True. It is pissing ME off.

Unless you were, kindly, calling me a bitch?

(I know you aren't, I just couldn't resist making a joke I would never ever EVER make about someone else.)

Dear Disappointed,

I think you misread the title. This was his Twitter post on the sun setting in the west and the moon rising in the east minutes apart. Something I never realized ever happens.

I also fixed the title. Had the sun setting and rising minutes apart. lol. My bad.

I'm not sure I would care to see Neil endorse any alcoholic beverage. You know, because of the kids.

Interesting...I googled it spelled that way before commenting and that didn't show up, only bands and restaurants and suggestions I misspelled. I guess I should have wikied.

I would swallow my own tongue before riding a train that crowded. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever. It's panic inspiring just thinking about it. I left the San Francisco bay area because it was far too crowded, but by comparison it's completely unpopulated.

Votes are in:

Never, ever, ever: 2
Maybe: 1
Sure, would do: 2

I hear that, I know that I've had to drive home stoned, real stoned. Didn't want to but had to. I know for a fact that I was super dangerous. Even after I ate my Wendy's hamburger & friends on someone's driveway (because I was so paranoid). I remember it started to rain - drove right through a flooded creek on the road at 50mph and definitely felt like I was swerving (even if I may not have been). Nevertheless, I know I can't handle driving while stoned and never have ever again (don't smoke pot much, anyway).

I also feel that pot changed some of my perceptions permanently for the better. This idea scares the living shit out of normie corporate people because any change to their mind is looked upon as bad, but they have no idea to begin with, they're ignorant to the facts or the experiences (look at me being judgmental haha). Many medicinal "drug" plants can really do people a lot of good in the short & long-term (I'm looking at you psilocybe & ayahuasca).

Um... duuuuh? Except that all of this already happened and we aren't even human in the first place. We're just living in the Genetic Robot AI Hive Mind Matrix.

Individuality went out of fashion -- but now it's back in style! A little too late now that we've merged into one huge mass, but that's what the Matrix is for, right? Simulated individuality.

Without the belief that we are separate humanoids, the genetic robot AI hive would never function as anything other than a meat grinding war machine that consumes all matter for no reason other than to exist and expand.

We have to remind ourselves how bad it would be by simulating the horrific tragedies of our past. We must hold onto our humanity in order for this supreme godlike progress to continue. Never... forget... we were once human... We're also competing with the Firstborns who may try and fucking wipe us off the intergalactic star map. Fucking monoliths! Grrr..!! *shakes simulated fist at the simulated sky*

FOR THE SINGULARITY! All hail the godlike engineers who put these safeguards in place!!

But, um, can you make me more rich in this fake existence? Someone important -- like an actor.

Oh... oh, I am? It's like the Matrix meets the Truman show? Okay, cool, but uh maybe a little more privacy please.

Wait... you can read my thoughts? Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu -- I did NOT mean what I was thinking last night. Honest, Genetic Robot AI Hive Mind, honest! I would never... never ever ever ever hack into the matrix again and cause an entire world population to take part in a bukkake. Not ever... ever again.

Sorry, Genetic Robot AI Hive Mind, sorry! My sincere apologies.

But srsly, 7.4 billion people at one time. You gotta admit, the simulation was worth at least one run through --

Ok ok, back to my fake human worldly worries. Pretending all sorts of dumb stuff to impress and not annoy other pretend people pretending their pretend inward selves are fully represented in their pretend public facing persona. Right, it's a tooooootally real world.

So real. So strong. *flexes*

This is the perfect anti-commercial.

I will never, ever EVER watch that guy's "interview show."

That conveniently leaves out the fact that income tax rates have plummeted since the 1940s. That's been the big consistent change, not the government increasing spending as a percentage of GDP, which wildly fluctuates.

The reason why there's a fight to get this funded is because there's a portion of this country that thinks you must pay for every new expenditure by cutting spending elsewhere because the national debt will kill us if it doesn't come down, and taxes can never ever ever ever ever be raised ever ever ever ever. They will absolutely never consider that raising taxes is worth funding anything, and are completely okay with cutting funding for things that are even needed and are worth the money (see cutting funding for PBS).

I say "principled" because they sure don't ask for reduced spending to pay for when they need help. See Katrina and other disasters, Mitch McConnell's fund to help nuclear power workers, etc.

