A book which conveys a powerful point!

FRIDAY, JANUARY 4, 2019

In search of a bed just so:
We don't expect to have any fish today. That said, we expect to start our long-awaited, award-winning new year at the start of next week.

As we wait for Mister Trump's War, our framework for the year will be "Aristotle's error." Eventually, we'll be discussing the low-tech techniques of clarification which emerged from the later Wittgenstein's work.

For today, we'll recommend a children's book which came to mind in recent weeks. It's one of the most instructive books we encountered during our years as a grade school teacher.

It's Jeanne Hardendorff's short picture book, The Bed Just So. The book is no longer in print, but thanks to the wonders of YouTube, you can listen as a young person reads the whole thing, letting you look at the pictures.

(Reading time: a bit over four minutes.)

What happens in The Bed Just So? Google Books limns it thusly:
"A tailor gets no sleep until he finds a comfortable bed for a hudgin that has come to live with him."
A hudgin seems to be a very small, highly querulous type of gremlin. The story teaches a valuable lesson about the difference between the things we think will serve our needs, as opposed to the surprising things which may actually make us happy.

The hudgin's in search of a bed just so! In related news:

You can buy all the storebought cat beds you like. Your cat will still sleep on your socks.

94 comments:

  1. "As we wait for Mister Trump's War"

    Ah, so you're still hoping for the War and annihilation of humanity (that you hate so much), dear Bob?

    I thought so. That's the recurring dream and a burning wish of you, lib-zombies...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After being in relationship with Wilson for seven years,he broke up with me, I did everything possible to bring him back but all was in vain, I wanted him back so much because of the love I have for him, I begged him with everything, I made promises but he refused. I explained my problem to someone online and she suggested that I should contact a spell caster that could help me cast a spell to bring him back but I am the type that don't believed in spell, I had no choice than to try it, I meant a spell caster called Dr AKHERE and I email him, and he told me there was no problem that everything will be okay before three days, that my ex will return to me before three days, he cast the spell and surprisingly in the second day, it was around 4pm. My ex called me, I was so surprised, I answered the call and all he said was that he was so sorry for everything that happened, that he wanted me to return to him, that he loves me so much. I was so happy and went to him, that was how we started living together happily again. Since then, I have made promise that anybody I know that have a relationship problem, I would be of help to such person by referring him or her to the only real and powerful spell caster who helped me with my own problem and who is different from all the fake ones out there. Anybody could need the help of the spell caster, his email: AKHERETEMPLE@gmail.com
      or
      call/whatsapp:+2349057261346 you can email him if you need his assistance in your relationship or anything. CONTACT HIM NOW FOR SOLUTION TO ALL YOUR PROBLEMS
      AKHERETEMPLE@gmail.com
      or
      call/whatsapp:+2349057261346

      Delete
  2. Democratics feel good when we help others, Republicans feel good when they help themselves; their respective policies reflect those notions. Is it biological?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Everyone feels good when they help themselves and others.

      Delete
    2. Xenophobic war-mongering dembots copy-paste Soros-paid bullshit.

      Delete
  3. Unfortunately, many people feel good when they signal their virtue in ways that help neither themselves nor others. Liberals tend to practice virtue-signalling more than conservatives IMHO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What does “virtue signaling” have to do with “Bed Just So?”

      Delete
    2. Meh. I can't wait for DavidinCal's grandchildren to die from mercury poisoning. How's that for "virtue signaling"?

      Delete
  4. Replies
    1. Bob has told you for years that the mainstream media are *not* liberals. He calls them “pseudoliberals”. Have you been reading this blog very long?

      Delete
  5. “It's one of the most instructive books we encountered during our years as a grade school teacher. “

    In what way was it instructive? How does the book’s purported lesson apply to Somerby’s years as a teacher? Without specifics, no one is going to have the slightest clue what he means.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Clearly not everyone feels good when they help themselves and others. It is rare to find those that help others, common to find those that help themselves.

    I do not feel good when I am being selfish in the way that Republicans typically are.

    There is no virtue signaling in policy, it is where the rubber hits the road, the proof in the pudding.

    The main policies of Republicans promote a dominance hierarchy - tax cuts for the wealthy, etc. The main policies of Democratics are egalitarian - unions, safety nets, etc.

