303900+ entries in 0.07s
mircea_popescu: im sure everyone's in agreement with obama : change is now imperatively necessary.
mircea_popescu: to hear stalin tell it, lenin was not only a major stalinist but he didn't think much of trotski either.
mircea_popescu: i had no idea libertards had progressed past being embarassed by the fact that nobody in the classical period agreed with their nonsense into outright claiming they did.
mircea_popescu: chetty guy was an ardent NATIONAL socialist. that's a nazi.
mircea_popescu: ahh looking forward to some bitcoin history rewriting of our own. didja know obama was an ardent elitist ?
mircea_popescu: according to wikipedia, shaw was "an ardent socialist".
mircea_popescu: mrstickball_ well then what, piece of cake ? are you in film ?
mircea_popescu: chetty the acetabulum is exactly directly under where the ovary's painted.
mircea_popescu: bitcoinpete in fairness a year ago btc was what, less than $100
mircea_popescu: mrstickball_ yeah but i mean... so then why commit suicide with havelock lol
mircea_popescu: basically hes' been mostly doing netflix these days. getting fat on teh couch
mircea_popescu: now all we really need is for someone to implement the wol pow.
mircea_popescu: so what's the biz model like, buy a bulk and sell by item ?
mircea_popescu: twins are what, 4 ppm. so actually b-a has a statistically expected number of twins.
mircea_popescu: <ThickAsThieves> no matter much trilema you read, the wife ain't gonna listen! << this sounds like a cry for halp
mircea_popescu: people have often done 180 degree about faces talking here. and those who can't gather on forum not here. so all's well, even if we are invested
mircea_popescu: it'd be all "o, you can't talk good accountingpractices with people who own x stock"
mircea_popescu: i have no particular reason to suspect you'd go nuts just because specific points you happen to be personally invested in turn out to be wrong or unsustainable.
mircea_popescu: not if the people in question are scholars rather than believers.
mircea_popescu: the discussion was proceeding on the strength of what can be
mircea_popescu: mike_c whether we hold them or not is irrelevant in that context.
mircea_popescu: we are discussing something much broader than that, specifically the limits of agency, human knowledge and so on.
mircea_popescu: mike_c we're not discussing religious viewpoints, nor are we doing the equivalent for fuckpreferences.
mircea_popescu: mike_c this is false on its face. i'm a religious scholar.
mircea_popescu: ThickAsThieves i definitely don't propose there's a winner. the dispute of which is more complex a tool does not map on the discussion of which is a better tool.
mircea_popescu: how the hell is taste to emerge, if not from the public discussion of individual preference ?
mircea_popescu: <mike_c> i'm with ThickAsThieves. debating love is like debating religion. nobody is going to change their mind. << the point oif the discussion is not to change mind.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform the highway robbery the us govt is conducting as a matter of course is well documented already, yes.
mircea_popescu: but still, wives are not slaves (and probably shouldn't generally be)
mircea_popescu: not like one has to do anything on the strength of what ba said.
mircea_popescu: ThickAsThieves no itdoesn't. discussion and action are divorced topics,
mircea_popescu: ThickAsThieves sure you can't debate it. why would something not be up for debate ?
mircea_popescu: benkay and if you say "you eat your dogfood with your hands shackled behind your back and if you run into a hair there fu you eat it anyway and if it makes you vomit fu you'll lick it all up the floor and swallow it" ?