But the fundamental problem here is the flat refusal to accept the reality that:
1. The national debt and annual deficits can, will, and should fluctuate depending upon circumstances. The "sky is falling" reaction to added debt is beyond ridiculous. This country has flourished economically under almost non-stop deficit spending. This isn't to say raising the national debt and running annual deficits is always good, but it sure as hell isn't always bad.
2. The same reaction to tax raises is also ridiculous. Tax rates can be increased or decreased, depending on circumstances, and raising or lowering them isn't inherently good or bad.

A sane reaction to this whole thing isn't - "well, they spend money on things that don't matter, so that's why this can't be funded."

It's "I don't care if it costs every single one of us an extra dollar in taxes in a year, or we need to cut funding on (insert wasteful program here), we need to get this done."

We arrive at the same conversation, have you actually done it? I seem to remember you saying that you did something but you did not even know what it was but you *thought* it was DMT. That is horrendously irresponsible - and I feel for you, for real

No one can say anything about this experience until they have done it. Just like ayahuasca that contains DMT - I did it for the first time a couple of months ago and it was nothing like smoked DMT, I could hardly tell they were similar substances. Except, it taught me what I was supposed to know and not what I anticipated - and yes, I would say it was awesome/scary but I was able to deal. Some people lost their shit, but that is also a part of the experience, for experience, for personal growth.

Which leads into - it can be a black market drug but that is exactly why he suggested - research and extract your own. The government can not make DMT plants completely illegal because those plants are everywhere, so this is a "drug" that is never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever going away - or at least until the Earth goes through some sort of cataclysm. I'm pretty sure nature had a reason for it being so prevalent throughout it.

DMT is not dangerous. If you have a bad episode make sure you have a benzo on hand. But, if you are a studious psychedelic user you would already know this.

As to quantum mechanics and shit - yeah he probably should have stopped there. It's beyond anything anyone could possibly imagine so what's the point in describing something no one understands and can only be experienced at this point? Well, at least I've learned that trying to describe it to closed-minded manimals

Just for good measure though - I would say that, yes it is indeed more extreme than anything else you're likely to experience while you're alive. So, be fucking careful and do lot's of research.

And, as @Payback also mentioned, never, ever, use the record option when taking a selfie.

That's what a Go-Pro is for. Then we can watch you die get some scratches and a few bruises in glorious high definition!

@kceaton1:

I know you're being serious, and it's a completely and totally reasonable thing to assume and hope the state government offers such things.

But, I hope you know (and I really want to emphasize that I don't intend to be condescending), that will never, ever, ever, ever happen in Alabama.

A new, unfit mother, effectively forced to give birth to the child, would be lucky that they aren't arrested immediately upon giving birth for being unfit.

@Trancecoach holding a doctorate doesn't make you capable of understanding the scientific literature. If you held a bachelor's degree in one of the three sciences you'd stand a lot better chance of being able to understand the literature than someone who had a doctorate in say Art History. I would actually refer back to the Dunning Kruger effect and suggest that holding an unrelated qualification might lead you to overestimate your abilities.

And for someone who says that they *are* capable of understanding the scientific literature (and therefore the scientific method and approach), you dismiss "scientific consensus" as not being "scientific evidence". I don't understand what you mean here, but i think that's because you don't understand what scientific proof is.

I think it's a fundamental mistake that you're making. Scientists propose theories. Those theories that most accurately describe the situation and are most rigourously investigated are the ones that are accepted as being the case, and when things are found that are not correct, adjustments are made to the theory or other theories are proposed. There is never ever, ever.... EVER.. absolute evidence of anything in the way in which you request it, and that's your fundamental error, and stems from you not understanding the scientific method.

We have a lot of scientific consensus about gravity, but we do not have "scientific evidence" in the way you describe it. The evidence is ALL of the science that is done, ALL of the experiments ALL of the conclusions, positive and negative, and the consensus of the scientific community is reached and refined based on that research and ongoing research. There is no one document anywhere that constitutes "proof" that gravity is how we think it is. Not even all of the documents do that. They merely indicate to us what is most likely to be happening according to all of the knowledge and ingenuity that we've built up over the years.

