Idleness May 27, 2016Posted by Sobek in News.
add a comment
Back in 1973, Marion G. Romney gave a talk in which he warned against the consequences of people not working for a living.
Recently my secretary put on my desk an article which reported an experiment carried on by the National Institute of Mental Health. “A tiny Eden for mice” was built. In it was placed everything that could be included “in a mouse’s dream of paradise. Food, housing supplies—everything was there in abundance.” In it were placed four pair of mice. There was room for “4,000 mice. Every 55 days the population doubled. But when there were a little over 600 mice things began happening. Not only did the population fall off; but big problems arose in the mouse society. … the mice were becoming lazy. Many appeared greatly distressed, some utterly frustrated. Their behavior became quite unpredictable. The making of nests dropped off. Some of the mice began to eat each other!
“The planned mouse population never did climb to 4,000. They had reached slightly more than half that figure when reproduction came to a complete halt. The mouse society turned into an emotional mob!
“The population in mouse-Eden has now dropped to a little more than 600. No new baby mice are being born. The mouse society is doomed. And not a mouse shows any interest in saving his dying paradise.” (Lon Woodrum, Applied Christianity, Sept. 1973, pp. 28–30.)
Idleness is just as devastating to men as it is to mice.
“Give [men] everything they ask for while making no demands on their own efforts, and they will deteriorate into an unfit mob.” (Ibid.)
When I heard that, I thought about a recent article on the tragedy of modern Venezuela. I can’t find it, which is too bad because it really captured the helplessness of watching a slow-motion destruction that no one can seem to stop, like the whole world going simultaneously mad.
So instead, here’s a guy on Liveleak arguing that Venezuela is just fine. I can’t figure out when that was first published, but it was some time before November, 2013, when the author should have known better. It’s the kind of thing you have to laugh at because otherwise you’ll cry.
About Those Lines at TSA May 26, 2016Posted by geoff in News.
add a comment
SJWs Go After Families, Cuz They’re Unfair May 26, 2016Posted by geoff in News.
Ran across this gem on the internet:
I had done some work on social mobility and the evidence is overwhelmingly that the reason why children born to different families have very different chances in life is because of what happens in those families.
One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.
Before you get too incensed (though you will eventually regardless, because, well, read on), I should point out that this is just his philosophical starting point – he only sort of advocates abolishing the family. That is, having a family is fine, but it shouldn’t be a traditional nuclear family consisting of your biological kin:
‘It’s true that in the societies in which we live, biological origins do tend to form an important part of people’s identities, but that is largely a social and cultural construction. So you could imagine societies in which the parent-child relationship could go really well even without there being this biological link.’
‘Politicians love to talk about family values, but meanwhile the family is in flux and so we wanted to go back to philosophical basics to work out what are families for and what’s so great about them and then we can start to figure out whether it matters whether you have two parents or three or one, or whether they’re heterosexual etcetera.’
So what’s the most important distinguishing characteristic of this new family structure (composed of people who aren’t related to you)? Seems to be strenuously avoiding giving your child any kind of competitive advantage.
‘What we realised we needed was a way of thinking about what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that we didn’t need to allow parents to do for their children, if allowing those activities would create unfairnesses for other people’s children’.
‘We could prevent elite private schooling without any real hit to healthy family relationships, whereas if we say that you can’t read bedtime stories to your kids because it’s not fair that some kids get them and others don’t, then that would be too big a hit at the core of family life.’
I.e., make all kids have an underachieving childhood just because some kids have underachieving childhoods. This is the sort of absurdity one reaches when one ranks social justice as a higher priority than a society’s advancement, stability, efficiency, and standard of living. Rather than simply admitting that other priorities outweigh social justice, SJWs contort logic to reach absurd conclusions.
Like advocating that families be restructured so as to not provide unfair advantages.
Brain Strain May 24, 2016Posted by geoff in News.
The Interwebtubenets are freaking out over this photo, which gets weirder the longer you study it:
Trying to figure out the orientation of the two people doesn’t get any easier when you pan back:
Stumped? The Telegraph has the answer.
Just replace the signs with “XY” for the Men’s room and “XX” for the women’s room.
I think a lot of the (manufactured) problem is that libs have changed the meaning of “gender” so that it no longer equals “sex.” Then they look at the sign on the door and fret that the sign doesn’t reflect their inner being, even though the sign was always a simple sex differentiator, not a gender (new definition) differentiator. Changing the signs makes it a simple biological definition.
The other argument is that transgender folk want to go to the bathroom with the sex that most aligns with their “gender.” But so do the majority of people, so why should 0.3% of the population get to force their preferences on the remaining population?
My daughter, a fervent high school social justice warrior, tells me that I shouldn’t care who’s in the bathroom, but then, why should transgender people care either? She then says we should bend over backwards to accommodate transgenderite’s preferences, because they suffer disproportionately from depression and suicide.
To which I think, “That’s great, our public policy is being defined by people with mental health issues.”
But I guess that’s nothing new.
Sunday Evening Jellyfish May 22, 2016Posted by Sobek in News.
add a comment
Or is this more of a Monday morning jellyfish? You decide!
Latest Viral Video May 21, 2016Posted by geoff in News.
Almost 120 million views (apparently that’s a facebook record).
If You’re Thinking of Moving… May 21, 2016Posted by geoff in News.
1 comment so far
MarketWatch had a cute chart which I have appropriated and provided below:
Tyranny of the Minority May 19, 2016Posted by geoff in News.
There used to be concern over the “Tyranny of the Majority,” whereby a coalition of, say, 51% of the people could dictate laws and policies that were objectionable to the other 49%. Nowadays, though, it is the very small minority fractions of people who dictate to the majority, carving out special treatment and hobbling the majority with regulations and invented, self-serving social mores.
Which brings us to the “Redskins” controversy, which apparently shouldn’t be a controversy at all:
A poll of Native Americans found that the vast majority do not object to the Washington NFL team’s name.
The Washington Post commissioned a poll with a randomly selected national sample of 504 Native American adults. That poll asked, “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive, or doesn’t it bother you?”
The result was a strong argument for Dan Snyder’s case that his team does not need to change its name: A whopping 90 percent answered that the name doesn’t bother them. Only 9 percent called the name offensive, with 1 percent having no opinion.
Yes, as in the case of transgender bathroom rights, a small but vocal faction is trying to impose their will on the majority. And, given the support of the press and the lack of passion by the majority, they will probably succeed.
Women and Their All-Encompassing Sexual Druthers May 18, 2016Posted by geoff in News.
1 comment so far
Women are apparently teh hot, no matter which sex is doing the looking:
EXPERTS believe that women are more sexually fluid than men, meaning they’re less likely to associate with a particular orientation.
Psychologist Dr Satoshi Kanazawa believes that evolution has led to women becoming open to intimacy with both genders.
He claims that sexual fluidity is a means of “reducing conflict and tension among co-wives in polygynous marriages”.
The study is similar to one conducted by researchers last year, who made the bold claim that women were either bisexual or gay but never straight.
Intimacy with the same gender, eh? And people wonder why men evolved to be visually stimulated.
Bonus link, also from The Sun: For cheap thrills among the mens & evolving bisexual wimmens (NSFW):
Captain America, Samuraied May 16, 2016Posted by geoff in News.
add a comment
Captain America: Civil War, which I favorably reviewed over a week ago, is doing quite well at the box office, with nearly $300 million in domestic ticket sales so far.
But the significance of that statistic pales in comparison to this gem: Captain America vs. Iron Man, Samurai Style!
And if you want Captain America/Iron Man ramen bowls, you can read about them here.