    Are the differences biological? Related to neurotransmitters?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have to help yourself so you can help others. You are the most important thing in your life. You are obligated to help yourself especially if you want to help others.

      The real divisions are between the political and corporate ruling class and the rest of us.

      Politicians from both parties have gotten away with letting down ordinary Americans for decades because millions of Americans are culturally wedded to their tribal political identities of Republican or Democrat, and can’t think outside the box.

      And ps without question unions is not a main policy of Denocrats. Please research that claim further and you will see.

      Delete
    2. Politicians in a bourgeois ('liberal') democracy do exactly what they're supposed to do: advance interests of the ruling class.

      Different segments of the ruling class struggle sometimes among themselves, like national bourgeoisie vs multinational capital today.

      But to fantasize that any of them care about "ordinary Americans" (in any other way than keeping them down) is pure idiotic...

      Delete
    3. Research only bears out the point connecting Democratics with unions - this is uncontroversial. Indeed one of Republican's main beef with unions is their connection with Dems.

      The most important thing in my life is my child, I routinely sacrifice to benefit my child. It is easy to imagine a world where this is not needed, but dominance hierarchy reigns and prevents such a situation.

      I also routinely help others at my cost, at work or in society in general. Life currently is largely a zero sum game.

      Dem policies are the only policies that will help balance inequalities and injustices - likely why they get more support than Repub policies; however, they rarely get passed - largely due to misinformation, gerrymandering, interference with voting, higher degrees of religiosity, etc.

      Delete
    4. "Research only bears out the point connecting Democratics [sic] with unions - this is uncontroversial."

      Yes, dembot, 'connecting' indeed. "Democratics" are well-known for destroying independent unions, as well as persecuting and disappearing union leaders. Just ask Jimmy Hoffa.

      Delete
    5. 1154 learn something ...

      https://www.lawcha.org/2016/11/23/bill-clinton-remade-democratic-party-abandoning-unions-working-class-whites/

      Delete
    6. 12:02 and 1:58 learn something about Dunning–Kruger effect, it is what you suffer from

      http://www.hpae.org/2016/07/dems-support-republicans-oppose-workers-rights-unions-party-platforms/

      https://democrats.org/people/union-members-and-families/

      https://www.njtvonline.org/news/video/top-democrats-convene-to-show-support-for-unions-ahead-of-labor-day/

      https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-have-rolled-out-an-ambitious-plan-to-help-rebuild-labor-unions_us_59fa0968e4b01b474047ba3f

      https://www.ctpost.com/politics/article/Labor-unions-give-final-endorsements-to-Democrats-13196526.php

      https://www.thenation.com/article/right-to-work-laws-are-killing-democrats-at-the-ballot-box/

      https://news.gallup.com/poll/241679/labor-union-approval-steady-year-high.aspx

      https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/opinion/republicans-sure-love-to-hate-unions.html

      https://247wallst.com/jobs/2012/06/11/unions-still-support-democrats/

      https://democrats.org/about/party-platform/

      ad nauseam, and this is just current politics, the historical context displays the same thing

      Democratics is grammatically correct

      Delete
    7. Do you have a response to the Labor and Working Class article? I can agree to disagree if you really think unions are a main policy of Democrats. They support unions in words as you have shown, but not in deeds as will be quite clear to you when you research it further. This is all very basic and obvious stuff. The fact you don't know about it shows the weakness of the media to whom you turn for information.

      From your links was this:

      Unions have wanted for years to see mainstream Democrats push for major reforms to the law that would rejuvenate the ranks of organized labor. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka applauded the proposals, but also emphasized that many Democrats have taken their union support for granted. “To be perfectly honest, Democrats in the past have lost some of their connection with working people in our communities who made up their base for generations,”

      And here are some more links that can help you understand, if you wish, what the Democrat actions have done to unions. They are connected to unions in name and depend on them for the vote - but they have hung them out to dry with their actions and are certainly not a "main policy", oh my. Please study up if you can. This is a big problem. Abandoning the working class is why Trump won. But do your own research and draw your own conclusions.

