How Libertarians Think

Libertarians are idealistic, unrealistic fantasizers.  They have no idea how the economy actually works, much less human behavior.  They want all the privileges and comforts of a civilized society.  But none of the responsibilities.

Society has certain benefits.  This means it also has certain rules.  You need to start comprehending that society can offer these benefits only *because* it abides by these rules.

Society by necessity requires cooperation.  It requires people not to commit crime.  It requires people to exercise a great deal of self-restraint.

This is something that a lot of the so-called evolution proponents also do not seem to comprehend.  They seem incapable of positively absorbing this notion.  They seem incapable of making the connection that committing crime, that rape is NOT due to evolution.

In the libertarians' proposal that,, police,,, people can afford to hire body guards, top of the line defense forces to guard their homes.  What about poor people who cannot afford to hire their own security guards?  Even the vast majority of middle-class people sure as hell cannot afford to hire their own personal bodyguards that follow them around.

So what are you saying, that only people with money deserve the right to be protected from crime?
--
The atheist libertarian says "wellll why doesn't everyone just do what they want?"

Sorry, but that's not a society.  No society or civilization in the history of this planet has ever flourished with everyone only looking out for number one.  That means mere sheer competition.  That is actually very primitive, unevolved approach to life.  No cooperation, no working together, no organizing into larger-population towns, with dividing up of responsibilities, shared amongst the inhabitants.

You libertarian, you apparently seem to think that you should get all the benefits of society -- with none of the responsibilities.

You think that you should get the benefits of police and security force keeping people safe.  I'm sure you think you should receive the benefits of a 911 dispatch emergency service, first response service, without the responsibilities of taxes.

you think people
Ah, but that's cruel.  That is not how an interactive, complex interwoven society works.

Your libertarian ways sound like you want to do away with the state school education systems.  But again, that is not what creates a society.

---
Man is inherently evil, sloppy, sociopathic.  Name a single civilization that continues to progress forward that did not heavily invest in rigorous, strict, enforced behaviors.  Not only in terms of technological advances, but also improvements in human interaction, including dropping crime rates.  Reinforce good behavior, punish bad behavior.

I will demonstrate why your libertarian thinking is simplistic and naive.  I know libertarians say that any acts that are not "both parties consenting" must be banned.  That sounds good.

Let us consider the fact that there are several examples in which an act is *already* libertarian.  I am talking about criminal acts that violate a person.  R---, murder, child abuse, kidnapping, domestic violence.

These acts are already libertarian.  If both parties do not consent, which they obviously do not, then by all moral human laws, they must not be allowed to occur.  Yet they occur anyway.

So what can be done to prevent this?  And god forbid, if these crimes do transgress, what can be done to punish the criminals?

A law enforcement system must be in place.  A judiciary system must be in place.  But where the hell are you going to get funding for an effective police force with the resources for swift response?  You libertarians don't want to pay taxes.  You say you want crime to be gone because at least you do admit that violent crime is most definitely non-consenting between the two "involved" parties.  But how do you expect to punish criminals and get rid of criminal activity if tax money is not allocated towards prisons?

Now, those systems are merely reactionary damage control in response to criminal acts that have already happened.  If we want to talk about actual *prevention* of crime, we need socialization and proper breeding of the population.  That means grade school education, parenting classes, psychological counseling if necessary.  It is incumbent upon all citizens of a society to contribute to these systems, because these systems maintain order and structure and safety.

But how do you expect to steeply curb criminal behavior unless enough funding is given to teachers and schools?  Not to mention funding for sex education -- we don't want the teeming cesspool origins of these things to procreate.

Sorry, but if you want the benefits and advantages of a civilized society, then you are going to have to contribute.  You cannot consume your sweets and [[[[[eat]]]]]]] it too.

----------------------------------
I suppose that I personally am the rarest of combinations.  Socially conservative, fiscal liberal.  Here is the logic behind that.  People need to take responsibility for their own goddamn actions.  Don't do stupid stuff.  Don't blame the mystical ominous force that is "society" for your own stupid irresponsible choices.  Don't max out your credit cards and then whine about how you don’t have any money.  If you want to have s-x, buy your own damn birth control.  If you create kids, raise them.  Don't dump them on the rest of society.  Don't dump it on public schools, or welfare, or dept of social services (child protective services).

Then there are the actual crimes that should not need any explanation.  Don't murder.  Don't r--.  Don’t abuse children.  Don't mug people.  Don't carjack people.  If people just followed those very simple, very straightforward mantras, we would not need taxpayer funding for jails and prisons, and cops.  So there is the social conservative.

