Filed under: ethics, news, philosophy, politics, psychology, sex | Tags: Adolf Hitler, aubrey oday, danity kane, Fidel Castro, fox news, philosophy, politically corret, Sean Hannity Show
“The former Danity Kane member dug herself into a hole Monday night in a heated debate on Fox News’ “The Sean Hannity Show” when the 25-year-old singer spewed out claims that both Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro were “brilliant” men.” (Click link to see the video of the show with Aubrey.)
The PC media is saying “Aubrey O’Day put her foot in her mouth,” but it’s the culture of conformity that really has this time, not Aubrey…Read More
Filed under: epistemology, ethics, news, personal, philosophy, politics, porn, psychology, sex, sexuality | Tags: ayn rand, conservative, conservativism, exploitation, female, feminism, liberal, liberalism, liberals, male, male dominance, objectivism, personal, philosophy, political correctness, politically correct, politics, psychology, pubilc, sex, sexuality
There are two strands of modern American feminism, all other categories seem to be variations of the following two:
1. Conservative Feminism–in which the national mainstream culture’s vision of sex is rejected and made conservative, hence any visual public disclosure of the female body, especially for money, is wrong, and in all cases, an example of male or otherwise, exploitation of women.
2. Liberal Feminism–where the national vision of sex for women is embraced (i.e. free love) and taken in to be a natural function and expression of femininity, even for money, in which the female is viewed as being in control of her life and sexuality, all examples of female public disclosure of her body is viewed as natural and as if she is in control.
Both these visions of the modern female are incorrect and have led to devastating results for American girls and women alike…Read More
Filed under: epistemology, personal, philosophy, porn, psychology, sex | Tags: erotic, memoir, personal
Something about a woman’s ass, my mouth is engaged by.
If it’s round.
Jazz is suddenly my background sitting in a cafe the morning after a glorious ‘weekend’ series of pleasures.
Filed under: ethics, news, personal, philosophy, politics, psychology | Tags: culture, current events, ethics, media, news, philosophy, politics, psychology, riots, society, technology
How many lives is it costing us to live the way we live?
If it were certain or even reasonable to think that a more efficient way of life could save those lives, and if certain people are preventing that way of life from emerging, aren’t they then, murderers?
By eliminating the opposition of these people, through whatever means, are we not then acting in self-defense?
Filed under: epistemology, ethics, philosophy, politics | Tags: darwinism, epistemology, global warming, logic, logical fallacies, PC left, philosophy, political correctness, politics, reasoning, religious, semantics
If someone said to you that it is virtually impossible to know the probability of how many car-to-pedestrian related deaths there are in a given city, you might be inclined to think that such a problem would be far too vast and complex to ever ’solve.’
This might seem reasonable, since, after all, how could we ever corner such a huge number of variables to end up with one figure?
Filed under: philosophy | Tags: burgundy, drugs, escorts, hookers, porn, rock n' roll, sex, wine
Obama is finally in the lead!
Read the article, here.
McCain’s evil rantings and recent botch-up in accompanying Palin to the recent CBS interview with Katie Couric: , –must finally be coming back at him. This is of course, not to mention his unprecedented request to pull out of the presidential debates, though, from his inarticulate point of view, understandably so.
I personally think it’ll be a landslide election, and ABOUT TIME TOO!
Filed under: philosophy | Tags: Barack Obama, debates, John McCain, McCain, Obama, politics, presidential debates, the debate
It was obvious from last night’s debate that the republican right has hit a new level of now cartoon quality incoherence. Obama was rational, collected, calm, and yet passionate at the same time with questions answered directly, on-context, with cutting articulation.
McCain was inarticulate, panting, stumbling, responded with an alarming number of non-sequiturs, and evaded more questions than he answered with the same mind numbing ‘let me tell you a story, son’ type of emotionalism, not to mention, cue-card boiler plate catch phrases.
With extreme frequency Obama actually had to correct the near-senility of an out of touch aging McCain time and time again with the (to McCain) shameful statement: “Well, that’s just not true.”
A friend of mine made an interesting observation as well: McCain hardly ever, in not never, peered up to look directly at his opponent, whereas Obama did nothing but direct focused rational attention toward McCain.
McCain’s lack of eye-contact or direct gaze, is I believe, one of the scientifically demonstrated characteristics of a person who is lying: the other one I know, is of smiles which disappear within what is almost the same instant they are initiated, among, I’m sure a whole host of other sheer give aways.
Keep in mind McCain is the same guy who is quoted as saying: “Well we know Al Qaeda is being trained in Iran,” only to be corrected on the spot by an advisor to rearrange his statement to a criminal level: “I’m sorry we know extremists are being trained in Iran.”
Obama is obviously the level of intelligence we need in a president, and need it badly. McCain made it even more obvious last night the nature of his dim wit and low level of knowledge, especially after a failed attempt to call off the debates knowing the latter two are all too true.
Obama is the president we need to pull us out of the republican’s war profiteering agenda to conquer the world and use the public as a rag to wipe off on.
Support Obama, support change, support intelligibility and reason.
Filed under: epistemology, ethics, personal, philosophy, politics, psychology | Tags: America, common sense, culture, feminism, intellectuals, intelligentsia, modern medicine, moon landing, objectivism, personal, philosophy, politically correct, rationality, science, subjective, subjectivist, women
It is no longer merely the vogue to ignore common sense, but now only sufficient to jettison the concept altogether.
I don’t know, there must be some other world that people are talking about when they make certain claims about things which fly in the face of the most commonly repeatable observations.
All I know, is that I must not be living in that world.
There are two phrases I hear from so-called ‘cultured Americans’ all the time:
1) ‘You never know.’
2) ‘Correlation does not equal causality.’
These are the two darling favorites among intellectuals today, though I hear them all the time in ‘mainstream’ society as well.
Abstract studies, mostly the realms of Psychology, Sociology, Philosophy, Economics, etc., that is, the so-called ‘humanities,’ must be studied mostly through repeatable patterning by independent correlation.
This is to be contrasted from the ‘hard’ or so-called ‘positive’ sciences such as Physics, Chemistry or Math, which operate on empiric direct causality more than they do correlation.
Though, true, correlation does not equal causality, it is also true that ‘correlation can mean a probability for causation.’ In other words, there are many instances in which a correlation denotes probability for a cause, often great probability.
It is this probability subjectivism and its consequent ‘new vogue’ have thrown out the window, and it is this probability that is the basis of common sense.
Filed under: philosophy
This is a continuation of the original blog, go back to Parts I & II to understand anything whatsoever:
These excuses however much they ranged, had one thing in common: they tended to be things that could never quite be acknowledged or confirmed as blatant contradictions.