      Democrats Paid a Huge Price for Letting Unions Die
      http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/01/democrats-paid-a-huge-price-for-letting-unions-die.html

      Robert Reich: Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more
      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/10/democrats-working-class-americans-us-election

      “FOR DANIEL LOVELESS, the Democratic Party's desertion of his union began more than a decade ago.”
      https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2018-05-25/democrats-struggle-to-win-union-support

      How Democrats Lost Union Workers
      https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-democrats-lost-union-workers_us_58cc0aede4b0ec9d29dbb226

      Delete
    8. Barry The Demigod promised, during the 2008 election campaign (among his million bullshit promises, like renegotiating NAFTA), to enact the card-check reform.

      He immediately dropped that promise into the memory hole (along his million other bullshit promises, like renegotiating NAFTA) as soon as he got elected.

      And this, basically, what the "Democratics" always do: promise a lot of things -- and then, as soon as they get elected, ignore them all, and work for their masters, the banksters.

      Thank God for The Donald.

      Delete
    9. 3:21 good luck finding utopia, in the meantime check out the Dems platform and what policies they support - Dems are as pro union as it gets in the US and Repubs are as anti union as it gets.

      I have no love for centrist, third way politicians but regardless of their politics they had to work with the congress Americans voted for, which even when Dems briefly had a super majority included lots of blue dog Dems, preventing progressive policies from being passed.

      Unions can legitimately criticize Dems in some ways, but otherwise rely on Dems to exist.

      https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/labor/

      Here is the same author getting to the actual heart of the matter:

      https://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2017/01/12/right-to-work-the-dark-forces-that-made-arkansas-a-pioneer-in-anti-union-law

      Corporations and Republicans are the current impediment to unions, not the Clintons or Democratics.

      Look at the map of right to work states vs those states that allow unions - it aligns almost perfectly with party affiliation.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

      Automation has not helped unions either, but that is progress.

      I have been a union member since 1995.

      Delete
    10. Ok - thanks 4:14. We'll have to disagree on this one. Have a good weekend.

      Delete
    11. "...but otherwise rely on Dems to exist."

      Lol. You dembots are hilarious.

      "...vs those states that allow unions"

      All states allow unions, dembot.

      Delete
    12. Without Dems support, unions would not exist, Repubs are out to destroy them all - this is uncontroversial.

      This is one union, but it is how Repubs view all unions:

      https://www.huffingtonpost.com/dale-hansen/for-republicans-killing-u_b_8251052.html

      they say things like unions “are the single most destructive force"

      Right to work laws render unions useless, thus effectively disallowing them - this is uncontroversial. Excessive literalism is a sign of a weak mind.

      4:25 you can disagree but it is odd you make a fuss proclaiming an article written by the same person I linked to where they are explaining the roots of what weakens unions.

      Delete
    13. It's not the same author. And it doesn't refute the claim Clinton helped remake the Democratic party by abandoning unions which led to the alienation of working-class whites from the Democratic Party which gave us Trump.

      So, I don't find it odd at all.

      Delete
    14. "Without Dems support, unions would not exist"

      What the fuck does it even mean, dembot?

      Unions exist because (and where/when) they are supported by the working people. The political class - the capitalists - are trying to destroy them. Always. Some elements of the political class do it openly, others, like your "Democratics", do it while singing nice-sounding bullshit mantras.

      And y'know, a dembot saying that something "is uncontroversial" -- all it means is that it's a dembot talking point. Which, in turn, means that it is a lie.

      And this really is uncontroversial...

      Delete
    15. They may have meant incontrovertible.

      Delete
    16. It is the same author, Michael Pierce. It gives historical context, explaining the real roots of anti unionism, which is not Clinton. Reducing "gave us Trump" to such simplicity is silly. Trump of course being famous for his support of unions and increasing wages for labor.

      Unions exist because they are supported politically, where they are not supported politically, they don't exist. They are only supported politically by Democratics (not Republicans which are members of the Republican Party, but Democratics which are members of the Democratic Party). Republicans work hard to destroy unions and have been pretty effective. In reality "working people" often resist unions and have to be convinced to accept them, not an easy task.