Now on to the fiscal liberal.
But also, people are human.  They are going to make mistakes.  (Just an aside, the violent crime instances are not "mistakes."  Those are sociopaths whose actions have dangerous consequences to the population.  They must be met with swift justice.)  Back to the discussion.  People are not perfect; they will make mistakes.  So there must be a financial cushion.  A barrier or buffer.......  so that the economy, so that society at large, can absorb the few mistakes amongst the vast majority of reasonably intelligent people that make good choices.  And sometimes it's not conscious bad choices.  Things just happen.  Life happens.  That's life.  People need a safety net cushion, reliable shelter.

Also, to keep teenage hormone-addled teenagers from doing drugs, knocking over a liquor store and/or shooting the whole entire school, or getting knocked up, they need some safe healthy crap to do.  This means after-school extra-curricular activities.  Again -- that is a need for funds.

There does need to be funding for all of this.  Social conservatism requires money.  Schools.  health

Athletes And Performance-Enhancing Drugs, Vers. 2.0

Am I the only person in the western hemisphere who pointedly does not have a problem with athletes taking performance-enhancing drugs?    I have no problem with this whatsoever.

Oh, for goodness’ sake.  This is so very eyeroll-inducing.

1)  Athletics equipment and clothes
All throughout the history of athletics, the equipment and supplies have been *continually* professionally, wholly modified and tweaked so that they increase athletic performance.  Their regulation dimensions, their manufacturing process in factories, the athletic equipment that is legally allowed to be used on the field -- all have been tweaked, improved, enhanced for optimal output of performance.

Golf balls have been altered so they fly farther.  Athletic shoes and uniforms such as running shoes and swimmers' trunks have been streamlined and made aquiline to maximize efficiency from the athlete’s effort.

Swimmers and track runners have had suits designed to make them more sleek, more streamlined.  The uniforms have been engineered so as to extract the maximum performance output from those athletes.

And have you seen the sneakers on athletes nowadays?  If the type of sneaks that I'm seeing in Footlocker is the sort of merchandise available to the common folk, then imagine the type of top-secret robot human cyborg-hybrid kicks that Olympic and professional athletes have access to.  All those aerodynamic, foot cushioning, the laser-precision prime optima support for the heel of the foot and the ball of the foot, the tendon bone to skeletal muscle joint.  Support for the *knees* is essential.  That is the large bursa join that bears the entire body’s weight.

support for [[[joinis muscle to musck forgot name]]]  Biomedical research has been allocated towards sports medicine.  Binding tape stuff that athletes wear is wrapped around their ankles and other joints to stabilize and offer support, like say if they have a sprained ankle.  Scientific research into human anatomy and physiology has been funded to find the pressure points that must be cushioned and supported to obtain optimal performance.

A main theme of this is that none of those things, not the outfits worn by the athletes, not the balls, the pucks, the golf clubs, the track running shoes.  All the little supportive accoutrements -- none of these things are part of the athlete’s body.  None of them have anything to do with the athlete's talent/ability/skill/training.  Veritably ALL of it is what would be categorized as "performance-enhancing."

2)  Food and nutrition
These Olympic athletes have access to the most skilled doctors of sports medicine.  And the most skilled doctors of regular medicine.  They have experienced coaches who can guide and mold them. 
Of course nutrition is very strictly regimented, and calculated.  Athletes have registered dieticians consulting with them.  They have nutrition consultants who plan their daily caloric intake.  These athletes have nutritionist experts giving them advice on dietary supplements, vitamins and minerals, essential amino acids.

Nutrition programs have been revolutionized and improved so that people eat better.  So that their bodies maximize the return-for-calories-investment.  The athletes' physicians study physiology and metabolism.  They study the pharmacological basis to optimize the amount of sustenance they can squeeze out of their food regimens.
The two main sources of fuel-- protein and oxygen.  Protein is needed to feed those muscles.  Oxygen is needed to aide those muscles in processing the protein.  And processing the calcium, and the potassium, etc.

All the various and sundry nutritional supplements, multivitamins, health-enhancing, metabolism efficinizing, caffeine, sugar.  Nutritionally stuffed and loaded protein shakes.  So what exactly is the difference between all the plethora of food and medicine --and-- performance-enhancing drugs?  How are all these things NOT performance enhancers?

What about b12 injections, folic acid, iron supplements, energy drinks, energy boosts???
vitamin supplements, mineral supplements, iron, B12, B6, folic acid, erythropoietin, multivitamins, calorie powders, protein supplements, dietetic recommendations.  These are strictly meticulously crafted, medically proven optimally to increase the human body's efficiency, to improve the human body’s response to the precise combination of nutrition for the body's metabolism requirements.
*Where exactly is the cutoff point between    and performance-enhancing drugs?

