Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "The Rubin Report"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I don't think it needs to be a shrink. But yes. If it were legalized, there wouldn't be much or any money in selling it in the street.
Legal or illegal, every human needs to take that journey, either staying away or weaning away. It's not something that can be done "for them, for their own good."
Drugs are like a virus. Do you become an authoritarian to achieve herd immunity, or do you use more traditional, time-tested means? Think about what alcohol did to Native Americans. Then think farther back to what it did to Europeans for centuries BEFORE that. We kind of adjusted. Some still fell prey to drink, and still do, but most of us don't. We try to restrict minors getting it, with VERY limited success, but the culture just kind of handles it. Treatment's there for anybody who wants it, but we know from history that taking it on directly, through prohibition, just led to machine-gun fire in the streets.
So before you get too into the idea of legalization being stupid. Think about what illegalization has brought us. Life isn't perfect. Life is trade-offs.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The elephant in the room is the history of Europeans and especially the British Empire re-drawing the map to please themselves and then getting the usa to do it for them, and keep the resources coming from underdeveloped countries in such a way that they never develop on their own.
I don't care how much we love our Judeo-Christian heritage or Christ, Himself. Who were we to create a nation-state from scratch against the will of the people living there? How many OTHER nations have perished over the millennia? Why does Israel get a do-over, enforced by, exploited by and exploiting overwhelming force from lands far away? What the Nazis did ini the first half of the 1940s doesn't justify what we did in the 2nd half, nor what we've been doing, since, to maintain a (mostly) soft hegemony around the world, except when we decide to "go hot" and wreak destruction around the world.
Hamas are renegade. We made them renegade, or at the least had a hand in the pathology we see manifest in ungovernable Palestine. Megyn sounds neocon on this issue. It's a knee-jerk reaction in American politics. Nobody asks "What right did we have to carve out a re-born nation by force in the region?" Go back a little farther in your history, Megyn. This is an ethnic/territorial dispute that's gone on for millennia. What business is it of ours?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
On the other hand, some people tend to "disappear" without being immersed in the in-person work force. Some students will struggle to do their work, if there's no in-person meeting and daily work hand-ins, where they see everybody ELSE turning in THEIR work. I just think we need to catch the kids when they're young, and teach them how to use online learning tools, which are WAY advanced, compared to when I was trying to make it work 35 years ago, with the first phone modems operating at 9600 baud.
As with traditional lecture, there are students who THRIVE on the remote format. Some, especially adult learners who KNOW how to work, find the remote to be the only way to grow their skill sets while still taking care of family or working a full-time job.
The thing about remote learning is that the traditional teaching isn't working any more.
2
-
Actually, we haven't become more radicalized. What's happening is the people who feel the strongest are hijacking all the platforms, giving us a false dichotomy between crazy left and crazy right.
A "normal" person needs to pick and choose, and have the courage to call out lefties and righties when they go too far. Sometimes Jimmy Dore gets it right. Sometimes Alex Jones gets it right. But no "normie" I know agrees with anybody on everything.
For instance, Tucker Carlson gets a lot of stuff right, but he doesn't score any points with me when he cites divine revelation (his religious faith) as the source of his belief in something. I can respect that belief, but it's not moving the needle for me in the "That's RIGHT! It's in the BIBLE so it MUST be true," because I know a little something about the nature and motivations of the people who wrote the thing. Bronze-Age wise men were definitely wise, and definitely limited in their understanding.
For instance, making homosexuality a taboo is a fairly good survival strategy for a Bronze-Age tribe with no notion of disease transmission or safe sex. Men are dogs, and when men have the hots for other men, runaway promiscuity can take place. But in a modern society, making it a taboo actually leads to less responsible behavior. This is another reason I like the idea of the same recognition of marriage between same-sex couples as any other couple. Encourage long-term, monogamous relationships, rather than encourage repression of your desires for long periods, with short periods of zipless sex in restrooms or orgies, which are an epidemic just waiting to happen.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You're TOTALLY missing the point, Joey Koningsbruggen. Objectivist distrust government and would restrict its mandate to the original intent of the Constitution (without slavery and women not having a vote). We have added some nice innovations to the original (some good amendments), but the core truths (inalienable rights, limited gov't.).