      "singing"? brother please:

      https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-unions-war-232382

      https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/trump-unions-supreme-court-285260

      https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/05/29/trumps-executive-order-on-unions-will-hurt-federal-employees/

      https://www.thenation.com/article/no-surprise-trump-is-a-union-buster-at-his-own-hotel/

      ad nauseam

      Delete
    17. "Republicans work hard to destroy unions"
      "Trump of course being famous"

      We already know that you're a dembot; no need for additional confirmation. Trump and Republicans are not the issue here; the "Democratics" are.

      "Unions exist because they are supported politically"

      Unions exist because they are organized and supported by the people, dembot. Working people.

      Y'know, aside from all other unpleasant "Democratics" things -- 'em being globalists and banksters' minions, their identity politics mongering, their PC, and all that -- their technocratic elitism is just as repulsive...

      Delete
    18. It's 2 different authors. One author is Pierce, another quotes Pierce.

      Pierce's article is about Clinton's undermining of the labor movement and how it led to Trump. I assume now you didn't even read it.

      This is why we have to disagree.

      The roots of anti unionism are right wing and Republican and Republicans have always wanted to drown the baby, ie kill unions off but that is not the point and doesn't have anything to do with Pierce's claim, which you refuse to address, that the alienation of working-class whites from the Democratic Party in 2016 had roots in Clinton's undermined the budding multi-racial labor coalition in 1970s Arkansas.

      It's all very clear but you don't address it and probably dont want to believe it and instead move the goalposts claiming to Republican's attempts to destroy unions which is obvious and not the point.

      If you want to think Democrat's "main policy" is unions, please be my guest.

      Delete
    19. Democrantastic Party elites marginalized labor unions and transformed the party of the working class to the party of the professional class in the seventies. In so doing, the Democratic Party radically changed the way it understood social problems and how to solve them, trading in the principle of solidarity for the principle of competitive individualism and meritocracy. The end result is that the party which created the New Deal and helped create the middle class has now become “the party of mass inequality.”

      And yes, the roots of anti unionism were and are Republican. But that is not the point.

      http://inthesetimes.com/features/listen-liberal-thomas-frank-democratic-party-elites-inequality.html



      Delete
    20. "Democrantastic Party elites marginalized labor unions and transformed the party of the working class to the party of the professional class in the seventies."

      It never was "party of the working class" in the first place. Just look how hard Kennedy brothers fought to destroy the Teamsters.

      But yeah, something did happen during the 1968 convention. Whatever little socialist tendencies were there, after 1968 it was slowly but surely being replaced by liberal bullshit. All downhill from there, until we had the DLC, the repulsive Clintons, and the lowest point: Barry The Demigod, 100% establishment puppet.

      Moreover, during those few decades the same thing was happening everywhere. Just look at the British "Labour" turned into Blairist farse. Same in France, same in Germany, same everywhere.

      But thank god, judging by lib-zombies panicking and dembots foaming at the mouth, it looks like it's finished now...

      Delete
    21. It is the same, Michael Pierce. The second article is basically just a long quote from Pierce's book. You are just being disingenuous, and your understanding of the issue is paper thin.

      Anti unionism has it's roots in racism, and unions have suffered almost solely from Republican efforts. The stuff about Clinton is just silly and trivial - Arkansas has been a right to work state since 1944. Working class people did not vote for Trump because of Clinton politics from 1978, that is just laughable.

      The Teamsters had become a criminal enterprise.

      Unions do not exist because "working people". Unions require leadership and working people need a lot of convincing and none of that exists without first having the policies that allow such activity. This is all familiar to me because I have been active in my union for 24 years, but non union people can do research as well.

      Brother please, the lack of historical context and critical thinking displayed here would make a Republican giggle and squeal with delight.

      Clearly Dems support unions and it is a main part of their platform - you can see right on their website. You can argue that it is just talk, but that ignores the real reason why the Democratic platform does not get enacted. It is not alienation from Clinton's perceived neoliberalism. If you are inclined to be attracted to a bogeyman to explain things, you are not being thorough. Admittedly, these things are complicated, you may limited by your biology.

      Delete
    22. Ok. Sounds good. Have a good Sunday.

      Delete
    23. "Admittedly, these things are complicated, you may limited by your biology."

      Yeah, I know, I know: human being are flawed and weak, and dembots are infallible.

      Nevertheless: getting from "uncontroversial" to "admittedly complicated" is already a progress, I suppose...