3)  Other happy druggies
Doesn’t the entire freaking country take drugs to make them more happy, less stupid, and/or more focused?  There are drugs for better memory, drugs for controlling attention deficit disorder, others.  Echinacea, Ritalin, Zoloft, Prozac, that Surge stuff, energy drinks, ginkgo biloba, Ambien, Lunesta.  People take all sorts of drugs to improve memory, mood, sleep, energy.  There is one supposedly memory-enhancing drug called "glutaphos" that Filipino college students swear by.  I know of this because I have a friend who is a Filipino nursing student.

There's Viagra.  (Crickets chirping.)
In other words, the entire country takes performance-enhancing drugs.  Why is it suddenly frowned upon when athletes do it?

4)  Other talented druggies
The same goddamn hypocrites that are fanboys that cr__ themselves at the mention of any of the 1960s drugged-up revolutionary music bands -- all somehow magically morph into pristine lily white pure angelic innocent pure-hearted little angels once we start talking about Olympic athletes.  "Ohmigosh no we would NEVER EVER EVER besties forever and ever dream of giving athletes caffeine."

Heck, even the bands in more recent, more decade-appropriate time lines were heavily into drugs.  All those garage grunge bands in the early 1990s, all those alternative skater bands in the mid 1990s.

I'm not much of a music buff, and I find most sports to be boring as hell.  But I am able to detect the seething hypocrisy.  How come drugs are okay in one entertainment profession, but not in another?  This is what is called a double standard.

What about all the classic poets and writers?  Weren’t a lot of them pretty heavy drinkers?  And yet we have no problem showering them with praise and worship.  Wasn’t Sir Arthur Conan Doyle a crackhead of some sort?  His character sure as hell was.  In case you don't know who that is, he is the person who authored those "Sherlock Holmes" stories.

All the celebrated so-called classic authors, the ones they made us read in AP English in high school, and this had to have been the good stuff because it was for college credit.  They were all habitual drunkards.  Half of them had diphtheria or tuberculosis or something.  Whatever the heck medicines they served to hospital bedridden patients back in the 1800s, it probably drastically altered their consciousness.  That’s why most of them are outlawed nowadays.  But it produced great literature.

The doping-critics love to screech and scream that athletes discovered post-bellum to have been doping, should have all their awards, recognitions, medals, honors stripped from them.  They say the athletes should be stripped of their titles and recognitions.  Much like how Cinderella’s jealous stepsisters ripped off her dress to shreds and tatters when they didn’t like her wearing it.  They squawk that the athletes should be banned from ever being allowed to attend an Olympic event even sitting as an audience member, ad nauseum.

Alcoholic classic writers.  Oh, yeah?  Well then, perhaps we should go back in time and retroactively redact ALL of the commendations ever showered upon some of the most talented, inspired, prolific people in human history.  Tossing back psychedelic hallucinogenic drugs.

Musicians doing drugs.  We should additionally posthumously redact ALL of the awards, accolades, recognitions, and any acknowledgement that we ever recognized to a talented entertainer.  Jimmy Hendrix, Janis Joplin.  Bob Dylan.  Led zeppelin.  Beatles and the stones, or so I've heard.  The Doors dude.

5)  To address the accusation that athletes taking performance-enhancing drugs is "cheating."
BS.  Come on, golf balls have been altered so they fly farther, athletic shoes and uniforms such as running shoes and swimmers' trunks have been streamlined and made aquiline to maximize efficiency from the athlete’s effort.

This is not cheating.  Cheating is copying off someone else's work.  Cheating is passing off someone else’s work as your own.  Plagiarism.  Cheating is stealing another's ideas and claiming them as your own original brainchildren.

In Defense Of Continental Africans' IQ

You did say "the intelligences that are important to succeed," correct?

You seem to bear thinking that in the western world, we operate by logical intelligence (derivatives) of success and (field-minding).  You like facts, right?  Well, we know for a fact that this is not true.

You are claiming that "abilities involving personality influences" are somehow less important.  Well, I'm sorry, but "to function in the western world" you HAVE to be able to play your cards right.  You have to be able to suck up to the bigwigs (heads).

You seem to be under the impression that somehow success in the western world is determined by actual ability/skill/intelligence and hard work.  We know for a fact that this is not true.  If it is, then how come actors and musicians, nothing but entertainers, have the most money, meet up the most easily w white house and government people, and have the most easy influenced impact on disease research in this society?  They are just entertainers.  Nothing else.  They are not partaking in true creativity, cultural, or depth.

How come grade school teachers of high school and junior high school, who in my opinion are the most overworked, underpaid, underrated, underappreciated, (give such a huge contribution to society), bravest souls around, make the absolute least amount of money?  Especially given the amount of time and dedication they have to put into their work (pay-to-work ratio)?