The idea is that the gov't gets the monopoly for a very restricted set of tasks (defend the territory, uphold the Constitution) has been lost because politicians get re-elected by exceeding the Constitution, using force to benefit one group over another group.
I don't think a true objectivist, steeped in Ayn Rand's childhood under the Bolsheviks, and following her reasoning to Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal (not her famous works. Just her basic work, complete with footnotes), has much, if any, trust in gov't.
Quite the contrary. You don't seem to be getting the point about free trade between a society of free traders will always exceed gov't minimum guarantees.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No, Dr. Drew. If they'd been totally up-front, more people would've chosen to not get these hasty jabs. The lengths to which they went to keep us in the dark on everything, from the unknown long-term risks to all the treatments that are available, they would've had more trust, but probably less compliance! They did everything possible to maximize the number of people taking the experimental jab, even when it's becoming more and more obvious to everyone that its value is very slight, and it comes with risks that are right up there with the risk of COVID itself, when you factor in the total absence of information/data on long-term side-effects and the unwonted "rush to Jab!"
I see a lot of people taking the "It's just a problem with the marketing" tack, and it's TOTALLY DISINGENUOUS, and yet ANOTHER dishonest attempt to build trust where none is warranted.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I haven't read as extensively as JBP, but his sense is my sense, when it comes to a better, greener future for all. You want people to care about the environment, then RAISE their level of prosperity. A person living day-to-day is not at all concerned about the environment. They're worried about food, clothing and shelter TODAY. What's the best way to get there? Reduce the size and scope of national governments around the world. Guarantee the rights of person and property to ALL.
What's the best, most humane way to curb population growth? Raise the prosperity level of the people. Middle-class and above tend to have smaller families. For the poor, especially in places like India and China, there's enormous pressure to have more kids, because those kids are free labor and eventual pension plan. To a white-collar worker, children are an EXPENSE, and a HINDRANCE to their early retirement! They're a SACRIFICE made out of love, and not a way to make YOUR life easier.
China, a totalitarian state, instituted a 1-child policy, to achieve population stabilization by FORCE. That didn't work out so well, and millions of female children were aborted - some AFTER being born, because if you can only have one child, there's more to be gained from a male child.
These climate alarmists want to do the exact opposite of what makes sense and are totally oblivious to the environmental harm done by their idiotic plans, every single one of which is destructive to the aspirations of the little guy or gal wanting to improve their situation.
As soon as someone improves their situation, their higher values kick in and they seek to make their little corner of the world greener and more in harmony with Nature. It took me 'til I was 50 to afford my own home. What have I done to this property? Planted trees, installed solar, and insulated the dickens out of the place. My long-postponed prosperity also gave me the flexibility to purchase my home within walking distance (4 blocks) of where I work.
That's what these megalomaniacs in supposed power can't wrap their heads around. The world doesn't get better by the few things they can do by force. The world gets better by the individual decisions made by millions (billions) in their own best interests and in service of their higher values. But they need freedom and prosperity to get there, not feudal lords deciding arbitrarily that 'x,' 'y' and 'z' must be implemented by force, while 'a' through 'w' are prevented by their interventions.
There's no way a handful of regulators and lawyers can keep up with the ingenuity and new, better ideas being sought by billions of people right where they are and sharing their successes and failures with the rest of the world, freely, with, for instance YouTube videos on "My Passive-Solar Greenhouse." The regulations are written by big corporations to fit what big corporations are good at. Who's first in line for government subsidies? Billionaires like Elon Musk. If you think all the wonderful things he does and says aren't buttressed and motivated by government intervention, then you're not paying attention.
2
-
2