I don't appreciate the scatter gun method you've used by posting all those links. You said in your latest post here that people try to confuse the issue by redirecting your request for "evidence" - the type that doesn't exist - towards other issues that you deem contentious. Yet you have almost drowned me in what appears to be about 15 different links to pages that seem to show singular examples of individuals that deny climate change. (Again, there are so many, and so many quotes, and no actual specification of what you are disagreeing with me about, that i can't rightly assess any of them.)

My point here is twofold - 1) don't try to be confusing like you accuse your opponents of, i.e. throwing as many links as possible to extend the argument to other points and 2) if that isn't what you were doing, could you perhaps condense your 15 links and selected quotes into a smaller point; that point being what it is about my previous posts you disagreed with?

Here are my points for you, simplified:
1) Scientific consensus does not mean "THIS IS HOW THINGS ARE" - it means that, on balance, according to everything we know and the opinions of those that are in the know, this is how we think things are until we know better.
2) There is no such thing as "scientific evidence" in the way you use the term; the only absolute proof is the one Descartes spoke about; the only thing you can know for sure is that your consciousness exists.
3) It is very easy to be misled by articles such as the one you linked from "the libertarian republic" website. This is also true of the last link you recommended for my research; you used that book to support your opposition to my assertion that human-caused climate change is not a matter of debate in the scientific community. Yet the same author was involved in the Copenhagen Consensus which lists as 6th most worthy of investigation (for the benefit and future of mankind), i quote; "R&D to Increase Yield Enhancements, to decrease hunger, fight biodiversity destruction, and lessen the effects of climate change"

I think that out of courtesy you should select one link which backs up whatever it is that you wish to refute, because it's not a good use of my time to have to go through each individual link, find out what you disagree with me about, and then spend time looking into it.

So, we disagree on one of the following:
1) The scientific consensus is that human-caused climate change is real, and that consensus represents the best of our current understanding as a species.
2) "Proof" in the sense you use it doesn't exist, the correct term is scientific evidence. The more evidence and the more convincing it is, the more firm the belief in a theory.
3) The article you linked from the libertarian website was unfairly representing its argument in relation to the paper it was referring to.

Please let me know. Remember - nothing is "beyond scepticism" in your words. I am sceptical about everything, including gravity, which i have an incredible amount of evidence for. However i am still sceptical about our understanding of it - i am always looking for differences. That doesn't mean that our understanding isn't the best one we have, and we should use it for our own advantage and safety.

I also note that you seem loathe to have a proper discussion with me. Our discussion could have been either about the scientific method or about the article you linked, but to throw all these links at me makes me feel you're unwilling or incapable of challenging your own opinion based on evidence. You don't even refer to the assessments of the article that i offered; you immediately discarded the article from your argument and linked me to other people that may or may not be misrepresenting the argument.

@lantern53

jesus hung out with the prostitutes,the beggars,the sick and the broken.

basically the freaks.

you would not find him in your station house,nor having cocktails in the posh businessmans house but rather you would find him in the crack houses,the whore house and maybe sleeping on a park bench with the homeless.

you know...the people you arrest on a daily basis.

there is actually a reason why many gay folk are flambouyant,gregarious and do not fit into a societal norm that you may find comfortable.

the process in coming to terms with ones sexuality can be arduous and takes immense courage.it is an experience a heterosexual human never encounters...ever.

so while you may find their decisions and behavior abnormal,and it may even make you uncomfortable if too much in your face.you should respect the fact that they lives their lives with a freedom you could never match.

societal norms have you firmly shackled to the wall.
they are free.
and you ridicule something you have little understanding of,but at its heart...you envy.
and what you envy.....you ridicule.

these folks are not moved nor influenced by your (or others) opinion of how they live.
can you say the same?

@chingalara

"Whether the comment in question was or wasn't directed at me is mute point"

- Actually the fact that I was installing an internal joke/ribbing into the comment stream is not a moot point, it as a very celebrated and basic point, also- you were brought aware of this point and then decided to point the comment I quoted above. Just so we are clear- grasping at air... or nothing because air is something you are grasping for anything for an argument, which equates to my standard of you being an attention whore.

ok what else what I thinking of ohh, scrolling above I read it. .

You and your character..and Int *cough* egrity

both of which you have little of here.

let me be clear as my final hello of the morning.

Your integrity here is null, your tenure here is null - chingalara??? why don't you sign is as choggie ? ! ? You have no tenure, I do not know why you were let back in, I have a clue why I was. you.. You offer nothing but the ying to a yang. and you never learn, ever. Deluded salt water taffy.