Maybe you're just mad because you are not skilled at playing/manipulating people.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4JDN6DP-4&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b9a036b8a8367bddea492264f15cddd7

Erm, it's cheating and manipulating that allow one to function in a "first-world globalized economy."  how else do you explain so many Americans being denied and cheated out of health insurance, a 76-year-old man still having to work full-time, and my friend being denied health coverage a few weeks after she &husband found out they were pregnant because it was a pre-existing condition?  Are these good skills that the health insurance companies are using?  Or are the insurance companies cheating and lying (dishonest) and their lobbyists paying off the congressional representatives to keep their costs down (their taxes at bay)?

Why are big ford chrysler companies ceos given a huge tax break to keep factories in US, but move to Mexico anyway and pay them a pittance?  if the companies are really losing money --which they are not-- why aren't we cutting out the fat from the fatcat ceo's paychecks?  Is this what you call a modern global economy?

Is it starting a useless, endless war wasting billions and billions of tax dollars in this country, and veritably turning what used to be one of the richest nations on earth into a third-world country?  Are you really stuck back in the 1950's in which people might have thought truth, justice, and the American way actually worked?

What I'm saying is that, if their intelligence only works in Africa, then good.  they are far better off there than in this land of depressing, sickening nazi types.

Don't bother telling me "if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen."  I'd rather stay and put out the fire.

Pregnancy Is A 50/50 Shared Responsibility, Not Just Blaming The Male For "Getting" The Female Pregnant

Feminism has _demanded_ that men respect our bodies.  They should, there is no question about that.  It only works, however, if you respect your own body first.

You should have demanded that the guy use double condoms if he had to, use an effective spermicide, and perhaps you should have gotten up and put in a diaphragm for good measure.  Do you see what I mean about respecting your own body?  Take some goddamn initiative.

If the guy refuses to do that, then he is a creep.  And he is not worth your time or energy, or the oxygen that he is using up.

Demand that the guy respect you enough to use effective birth control.  If you were worried about so-called "destroying the mood," then that should have given you some clue as to what kind of creep the guy really was.  If there existed any emotional connection between you two, the mood would come back.

I am not necessarily saying never have sex before marriage.  I am saying that you need to take some goddamn initiative for yourself so that you don’t screw up your life.  If that means layering and piling on the birth control, so be it.

All throughout my middle school and high school years, there were tons of articles in Seventeen and YM magaZznes about teenage pregnancies.

All of them were admonishing the teenage boy for "getting" the girl pregnant.  There was even a cover story-headline thing quoted thusly:  "Guys who get girls pregnant."  That was the cover quote.  "Guys who get girls pregnant."  Notice how they phrased the transpiration.  They were under the impression that it is the guy that "gets" the girl pregnant.  They were indicating that the burden of responsibility falls squarely, completely, and solely on the shoulders of the male participant.

So very sorry to bring up the issue of facts, but they did never mention that the girl got herself pregnant.  What was the cause of this glaring omission?  Did the article writers truly believe that the female had no [[cooperation, input, factoring in, no say, no opinion, no choice]] no say in the matter whatsoever?  Were they honestly under the impression that the female fetus-donor had no ___ in the incident whatsoever?
 __into the equation__ whatsoever?

One magazine article even stated, "If he is man enough to have sex, then he is man enough to take care of a baby."  Erm, okay.  If that is in fact the case, then the reciprocal is also true.  If you are woman enough to have sex, then you are woman enough to think about the consequences first.  Cause and effect.

You are 50% responsible for bringing that baby into the world.  And you are sitting there acting as if you are zero percent responsible.  When you made the decision to have sex possibly with crappy birth control, you knew what the consequences were going to be.  Again, perhaps we should review basic biology.

One has to wonder what exactly the girl was doing while the guy was "getting her pregnant."  I saw in a movie once, a girl said, “What, you think I crawled up on top of my belly and got myself pregnant?"

Well, damn, snookums, it's not as if you were over in the corner reading a book.

Some females seem to get pregnant, then whine and whimper and complain, "geeeeez, why can't the guy take responsibility for his actions?"  Well, I have a question for you -- why didn't you take responsibility for your actions first?  It takes two to tango.  Not one.  Not just you, not just him.  Two.

---------

You fellas reading this think I'm letting you off the hook?  HELL NO.  Grab a hankie and a blankie, because I'm about to cause some pain.

What the hell did you think was going to happen?

I suppose you are going to come back with some sort of, “but I never consented to getting a fetus.”  Well, did you insert your penis into a vagina?  Yes?  Then you consented to it.  You made that decision, you took that risk willingly and happily the second you did that.

