space_cowboy

I would also trial 19.99 to see if I could get more revenue. Experiment! Start high, run a sale a few weeks in and see if it makes a difference.

>"Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, into a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defense each year and, instead, spend it feeding, clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would do many times over -- not one human being excluded -- and we can explore space together, both inner and outer, forever. In peace."

How facile, saccharine, and trite. "Just stop making weapons and we'll have world peace" - it's so brilliant, why hasn't anyone thought of it before? You people act like he was the first one to ever eat mushrooms.

Did he just use a french word to close one section, and a latin phrase to open the next ("fin" and "post scriptum")?

That bothers me.

Haven't you heard the news? Since John Rawls got popular, you're allowed to bitch at the injustice of the universe if anyone was born with a slight advantage over you.

The two groups are in no way logically linked, and by conflating the two the author is sensationalizing the issue.

Sometimes I think you don't have to be very bright to be one of the most powerful people in the world.

I believe the grievance is from juveniles that think it is cool to break the rules just for the sake of breaking the rules. Iconoclasts who all think alike.

Something tells me the "artists" aren't nearly as offending by indie music bands putting their stickers all over every available surface. It's not about principle, it's about hating "the man". Fashion.

Are you a cop or a judge?

>"Your position is predicated on the idea that other's speech and property rights trump speech rights"

That's typically how it works. Paul can ban people from his site. The New York Times can prevent you from publishing an article on its pages. Neither infringes on your free speech rights, as understood by law and Western intellectual tradition.

Standard self-righteous anti-advertising screed being used to justify vandalism. Nothing interesting to see here. Move along.

If your and your spouse's ancestors are from Africa or the Mediterranean basin (as people corrected me above), there is a greater chance that your offspring will have certain diseases. If you meet the above criteria and your child has certain disease symptoms, you might want to spend resources to diagnose certain diseases that you wouldn't check for if your ancestors were, say, Chinese. Are you saying that we should throw out this information instead, out of principle? Should we start screening Chinese people for sickle cell?

I agree that race is a social construct to some degree. For example, in America a person is considered "black" if he has one parent of African ancestry and one parent of European ancestry. However, I am not sure that the idea that "race is biologically meaningless" is defensible. I hope it is. But I wonder what we tell ourselves if the evidence says that it's not.

I know you can tell where a person's ancestors recently came from based on their DNA, and that there are certainly distinct genetic lineages in the human population.

I am open to reading more literature and articles on the subject. I am merely stating that according to the extent of my current knowledge, the idea that "race is meaningless" is suspect.

Exceptions that prove the rule, because of historical migration and trade patterns that link those areas. Identical recurrent mutations in the human genome are rare.

Do you believe that if you took a mitochondrial DNA sample from an Indian, a Chinese person, a person of European descent, and an African living in America that a researcher would not be able to tell the difference?

>"especially now that it is known that human races have essentially nil biological significance"

Citation? Your doctor isn't going to screen you for sickle cell if you're white.

As far as I know, race correlates with genetic isolation of ancestral groups, and there are differences between races.

Researchers looking for genetic diseases are careful to choose a mixture of races in their control sample.

I agree that people shouldn't be treated differently in civil society based on their race, and who doesn't? But they should certainly be treated differently based on their race by their doctors.

Race may become less significant in the future if more genetic mixture occurs with globalization. But for now, to say it has no biological significance sounds like wishful thinking.

Edit: I make some stronger claims here than I was ready to defend specifically with citations and literature. I overstate my case. However, to the extent of my current knowledge, you can tell where someone's ancestors came from solely by looking at their DNA, and I know that some diseases are more prevalent in people with certain ancestry. That suggests to me that there are distinct genetic lineages in the human population. As far as I know, "race is biologically meaningless" is a stretch.

However, it is true that the popular social conception of race is very different from any biologically defensible conception thereof. For example, a person with significant African ancestry in America is considered "black", even if that person also has significant ancestry from other places.

Saying that race is meaningless sounds to me like saying "there are no large phenotypically distinct subgroups in the human population". I think that is simply wrong.

Since "race" is such a socially charged word, perhaps it should be dropped and replaced with another word.

So a white racist vote = 'bad decision' but a black racist vote = 'less bad decision'?

>"there's no mention of small government, lower taxes, which are what conservatism is about."

I disagree. I believe Conservatism is context-dependent.

In the 1700's, Conservatism would have meant resisting the Democratic revolutions in places like the US and France. That's why Edmund Burke's pieces against the revolution in France are still considered important tomes in Conservative thought.

Modern American Conservatism is weird. It was not meant to preserve the old order, but to rebuild an order that no longer existed. Limited government was thoroughly eradicated by the New Deal, which the Conservative movement was born in opposition to. Thus, it is in some ways a "Revolutionary Conservatism", which is slightly oxymoronic.

More food for the poisonous group-think infecting my generational and cultural peers. Why engage with the arguments of people that disagree with you, when they're just stupid and/or evil? Best just to mock them and revel in a comfortable sense of smug superiority. Everybody agrees with you, so your dishonest behavior will be reinforced and rewarded.

Roissy is, well, Roissy. He's unique, intelligent, and not just another cookie-cutter PUA (Although, your view of PUA seems skewed to me. Acting like a jerk is only one of a dozen styles that are taught, and is almost always recommended to be performed in a playful manner).

Roissy should come with a warning label, though. He is the dark side. A Nietzsche-an amoral creature. His front page is remarkably tame at the moment, for him.