off for not appearing as a crypto-(bad thing) at any time?

    Absolutely. I know for a fact that people do it, especially with hot-button topics like racism.

  10. JA,
    Conversationally I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone ever call someone a crypto-anything, so the chances of *fearing* that seem small to me.

    You libs have taken the PC thing to strange places.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>