Guess what son, that's all the choice you get.  You had your big moment when you chose to deliver the sperm.  After that, the main events all take place in the woman's body.  Her body, her rules.

Perhaps we need a trip back to sixth grade sex ed class.  Believe it or not, sex can lead to pregnancy.  Yeah, new groundbreaking research.  (Turn to the person on my right.)  Did you know that sex can lead to pregnancy?  (Turn to the person on my left.)  Did you know that sex can lead to pregnancy?  Cause I did.  And apparently I am alone in this super duper multi looper top-secret Pentagon-security clearance-level knowledge.

You fellas think that’s unfair?  You think it's unfair that such a huge gigantic potentially life-changing event could take place?  That will ultimately decide the course that the rest of your life will take...    You are worried this will derail all your plans, your goals (to work a dead-end job and smoke brownies and get drunk with your equally useless buddies), ad ilk?  It will potentially decide whether or not your life will ever be the same again?  (Try to ignore all the countless other times you have heard that cliche, because there are only a very select few events that are life-altering:  having a baby, moving, and accepting a new job.  That's pretty much it.)

Ruin your credit standing, ruin your life for the next eighteen years, possibly longer than that if the kid turns out to be a good-for-nothing slacker that can't keep a job or an apartment (which is a possibility -- the kid did spring from your own loins, after all)?

You don’t want to be saddled with that responsibility?

Then don’t take the risk.

Well, sorry bro.  If you don't want to take the risk, don't want to possibly suffer the consequences, then raincoat up.  Double raincoat.  Put spermicidal agent on it.  Burn the evidence afterwards to make sure there is no chance there is any residual entity.

But when you are not the one who has to devote and invest forty weeks -- that's not nine months, it is actually closer to nine and one-half months -- of your life, of your body, of your insides, to growing a little being, then you are NOT the one who makes that decision.  Guess what -- that decision is now taken out of your hands.  Only when you grow that ability to do all that, will the decision be squarely in your hands.

Any baby daddies out there that just want to be able to be loose and f--- around and not take care of your responsibility, get the hell over it.

You fellas think that's unfair?  Well, sorry dudes, maybe you should start thinking with your big head.  You made your bed, now lie in it.  Oh, wait, you already did that part.  Okay, fast-forwarding, fast-forwarding.

So you let yourself be snookered in by some lazy cow, and now you are complaining?  Sorry, dude, you have only yourself to blame.  You screwed her, you let your horniness get in the way of clear thinking, and now you have to pay the price.  For being careless and lazy.

Unwanted Pregnancies: This Is Not feminism; This Is Excuses and Laziness

Let us discuss a very contradictory, conflicting social attitude that many, many people have.

Let us discuss societal views towards a female putting an unplanned, unwanted baby up for abandonment.  Versus a male putting an unplanned, unwanted baby up for abandonment.  We have already discussed the glaring contradiction, double standard of Adoption vs. "Deadbeat Dad."

Now let us turn our attention to the raggedy, flaccid, pathetic illogic that females employ to excuse their irresponsible behavior.

Female:  monikered "adoption."  Male:  monikered "deadbeat dad."  Notice that even in the names, there is harsh, severe judgment towards the male.  And yet there is sympathy and compassion towards the female.

So, if a guy abandons his biological child, he deserves ridicule and shame and hatred.  But if a girl abandons her biological child, she deserves sympathy n understanding?

Guess what, folks.  That is a double standard.

If a female has careless, illicit, promiscuous sex, she has the option of abandoning the product of said careless action.  She can simply drop off the baby at a hospital or fire station.  On the other hand, if a male decides to abandon his baby, the whole entire law enforcement and judiciary system comes after him.  The male has to contend with being forced to support a child that he did not want to have.

Unwanted pregnancies as either adoption or "deadbeat dad."  This is not feminism; this is excuses and laziness.

It should not be poss to manip a grown adult woman into doing anything romanticalay/sessua.

A giwn adult wmn had better ____ have control over her own goddam. Actikns and her own gd mind. A griwn adjlt has abd olenty of time to _[[[[[[ observe thr actikns of hise arou dher___ study human behaviro,,,, study the consequences of said behaviors ]____]]
An adfult woman should not have to make a mistskr herself to nnow that it is in fact a mistsje. There is not excuse for her to be that stupid.

Iff there is the case of an adukt male manipulatn a teenage fis inti hvung sx, now, that is a geuinely bad tting. An adult has in fCt garned more [[[[[ experince, undestandig. Kf humanlsychology for good and for bad
Twe jnow fir a fact that this is bad. That is why there is a concept such as staturory rp. Huma. Society knows fir a fact fhat ________

- but eaht abt the phenomne of teo teenagers getting roeg? Thats just a teenage cirl, she doesnt nec have rhe mental capavity
-- 'manipulte' well lets talk abt this.