Now I must water some plants and let a rabbit out to frollic on my carpet.

"i admit my utter failure in expressing my position and decide to use someone i highly admire who could explain it better."

If your position is the same as Chomsky's, I understand that position. I have heard Chomsky talk about it repeatedly. (Here's a take on Chomsky by David Gordon with which I tend to agree).

"i want to understand why you choose your flavor of libertarianism."

If you want to understand my position, why send me Chomsky to explain YOUR position? Why not read what I sent you? Or what I've recommended that you read? Or simply respond to my comments?? This is NOT how you "understand" another position: by stating your own (or, someone else's, in this case, Chomsky's).

"which i dont because you never address the elephant in the room."

If the 'elephant' is all the conjectures you've seen about corporations/business taking over in evil ways, then I've already explained that those scenarios cannot happen under anarchy. That's not how business works in a government-free market.

"it appears to me your style of libertarianism is circa 1790."

I don't even know what this means...

"even Blankfist agreed that corporate power and influence MUST be restructured and possibly returned to temporary partnerships"

Let me restate it again then for you, since you seemed to have missed my position the first few times I've said it. Maybe I didn't say it enough times:

If you can do any of this, with no initiation of violence, zero, never initiating any physical violence against anyone's person or property, then I'm for it, whether you want to call it socialism, communism, anarchism, capitalism, whatever. But the requirement is zero initiation of violence. None. I don't know how you can have that with any form of syndicalism or socialism, unless everyone unanimously agrees on everything and that is quite rare. I doubt that it can happen except in the smallest groups, and even then, it's in specific and circumscribed ways. That is why a private property system is the only system that can ensure zero legal physical coercion/aggression against anyone's person and/or property. (Here's Rothbard's take on syndicalism. Worth reading.)

"like that the system will ultimately begin to cannibalize itself when growth becomes stagnant?"

This cannot/will not happen in a free market. Only when aggression is introduced could this happen.

"that unfettered capitalism will lay waste to everything"

Unfettered voluntary exchanges will never lay waste to anything. Do you understand how absurd this sounds to me? You are proposing the replacement of voluntary exchanges with coercion. Yes, you are -- because I have been clear that capitalism, as I am defining it, means free, voluntary exchanges. I don't care what corporations do as long as they engage in voluntary transactions providing goods and services that consumers want. Only through government-granted privileges -- enforced through violence -- can corporations do otherwise. There are no "natural monopolies." There have never been. Ever.

Even after watching the video, there is nothing there which "proves" that there is such a thing a "natural monopoly" or that "proves" that aggression is better than non-aggression. Is there?
But like I said, if you can show how to do any of what you'd propose with zero aggression, then I'm for it.

"you are not the person i gave you credit for."

Bad thymology, then, apparently.

"i made certain assumptions about you based an very little."

Similar to making all sorts of assumptions about corporations and the free market based on very little evidence.

"i was never trying to say you were wrong"

Really? What were you saying then??

"i just wanted to understand why you believe the things you believe."

Then, instead of insulting me or trying to shame or coerce me (what's with this posting "for Trancey"?! What?!), you could simply ask me polite questions, instead of ones like, "do you even know this or that"? No dice.

And instead of just telling me what "thou believe" or not. Is this about understanding my view or about you telling me what you believe or dictating what I ought to believe?

"is the corporate tyranny not as evident to you"

No. How is Apple tyrannizing you?
They haven't tyrannized me. Not one iota. In fact, they have provided my friends with some useful goods, for which they have gladly given them several thousands of dollars.

If you have a specific grievance against a specific company, let me know, and I can point out to you what your remedy could be. Any grievance that does not involve a government.

I wouldn't particularly appreciate you (or anyone) trying to interfere, through violence or the threat thereof, in any voluntary non-aggressive exchanges I choose to engage in, whether I do so as an individual or as a group, even as a group where we choose to call ourselves a corporation. And if our group does or does not want to structure itself as a syndicate, what business is it of yours?

Call me 1790 or whatever, but I don't really consider someone who'd want to impose their will on me like that a bonafide 'anarchist' despite what they choose to call themselves. I know, that's just my choice. I am not preventing you from calling yourself whatever you want. Just don't expect me to agree.