Nancy is such a fool. Her ego, TDS, and self-serving idiocy should be evident to all. I would rather trust Andrew Yang, who is far more respectable, than her on this matter. And if even he says that we should pass the bill, then that says a LOT about her. She’s a petty, spiteful little crook who shields herself in the name of the “American people” that she claims to represent and know. In reality she in all of her wealth and power couldn’t be MORE removed from their actual needs. This is how “elitists” argue. They know better than you do about what’s good for you. She hides behind excuses like, “The bill does not cover need x” in order to pretend she’s a champion of the needy. I’m sure ANYONE could find some need in the bill that’s not addressed (e.g, perhaps the disabled are not funded as well as they could be), but these are just stupid excuses not to pass a $1.8 trillion bill and address the other needs later. Bottom line: Nancy is holding the American people hostage because it’s election year and she does not want Trump to take credit. Nancy’s excuses are as fake as her teeth. She needs to shut up and pass the bill.
Iβm reading BonJourβs book on Epistemology and here he talks about Humeβs Problem of Induction. Earlier he mentions how the prevailing response of modern philosophers is to affirm that Hume is basically correct. Have these philosophers lost their minds?! 
It always amazes me how philosophers can be so brilliant and yet so foolish at the same time. BonJour is great: he brings back what Aristotle had said AGES ago! Every time I read more modern philosophy, Iβm more convinced that *overall* itβs one of the biggest mistakes ever. Things that the common man knows the philosopher no longer knows. Which led to all kinds of nonsense like postmodernism. This is why Iβm a very ardent defender of common sense. EMBRACE ARISTOTLE!
Dear Catholic friends: give me the best videos, articles, and books in defense of the Roman Catholic Church. Bonus points if you can put them in order like a class course.
I created a playlist for myself with videos to watch. Any other additions are welcome:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQFSqqmSId62BvC7IiLSOEW_at388naP_&fbclid=IwAR3rFGdkAR5fBNZLJf4L-vXUFELG2fOLJT02j9Ee4gBXG3t82aMfxNsGfkM
Just had an idea! It would be amazing if I wrote a book called “A Thomistic Critique of Competing Metaphysical Theories” where I extensively address analytic and continental alternatives to Thomism. I’d show where they go wrong as well as what insights we should take from them. A good companion book would be “A Defense of the Viability of Metaphysics” against anti-metaphysicians. It would be a meta-metaphysical work. If I wanted to be cheeky, I would title it, “Making Metaphysics Great Again: An Incredible Defense of its Viability” Sometime after I would probably write a book entitled, “Quantum Mechanics’ Vindication of Aristotle.” I got other books in mind, but I”ll mention those another time.
Some people seem to mistakenly think you needn’t show gratitude for a compliment unless they’re complimenting something that you had some control over (e.g., writing a good paper). But this is readily false: If It is an objective fact that I wrote a good paper, then you *should* recognize it as a good paper. It’d be irrational or false for you think otherwise. Why should I be grateful for what you ought to recognize? It seems evident, however, that if someone compliments your writing that you should be grateful and say “Thank you” rather than “I’m fully aware.” Gratitude then isn’t dependent on whether you had control or not. As long as as it’s about you in some way, they can compliment you. It could be a biological accident (beauty), it could be an extrinsic feature (clothing or hair-do), a natural gift (intelligence), or what have you. If someone compliments you for either, the morally right, non-conceited response is to say thank you, not to say “I’m fully aware” or “Why the hell are you complimenting me? I didn’t earn it.” Now if the compliment is fake and has some ulterior motive, then trolling or giving a sarcastic response is fine. Some situations provide exceptions, but this works as general rule. The most uncharitable way to interpret this rule is to say, “Am I supposed to think that your compliment is your gift to me? That I needed your approval to validate my worth so I need to say thanks?” I can’t believe I need to explain how ridiculous this response is. Imagine everyone acted this way about each other’s compliments. We’d all be ripping each other apart! This assumes that the person is giving the compliment because (a) they think you’re worthless without it and (b) because they’re desperate to hear “thank you.”No, it’s simple: most people compliment you because they appreciate something you did or something about you and they just wanted to express it to you. The reason you say thank you is to show appreciation back. Social dynamics are about being reciprocal. Even if the compliment is cheesy, common, or whatever, that rule still applies. I understand for girls it gets annoying. In situations where the guys are whistling at girls like thirsty dogs, or flattering just to get in her pants, there’s no reason to express appreciation for lustful, objectifying behavior. It should be condemned. But condemn it for those reasons, not for silly unjustified assumptions like (a-b) or because beauty is an accident.
14Ben Hetland and 13 others16 CommentsLikeComment
Comments
Just going to say this: Don’t let fear of COVID-19 control your life. God says, “For I, the Lord your God, hold your right hand; it is I who say to you, βFear not, I am the one who helps you.” (Isaiah 41:13) and “Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows” (Matt 10:31). That doesn’t mean don’t take precautions, but let’s be real here. Your chances of dying from COVID-19 are extremely low unless you’re in the high risk category. Even if it was like the pandemic of 1918, instead of living in fear Christians should be fearing for the souls that will perish. We should boldly proclaim eternal life to a dying world. It just amazes me how obsessed people are about life in this world, but seem to be so blind to the pandemic of sin that exists in their own souls. Even worse are the Christians obsessed with demanding lockdowns, social distancing, and masks but are dead silent when it comes to the gospel. God sees where your priorities are. Your priorities are of this world and are not of God’s kingdom. If I die, I will gladly die! To live is Christ and to die is gain.
In keeping with my last half dozen posts here on the microblog I found another timeless and actually more relevant today than even in his own time quote from the golden mouth of John Chrysostom. He writes the following on the subject of communism and did so a few thousand years before it was called communism.
Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require armed men to come and seize the rich person’s gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of the tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm. Those who combined both cruel hearts and sharp minds would soon find ways of making themselves rich again. Worse still, the rich whose gold was taken away would feel bitter and resentful; while the poor who received the gold from the hands of soldiers would feel no gratitude, because no generosity would have prompted the gift. Far from bringing moral benefit to society, it would actually do moral harm. Material justice cannot be accomplished by compulsion, a change of heart will not follow. The only way to achieve true justice is to change people’s hearts first – then they will joyfully share.
Bolded emphasis added by myself.