Oh but hse is just ateeng girl. She has nit dev the paycholgical amturky tk handle complicated cngrovefs situatin such as this.

Evidnt the boy deployed some super duper super covert manipulatin strstegies n tactics to dupe the girl info getting prg, some such asininity.
(((Move the ym mag stuff to this essay here )))

Oh but hse is a poor working class altino gilr. Ok duly nired. But he is a poor wc l boy. They are the same age. They have had simialr time for neeorological function to develol.

He dis not have any more advag or learnjngoppt than she deid. He grew up in a simit neigb , has sit fsm bak grounf, har simlar schoolign
Does not have any more life experi than she.
Doe snot possess more sophietiaction than she

Did not learn any manipilation techniqies
[[[ put howww,,, ]]]]]
So why does 'society' expect the bolk kf responsi behavr fro the boy, rather than dividing respo equally btw the two? [it makes no sense for___]

A teenage gorl should be able ti easily deflect any sauch manip techniques lobbed agis t ber. They are the same age. they have had the same amt kf time for aware ness, inteliigence, crtitical thinking skills, provlem solving skills to develop.

The inly way it js poss for a teen boy to 'manipl' a tengirl is of the girl is abysmally lacking in cognitive capabilites. I.E., she is simply a dumbass.

The fact of the gilr being a dumbass us not the boys fault. The girl has the respos to make shure she herseld is intelligent. It is not the biys respkn tonmake sure the girl is acaught up to speed in life, any more han it is the girls resp_____.

Theory Of Knowledge Stuff

Oh, I get it.  This is the difference between obtaining the solution to a problem in some way or other, and actually solving a problem.

I.e., it is the difference between memorization and understanding.  E.g., you know and have memorized the formula for a circle, but do you know that the formula is actually true?  It is not just a random format for putting the numbers and variables.  No, it actually works.  Or, memorize chemical formulas as opposed to actually understanding how these molecules, or rather how these element atoms interact with each other.

Another way of explaining is, you know how to obtain the answer in some way somehow such as a roundabout manner, versus, you know how to figure out the answer yourself.

For e.g., take a barometer up to the superintendent, tell him you will give him a shiny new barometer if he tells you the atmospheric pressure.  Versus using the barometer reading to calculate the pressure yourself.
A real life example, my cousin knows "how" to get to Times Square from Bronx by subway/train, but she doesn't really know _how_ to get there by road directions, or doesn't really know what the exact distance, location, direction is.  Like for road directions, or if those roads are blocked, an alternate route to get there.

Ohm, the places we could go with this!!  E.g., if an individual is taking LSD or other hallucinogenic drugs, this is dangerous and deadly.  But will it increase one's knowledge, intelligence, understanding of the universe?  (Would one be able to have a certain commune with this universe?)

Unfortunately, the answer is yes.  Hallucinogenic drugs speed up the relay time of neurons, synaptic clefts, neural junctions, and therefore processing time required by the brain.  It is possible for potent drugs to greatly enhance human cognition.

But at what price?

Human beings, by the laws of natural universe, are not supposed to acquire (obtain, arrive at) knowledge that quickly.  The price to pay is that it ravishes your body, mind, makes one psychologically trashed.  Remember the episode of The X-Files where Mulder somehow came under the ingestion of a great amount of reality-altering drugs.  They commented that his "mind is very awake, it's more awake now than it's ever been."

as far as being sickness, as far as getting sick...  well, think of it this way. the immune system reacts w such vigorosity, intensity, violently, only bc it thinks the aggravator is dangerous. the stimulus is not _really_ dangerous.  allergies, immune system, - the immune system could just keep the allergens and not try to reject/impel them. if the immune system would just calm down n not overreact, then their woudlnt be any problem at atll. that's actualyl quite true for many ofhter things that make us sick.  the fact of being sick, is not the foreign microbe _actually_ making us sick, it's the immune sytstem reaction to try to inject/impel it.  fever - that's the body's reaction to try to kill the micrboe. if the body smply didn't do that, then we owoudn;t get sick. also  anothether example - that chemistry reaction w putting different elements salts thorugh flame - iut's not the chemical _reaction_ casuing the color change in the flame, it's the going back down to a less excitabel level that's causing the color change.

so the immune system could simply be encouraged and guided not to react to allrgetns.  well, cound't that be true for _every_  little thing that make s us sick? coun;t the immune sytem simply not react atl all to anything - flus, cold, other causes of sickness, and coundnlt that be the same thing?  if you do not thik you are sick, then you are not sick.

by the way, not to mention that, as "men in black" taught us, knowldge and beleif could be true for a long time for absolutely everyone.  and then could be proven much later to be false.  1500 years ago, people KNEW the earth was the center of the universe, the sun orbited the earth.  500 years ago, people KNEW the earth was flat.  and they all KNEW there were no more human beings in existence beyond the ones they had already seen.  (before the invention of superduper sailing ships, and airplanes.)