      Delete
    24. Working class whites have fled the Democratic Party.
      Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is the party of the working class.
      Working class whites fled because they are white. Not because they are working class.
      Fuck 'em.

      Delete
    25. There is nothing controversial or complicated about Democratics supporting unions, it being a main tenet of their platform, or that Republicans try to destroy unions through policies like right to work laws that disallow unions to exist, unions being organizations that only exist because of support from Democratics. That is all uncontroversial and uncomplicated.

      The reason why some people vote against their economic and to some degree social interests is more complicated than being discussed, which is not to say that it is particularly complicated.

      "these things are complicated" is meant to be humorous, admittedly at your expense, if you don't see the humor I am not offended.

      Delete
    26. Oh dear. Actually, I find "Democratics" rather humorous.

      As for the rest, repeating baseless assertions over and over doesn't make them more convincing...

      Delete
    27. Democratics are very amused by the likes of you, but we are not trying to convince you of anything, what an oddly narcissistic view.

      I'll let you have the last word, as a way of saving face, we are generous like that.

      Delete
    28. Y'know, dembot, you sound a lot like a space alien. In the "T-A-K-E M-E T-O Y-O-U-R L-E-A-D-E-R" sort of way.

      And you calling yourself "Democratics" -- in plural, no less -- is positively hilarious.

      Could you keep going, please, before your dembot manager adjusts the parameters in your word-salad generator?

      Delete
  7. There is no virtue signaling in policy, it is where the rubber hits the road, the proof in the pudding.

    That should be true, @5:02, but it's not not always so. E.g., California state government has signaled its virtue via policies that supposedly fight global warming. In reality, these policies have no measurable effect on global warming. However, they have made gasoline very expensive, which hurts poor and middle class Californians, especially those who need to drive long distances.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”

      Naysayer: You didn’t reach your goal after that step, so let’s just stay home.

      Delete
    2. *** Public Service Announcement ***

      David in CA is a moral and intellectual idiot. You may safely ignore anything he has to say.

      Does CA have expensive gas?
      Is that because CA has such high state gas taxes?
      Are these taxes imposed to combat global warming?

      The answers are easily available on the google, so you can look them up, something David will never do. Here's a spoiler alert: the latest tax increase will fund highway improvement. Nothing to do with global warming. Big surprise.

      Here's another: repeal of the tax increase was on the ballot last November. It was defeated handily.

      Don't waste your time replying to David. This advice doesn't apply to Mao. It's always a joy to see our village idiot and our village troll talk past each other.

      Delete
    3. deadrat, you just gave me an opening to reply obliquely, to both trolls. I’ve never responded to Mao, and regret having responded to David, because I only ended up calling him an asshole, which need not be said.

      Ran accrost an article on Current Affairs, which contains a link to this, which I found quite refreshing, and really quite funny.

      I post it because the Glitter Twins are probably fans of Jordan Peterson. But perhaps I give them too much credit.

      Cheers,

      Leroy

      Delete
    4. "E.g., California state government has signaled its virtue via policies that supposedly fight global warming"

      The "fight global warming" bullshit is, of course, financed by lib-zombie and dembot masters: globalist banksters.

      Making "gasoline very expensive, which hurts poor and middle class Californians" is just a minor side-effect, David.


      Their main purpose is deindustrialization of the US of A; moving industries to countries with the cheapest labor -- to guarantee global international capital maximum profit. And that's all there is to it.

      Delete
    5. Leroy,

      God knows I do little enough in this world. Besides acting as a bad example, I suppose. So I like to warn people not to engage with our village idiot (because people may not be able to tell the difference) and our village troll (because that’s all a troll wants). Hence my “Public Service Announcements.” There’s something satisfying about seeing the idiot and the troll have a cyber-conversation here, and I think it might improve the quality of the commentariat if each was the sole interlocutor to the other.

      ContraPonts is one of my favorites, and she certainly takes apart the the general pseudo-intellectual basis for Jordan Peterson’s ideas. For an excellent takedown of a specific example try Three Arrows YouTube video “Jordan Peterson doesn’t understand Nazis”.
      Peterson takes seriously the phony science of his psychology, which naturally includes a lot of Jungian drivel. Naturally, hilarity ensues. The best description I’ve read is Tabitha Southey’s in Maclean's:
      Peterson is the stupid person’s idea of a smart person.

