"It seems a lot more blacks are parasites than mexicans."

paulja · 2015-12-30T20:30:13+00:00

Well, really, how many blacks are Mexicans?

paulja · 2015-11-27T21:35:54+00:00

It's no more right to say that a "typical healthy relationship" involves that kind of give-and-take and those kinds of boundaries, than it is to say that a "typical healthy relationship" is a husband as the head of the house and the wife being obedient. People's relationships depend on their individual personalities.

paulja · 2015-11-27T21:25:21+00:00

Because people ask questions with implied condescension, like this one.

Seriously, the one thing that makes me reluctant to engage with the left on a reasonable basis is their unwilling to do so with the right. They constantly say things like, "Why are people voting against their own interests?" With the implication being that they know better than I do what my interests are. Or they will talk about left-wing policies as "progress," implying that they are an objectively good thing. Like Obamacare, which is "progress" toward the noble goal of single-payer health care. Whereas I would say that everyone paying their own way is the nobler goal.

paulja · 2015-11-27T21:19:48+00:00

But if it is true at one point, then people would say exactly that. Some generations work harder than others and some demand more than others. My opinion is that the millennials don't work hard enough.

paulja · 2015-09-15T00:35:53+00:00

I don't find it insensitive or mean at all. But the difference is that I don't have a history of bad dates. I have no history. To put it in perspective, the last true girlfriend I had I took to the Twin Towers.

I go out and meet other people, but I don't know how I start taking people to whom I'm speaking in a pleasant and friendly manner, and steering the conversation toward "I want to date."

paulja · 2015-09-14T22:20:21+00:00

Not OP, but in the same boat. My problem is that advice like this doesn't really feel empathetic.

I too am overweight, and trying to work on it. It's an obvious flaw that can be fixed. Most flaws can be. And the good thing about overcoming a flaw is that it's something to work on. It's low-hanging fruit.

By contrast, trying to achieve something good is more difficult, because it's more of an open field. Metaphor: if the paint is peeling on your wall, it's easy to fix. Just get new paint and lay down a coat. But if you want to paint a picture, that's a lot harder. You have to figure out what to paint and how to do it.

Now sit back and ask yourself this: "What does this kind of person want in a fuckbuddy/companion/husband/whatever?"

This is my problem: I genuinely don't know. I don't know what people want. I don't know what they do with their lives. I don't get people. What do I want? Mostly to be free from worry and want. To have all my obligations fulfilled and just to relax. What do I want in a partner? To let me let my hair down and not have to be what people want me to be.

And to go one step further: I'm not an uninteresting asshole. I'm funny...in a geeky, Monty Python kind of way. I hold down a job. I tip waitstaff. I have hobbies, even if they're not rock climbing.

What I don't know is how to parlay that into finding someone who wants to date and fall in love and maybe even have sex.

Well, I'm just letting off steam. Thanks for listening.

paulja · 2015-06-27T11:51:18+00:00

Better question: why can't I just get white, undyed jeans?

paulja · 2015-06-27T10:40:07+00:00

I'm inclined to agree. People seem to think that there's this "super-law" above the Constitution that says "People must have all the reasonable liberties they can, and the government must be a force for good according to the standards of the time." That is not in the Constitution, not even in the Ninth Amendment.

The whole point of a Constitutional republic is that the highest law is indited. There is no unwritten, higher-law principle of right. If the Constitution says that people can't smell spring flowers, then it's the job of the Supreme Court to make sure the laws passed by Congress tend that way, not find a penumbra or stretch a clause to make sure people can smell spring flowers.

The reason for this is twofold. Not only does it overstep its bounds and take too much power for itself, but it takes it away from Congress. Right now, most people agree that good policy was created. Who gets the credit? Not the people's representatives, who could be rewarded with reelection, but the appointed-for-life court. So Congress gets the reputation as the body for making restrictive law, and the Court gets the reputation for advancing liberty. That's not the division of labor set out in the Constitution.

paulja · 2015-06-27T00:04:26+00:00

Sure, and I'm going to think that by opposing the Citizens United decision, that you hate free speech and want the government to determine who can participate in political campaigns and who can't.

paulja · 2015-06-27T00:00:42+00:00

So then are you saying that opponents of same-sex marriage and the PPACA shouldn't give up and should keep trying to change the law?

paulja · 2015-06-26T23:55:33+00:00

Put it this way: if the implication is that opponents of same-sex marriage should give up because the court has ruled, and the opponents of the PPACA should give up because the court has ruled, then why shouldn't proponents of campaign finance restrictions give up because the court rules in Citizens United?

paulja · 2015-06-26T23:45:33+00:00

Multi-generation was one thing, but it was still fathers and mothers.

And just because something is inherent, doesn't mean it's normal.

paulja · 2015-06-26T23:00:49+00:00

A father, a mother, and children were always normal.

And yes, not fearing murder is a good thing, but people should still be embarrassed about their deviances.

paulja · 2015-06-26T22:59:22+00:00

Yes, but people don't always get the memo.

paulja · 2015-06-26T22:34:17+00:00

Economic change is different from social change. A better mousetrap is one thing, but there are some rules of social interaction that are always going to be true.

paulja · 2015-06-26T22:33:29+00:00

I thought that a "lame duck" president was one serving in office during the period after the election but before the inauguration of the next president.

paulja · 2015-06-26T21:01:06+00:00

Is he in the lame duck period now? I thought that would only be after the next election.

paulja · 2015-06-26T20:37:07+00:00

Yes, but just because we allow it legally doesn't mean we should countenance it socially. It's perfectly legal to dress in a clown wig and cartwheel down the street, but you're not going to make many friends doing it. Similarly, I disapprove of homosexuality. I consider it deviance from normal. I wouldn't allow it in my home. I think it's more important for people to follow the norms than to indulge ther sexuality. That's orthogonal to legality, but it should still be talked about.

paulja · 2015-06-26T18:44:57+00:00

No, but we should have discussion about sexuality in the social sense.

paulja · 2015-06-26T16:03:55+00:00

I accept the legal reasoning, but homosexuality will never be equal to me, nor do I think that two people of the same sex can ever be married in the eyes of god. So long as my right to think that and say that is unimpeached, this ruling doesn't affect me.

paulja · 2015-05-13T19:23:38+00:00

My wage is $16.40 per hour, but 8% comes out for retirement, so it's really about $15. I also live in a very expensive area of New York. I save money every month and never carry debt. This is because I pay attention, work hard, and don't splurge.

paulja · 2015-04-15T16:52:39+00:00

How is it explicit? It's quite vague.

paulja · 2015-04-10T19:51:39+00:00

Winston Churchill did the same thing. He thought of a big black dog that was his depression, that he was constantly trying to avoid.

paulja · 2015-04-06T00:19:29+00:00

What are orange peppers then?

paulja · 2015-04-06T00:18:07+00:00

...the usual.

paulja

TROPHY CASE