Scholarly Environments Are Not The Dominion Of White Males

This also is tied to the old acclaimed 1800s universities.

I read somewhere on the internet that a woman was so mad.  She felt intimidated by the old university atmosphere because she thought it was somehow too "masculine" for her.  And of course she then garbled on about how this was insulting to her as a strong capable woman in charge of her own life.  She apparently thinks higher education is the bastion of men.

Ah, excuse me?  Guffaw-laugh.  Are you serious?  How in the world is intellectualism "masculine" in any way, shape, or form?

Really?  Books, microscopes, shelves and shelves of tomes.  Delicate little movements of operating a digital balance scale, measuring out micrograms of dry reagents or microliters of liquid chemicals, setting up an organic chemistry extraction apparatus and connecting rubber tubing to a sink.

Guffaw.  How in the world does any of that possibly convey an atmosphere of being remotely manly?  The pursuit of post-secondary education is not masculine, not by a long shot.  Men hardly claim any sort of dominion over formal higher education.

As a matter of fact, intelligence and higher education has a distinct public image of being nerdy and geeky.  If anything, it is effete and delicate, and quite distinctively asexual.  It transcends all that "battle of the sexes" crap.

I grew up in New England as a child, amongst the international graduate students as well as professors, with whom my parents were very close friends.  There were roughly equal numbers of men and women.  Old, acclaimed universities were my playground.  My parents, as they were graduate students themselves, were involved in all sorts of campus cultural events and programs.  I never once got the impression that this world was reserved solely for men.  I never felt unwelcome.  None of the other women appeared to feel the least bit unwelcome, that they did not belong here, etc.

More recently when I was a college student myself, I never felt that this was not my place.  This was home.  In the chemistry lab, surrounded by funny little glass flasks, ring stands, Bunsen burners, watch glasses, I felt at peace.  I never felt out of place.

No, you know what is overly masculine?  Violence.  Beating people up, cage fighting.  Come on, do I really need to talk down to you by way of explaining?  We all know the stereotype of the dumb football player jock.  The meathead weightlifter at the gym.  To be sure, higher education is not really feminine, either.  No lipstick, heels, short skirts, none of that crap.

They Were Wrong About The 1800s

The general media have been feeding us the wrong public image of the 1800s for a while now.

Women were not oppressed nearly as bad as people have led us to believe.  All those liberals tried to tell us that women were not allowed to work, were not allowed basic human rights and/or social rights.

But this is not entirely true.  They were nurses, teachers, school marms, governesses, then later switchboard operators.  They founded colleges, for goodness' sake.  Women founded colleges by women and for women.

Also, African-Americans founded historically black colleges for African-Americans.  I know this was a horrible time for black people.  But because of this struggle and strife, black people had to fight to be heard.

Their true eloquence and heart began to shine.  The inhumane, unthinkable conditions that whites forced black people to endure, had the astonishing outcome of allowing brilliant leaders, intellectuals, and nurturers to emerge.

The harsh, grueling abuse vortexed and had to bring out the best in black people, because otherwise blacks would not have been able to survive.  Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth.  Phillis Wheatley-- actually, she lived during the 1700s.  Close enough.

For goodness' sake, you're still going to try to tell me that the 1800s were terrible??

This is the time in which blacks became pioneers, iinnovation [[[geniuses]]  They had the concept of thinking unconventionally long before Microsoft and Apple did.

I knew it!  I knew the 1800s could not have been that bad.  I have never believed that the 1800s could have been the prison of oppression that the liberal media has made out.

They had Abraham Lincoln, they abolished slavery, they had lots of great academia already in existence back in the 1800s.  A lot of colleges and universities sprung up in the States during that time.  The liberal intelligentsia still try to hammer it into people's heads that the 1800s were hell on earth for women.  I felt very, very mildly vague guilt whenever I professed to love the Industrial Age.  But not enough to fend myself away from the gorgeous décor and nostalgic books.

This quote will sound a bit weird, but it fits perfectly here:  Ariel from Disney's The Little Mermaid said, "I don't see how a world that makes such wonderful things, could be bad."  It turns out the appeal was not just aesthetic.