      DAinCA would love Peterson because he’s incapable of checking anything. Mao is just a troll, so who knows.

      Delete
    6. deadrat -- thanks for the link. I listened to the whole thing with particular interest, since I lost a number of relatives in the Holocaust. Regarding the Nazis' motivation, I am not qualified to evaluate different theories. I do not believe that differences of opinion on this matter mean that either party is a bad person.

      I was quite interested in the last part, where Peterson addresses the motivation of ANTIFA and others on the far left who seek to shut down ideas they're uncomfortable with. Three Arrows seemed to disagree with Peterson's view, but I did not grasp what Three Arrows' explanation would be for this behavior. It's worth considerable thought, since this shutting down of ideas has become fairly common on college campuses and because of the violence perpetrated by Antifa.

      BTW Three Arrows' snark in the first couple of minutes reflected badly on them.

      Delete
    7. Three Arrows is not the greatest at explaining these kind of things, he goes over my head. Chapo and Hasan Piker do better jobs, IMHO. bwhahahahaa! sorry

      Peterson signals Nazi apologetics. One interview he even is sporting a Nazi haircut, guy is creepy, he uses those weird affected hand gestures, he is just vile here:

      Jordan Peterson Shares His Thoughts on Hitler

      There is no inappropriate shutting down of ideas of note, you are complaining about protests of Nazi apologists and white nationalists, etc. Peterson as well wants to shut down protests. Peterson does not engage in dialogue, he was trounced in his debate with Matt Dillahunty and now refuses to debate. Peterson's technique is to redefine everything to his purpose and then spit out a word salad that is a fool's errand to try to parse.

      Here is a hilarious clip where it all goes wrong for Peterson, brought on by a somewhat village idiot himself Joe Rogan who gets Peterson to almost espouse Marxist notions:

      Joe Rogan Calmly Obliterates Jordan Peterson

      Here is another takedown by Sam Seder:

      Sam Seder RIPS APART Jordan Peterson's Real Time Appearance

      Here is the Dillahunty debate:

      ordan Peterson vs Matt Dillahunty

      Delete
    8. What makes you say he was "trounced"? Be specific.

      Delete
    9. Matt was sensible and gave Peterson the space to hang himself by making outlandish claims - like about metaphysics and about stopping smoking. The debate was long, I am not going to go point by point. You can see the weakness of Peterson's thinking in the shorter Sam Seder clips. Or here is another short one, where Peterson was rather easily tripped up and he had to admit he was wrong:

      Jordan Peterson on Free Speech and College Protests - The Jim Jefferies Show

      Delete
    10. I watched it and didn't think it was a trouncing. Are you saying that he is wrong about mushrooms and quitting smoking? I'm not defending the guy or attacking you, just looking for clarification.

      What is the main beef against Peterson? He is anti liberal?

      Delete
    11. Anonymous @8:55A,

      Perhaps I can help by giving three examples below. You should probably check for yourself to make sure I don’t have my thumb on the rhetorical scales:

      1. JP claims that experiences reported as “mystical” by people on psilocybin is evidence for the supernatural. That’s nonsense. By this standard, we have to accept that ghosts are real because some people report that they’ve seen ghosts.

      2. JP argues that abandoning religion will destroy Western civilization. Maybe so; maybe not. But for the discussion with Dillahunty, that’s an argument from consequences. Whatever might happen should we abandon religion is unrelated to truth of the metaphysical claims of the religious.

      3. JP insists that atheists who act ethically must actually believe in his god because they act in accordance with his god’s moral dictates. Thus because Dillahunty finds murder ethically objectionable and that’s in accordance with the 6th Commandment, Dillahunty must believe in the god of the Old Testament. It’s foolishness to deny what Dillahunty claims about his own interiority, especially since he can explain his ethical system without recourse to the divine.

      JP is right about a couple of things. The first is that a strict, literal interpretation of national Canadian non-discrimination laws would indeed violate the freedom to speak freely. His willingness to be a jailed martyr in opposing this law is somewhat undercut by the fact that the law has been on the provincial books for years without impinging on anyone’s free speech. That, and his smirking admission that he has been able to “monetize” Social Justice Warriors for his own gain.

