|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Feb 27th, 2006 08:27 AM | ||
| ItalianStereotype | I would've probably gone for something else. people might read your name and think that you're gay or something. :< | |
| Feb 27th, 2006 08:17 AM | ||
| homoperfect | I was just trying to come up with a sn. I wasn't worried about the particulars. | |
| Feb 26th, 2006 10:40 PM | ||
| Sethomas | If you're trying to go for a Latin sn, I think it'd need to be "HomoPerfectus". Unless you're just a homo with bad English syntax. | |
| Feb 26th, 2006 02:03 AM | ||
| homoperfect | Yeeeah, I no longer work for them. Environmental lobbyist groups are composed mainly of liberal wack jobs such as myself. The specific group I was with was rather accepting. But not too boring. as I said, be prepared to make a trip to the recycling center the following morning. | |
| Feb 25th, 2006 10:59 PM | ||
| MLE | Preechr gets jokes. | |
| Feb 25th, 2006 10:58 PM | ||
| Preechr |
No. They are VERY Anti-Gay. It's actually a bit disturbing. Maybe that's why he works for them. He is trying to change them from behind... or within... something like that. |
|
| Feb 25th, 2006 10:54 PM | ||
| ItalianStereotype | hm, yes, but are they gay? | |
| Feb 25th, 2006 10:49 PM | ||
| Preechr | I thought their second album was pretty good, but after that they kinda just sold out, y'know. | |
| Feb 25th, 2006 09:47 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore | PIRG sucks. | |
| Feb 25th, 2006 09:35 PM | ||
| homoperfect | my experience from working for MaryP.I.R.G. is quite the oposite. Though there scientific explinations were dull and probablly could be placed to better use at the national sleep institute. I can't deny that they know how to party. Just be prepared to make a trip to the recycling Center the following morning. | |
| Feb 10th, 2006 10:13 PM | ||
| Emu |
Quote:
|
|
| Feb 10th, 2006 08:56 PM | ||
| Sethomas |
The historical/neoclassical school of thought has no means of isolating variables in the same manner that physical scientists do, thus rendering much of its exertion useless. The a priori/Austrian school of thought relies on Kantian philosophy to give their "axioms" validity (I reject Kant, remember?). All that being said, Austrian axioms can be inferred with great sucess (if you truly need to organize an argument for them, use induction with reference to an ordinal model of chance). However, the fact that I admit that economic postulates are not necessarily true causes me to have some severe breaks with Austrian reasoning. For example, Rothbard's attack on utilitarianism/consequentialism is based on the assertion that we are unable to know utility in any context outside of our mind. However, I argue that I can infer utility (from induction with reference to ordinal chance) with varying degrees of success. For example, while inferring the utility of Play-Doh for an individual might be difficult, inferring the utility of food and water in the condition of starvation is much more successful. Rothbard relies on absolutes; I rely on likelihood. That man hates to starve is not much less likely than man acts. Again, QED. |
|
| Feb 10th, 2006 08:52 PM | ||
| kahljorn | I guess I'll be the first to ask how you came to that conclusion. | |
| Feb 10th, 2006 07:51 PM | ||
| Sethomas |
Every economist ever is boring QED. |
|