I was happily amazed to learn that women were in fact the first medical doctors in the United States.  I was blown away upon learning of this fact.

And actually it makes sense.  They were already midwives; they were already nurses.  Women always were charged with healing the sick; they distilled herbal remedies at home.  They were already familiar with the apothecary.  Legal Medical licenses first began to be issued in 1863.  Women probably figured, oh well, if it takes that paperwork to continue to legally be allowed to practice medicine, then we shall go ahead and get that taken care of.  After all, they were already doing most of the work of doctors.  Why not get the official recognition for it?

But then the menfolk for some reason decided that the pursuit of medicine offended women's delicate feminine sensibilities.  What??!  Imagine, the insensible malarkey!  A prestigious, respectable, educated career is somehow unsuitable for women?  That is utter rubbish.  If they have the mental acumen to handle the science and the strength of mind to handle the rigorous responsibility, then it is suitable for women.

I was just as much infuriated when I learned this as to the degree that I was elated to discover that women were the first doctors of medicine.

Women also did plenty of disgusting, grueling work-- maids, cleaning people's toilets, laundry.  Remember this was the 1800s; they did not have washer and dryer machines back then.  I was livid at the disclosure that men were obviously okay with women doing manual labor, but claimed that women were too good to be doctors.  Riiiiggght.  Well, I guess the liberals were correct about one thing.
--
I read somewhere abtt femisn___

At least they acknowledged that there was a marked difference between economic classes__-

But they are majorly incorrect on this issue.
Women who were born into upper classes, most specifically the elite rich, had enormous freedom.

One point that liberal feminists try to cite as evidence of the 1800s being oppressive is that women could not get written works published as easily as men could.

Oh, give me a break.  Why?  Because they could not get a writing job, this is somehow proof positive that people back then were cruel, abusive towards women?

Yes, I am aware that the Bronte sisters had no choice but to assume male nom de plumes to be able to get their works published.  But let us ponder this a bit more closely for a moment.  Witness how good Charlotte Bronte's "Jane Eyre" was.  It was intellectual, it was insightful and introspective.  It was not some romance novel or pulp fiction drivel.  It offered so many universal truths about the human experience, which are still very relevant to this day.  Her grasp of human psychology and how this colors people's future behavior -- this has stood the test of time.  All she had to do was change her name to a man's name, and that publishing company sent it to the printing presses.

So basically all that a liberal is saying is that crappy writers could not get a job.  Erm, don't know if you realize it or not, but that is a good thing.

I knew this girl in high school that had this insufferable notion that the absolute privileged luxury details of life (icing on the cake) are somehow emblems of feminism, that is, hallmarks of human rights.  There was an essay about, like, "what if Shakespeare had a sister?"  At least that girl was staunchly anti-vegetarian.

With That Movie "Mirrormask"

Recently I'm seeing a lot more renditions of the art style that originated, I think, with that movie "Mirrormask" last year.  That movie had a lot of scenery that resembled the Industrial Age, but it was a weird deconstructed (eh?) version.  This is appearing more and more on the world wide web.  It somewhat resembles the Industrial Age with the metalworks and the old school physics being deployed.

There are quite a few digital paintings on the internets which, to be entirely honest, are remarkably detailed and gorgeous.  They look like the artist has immense talent and has painstakingly planned the work.  In the most general terms, it reminds one of the technology and innovation that mushroomed up [[, spread out, engulfed???? perpetuated]]]] during the Victorian era.

Back then during the actual Victorian Era, the world sprouted cartographers, science, molecular biology.  There were the beginnings twinklings inklings of science as an official academic discipline, to be taught in school alongside orthography, mathematics, and history.  Darwinian evolution eagle-soared.  They classified taxonomy groups of bipedal, quadrupeds as initiated by Carolus Linnaeus.  The 1800s weren't primitive.  We had electricity, steam engines, telephones, photographic cameras, the beginnings of cars.  We knew quite a bit about medicine and physiology.

But this current design remix thing is without the grace, the optimism, or the inherent beauty that truly characterized the 1800s.  This new no-rendition genre version is missing the innocence and wonder of the actual 1800s.  It kind of looks like someone took a bunch of Industrial Age trinkets and curios from the days of yore, and smashed them with a mallet.  This hammer-smasher then half-assedly made an attempt to repair it, and superglued it together.  At this point this current rehash version looked like a broken vase with chips and jagged edges, and the telltale clumpy brick-mortar glue straining to hold it together.  The hammer-smasher then did the fake poseur artsy-fartsy thing-- stood back and pretended there is sooo much in-depth hidden mysterious meaning and the rest of us are just "ignorant" for not understanding that.

This reloaded version is sort of a wasteland and is rather depressing looking.