      He’s right that post-modern “thought” has ruined many English and social science departments in universities, although except for studies of literature, this can hardly be counted as much of a loss. Case in point is his own ridiculous reliance on personality psychometrics, IQ testing, and Jungian psychobabble.

      He’s also right about the fringe groups that refuse to let him be heard on college campuses because of his alleged “hate speech.” It’s been said that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In JP’s case, all he has is a screwdriver, and he’s driven to redefine every nail he sees as a screw. For instance, his absurd analysis of Nazi war strategy reveals at once an ignorance of history and his determination to see everything through the lens of his academic philosophy.

      He has been charged with being a neo-Nazi, a fascist, and an alt-rightist, but he doesn’t strike me as any of these. He does flirt with these groups, and they do love him. This doesn’t seem to have motivated any self-reflection on his part. After all, if the devil offers you a light, you should probably consider giving up smoking. But this failure is hardly enough to condemn him.

      Delete
    12. Thanks dadrat, I'm going to have to sludge through that boring bullshit because I think you are misreading the third one. I thought he said atheists who act ethically required faith to do so, not they act in accordance with his god’s moral dictates but I will check. It didn't come across anything like a trouncing to me but it seems to be in fashion to put one's thumb on the scales as you say and mislabel/overlabel these debates/dialects with juicy and hyperbolic sports/war verbs.

      Delete
    13. Yeah maybe the "atheists who act ethically must actually believe in his god because they act in accordance with his god’s moral dictates" is in the questions which I didn't listen to - right before the questions, the poorly dressed bald dude is claiming he can base a secular morality on suppositions (without an implicit appeal to a god) and the poorly dressed, boring canuck is saying that those suppositions, whatever they may be, require faith, they are metaphysical, because they don’t have an evident, science-based rationale, that "nothing is self evident to the skeptic." And they never really finish it. Whatever.

      There was a zen dude who said we all take things on faith all the time. Like - the world is round. All of us non astronauts don't really know for sure that that is true. We take it on faith. Or I guess that fat bald idiot would say he takes it as being self evident. Whatever. That was certainly not a trouncing.

      Delete
    14. Noam Chomsky vs. Sam Harris - that was a trouncing.

      Delete
    15. Anonymous @8:55A,

      I’ve probably overstated JP’s position somewhat. JP is notoriously slippery when it comes to outright declarations on his religious beliefs. But at about 42:45, the bald dude says, “I actually don’t believe in a god”, and the Canadian dude says, “But you act like you do.” Now, it helps to have slogged through enough of the Canadian dude’s videos to know that he thinks that you can determine a person’s intent through the outcome of his actions. So when he says to the bald atheist dude that he acts like he believes in a god, he really means that the bald dude actually does believe in a god.

      Celebrity atheists like to distinguish between trust and faith. We trust people all the time because they have a track record of saying things we’ve verified. Faith is believing things without evidence or in spite of contrary evidence.

      Dillahunty says that he can base his morality on readily-agreed upon observations. He says that if someone cuts off his head right now, that would be objectively bad for him. So we can make general rules that life is preferable to death, health is preferable to sickness, happiness is preferable to misery, and so on. Even as we recognize exceptions, e.g. death may be preferable to life in excruciating pain. These general rules tend to the increasing well being, which it is claimed is the goal of (secular) morality.

      By the way, I don’t need to take it on faith that the world is round. All I need to do is go somewhere and watch things come over the horizon. A view of the ocean is perfect for this.

      Delete
    16. The use of the word trouncing may trigger among Peterson fans some additionally thinking and possible second guessing on whether it is a good idea to enter the arena of public discourse, the marketplace of ideas, as if a WWE character; that said, Peterson got trounced. There was not that much discussed in the debate, there was a lot of posturing and subtle cues of dominance, but basically Matt let Peterson ramble on and get tangled in all kinds of goofy nonsense and then stepped in and made a few simple declarative statements.

      Perhaps people like Peterson are over-educated in some sense, yet lack depth in their thinking skills. This could happen to anyone of any political persuasion, I see it even here among what I presume to be progressives or liberals.

      The study on mushrooms and smoking is not that strong, but if something might work it is worth investigating. People stop smoking all the time without mushrooms. Peterson's breathless claims are pretty silly.

      Governments have limited speech for a really long time and usually with good reason. C16 (personally I prefer E85) is pretty innocuous as far as limiting free speech goes, and it was mis-characterized by Peterson.

      I don't think post-moderism has ruined anything, much less departments at universities, maybe there is evidence for this, but no convincing argument has been presented. These are still taught everywhere of course but Shakespeare and Dostoevsky do not move me, Roger Waters and Leroy "Sugarfoot" Bonner speak more powerfully about the human condition to me but I'm not crying that they aren't taught at universities. And if they are taught somewhere, sweet!

      I think it is more than just Peterson thinking he can interpret intent from outcome, seems like Peterson believes in some sort of determinism - historical/biological determinism - idk it is murky but it seems to be behind his Nazi apologetics and criticism of Marxism.

      The free speech on college campus is a total canard (sorry Milo and Seinfeld but you guys are just not interesting), Peterson still gives lectures at colleges but there is much more money in auditoriums which is his main focus.

      Matt did explain to Peterson about his propositions that ground his morality, and explained how it was different than religiously based morality. Truth being subjective really scares Peterson.

      Peterson has been a boon to liberal/progressive movements. I think his smirk over monetizing SJWs is really an admission of being intellectually defeated - but he still is getting rich, see. His simple minded approach to issues does him no service but I think more so he has an internal unresolved conflict over having had only one sexual/romantic relationship is his life, which alternatively I find endearing. That's just speculation on my part, I mean it's complicated and it depends on how you define things.



      Delete
    17. "Peterson has been a boon to liberal/progressive movements."

      Yeah, it sure is interesting how the totalitarian lib-zombie cult gets obsessed with its infidels...

      Easily getting worked up into the pitch of frenzy, into grotesque hatred.

      For no apparent reason whatsoever...

      Delete
    18. ...reminiscent of 1984, of course. The Two Minutes Hate. The Hate Week. All that.

      Delete
    19. Awww. How cute. The little snowflake is melting due to Liberal support of clean air and water. Adorable!

      Delete
    20. Mao,
      If I give you a lollipop, will you wipe away those tears and go back to playing with the other kids at recess?

      Delete
    21. Arguing the existence of God is SO BORING. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Who cares? Any secular morality system, however great, would, if it were to ever get off the ground and become successful as the great world religions, become bureaucratic and institutionalized and therefore rotted and corrupt just like religions they initially aimed to replace and it is the Sam Harris' and this boring fat fuck here's of the world who, if leading the secular organization, who be manipulating and overseeing the corruption and probably using their power to fuck and predate and god knows what else - that's just how humans roll. These boring atheists rarely distinguish between the corruption and failure of world religions and their original and refined core symbol systems. And that is a shit. The Ohio players are fine but nothing compared to medieval Christian symbolism or the King James Bible (not to mention the culture that sprang from it which includes Walt Whitman and and could be argued even, the Ohio players.)

      The core symbol systems of the world religions are what they should be sitting on stage in their horribly bad clothes blathering on about as that is where the gold is and it doesn't mean one has to surrender their atheist religion to revere and benefit from it.

      There's a lot to learn from Dostoevsky. One important thing for us in modern times is never to put systems before man. So if there's a religion or a secular morality system or whatever you want to call the system itself, a government, a movement, none of them should ever be viewed as more powerful than any one man himself. Systems are temporary. Man is permanent.

      Delete
    22. Anonymous @6:22,

      You are a very confused person.

      The existence of god may be boring (sorry, BORING) to you, but it seems to be of immense interest to many people, including Christian apologists.

      It’s a good guess that secularists who accrue great power would be as likely to abuse that power as anyone else, but it’s hard to imagine a secular humanist organization that has as its goal replacing the Roman Catholic Church. You can check something like the American Humanist Association if you don’t believe me.

      I’m not sure what “core symbol systems of the world religions” means. What is that? The music, art, architecture, and other trappings of religious institutions? I’ve never heard an atheist disparage those. Or Dostoevsky, for that matter. When atheists talk about religion, all they’re interested in he god claims.

      There’s no such thing as an “atheist religion.” Atheists don’t have hieratic cuts, holy books, assertions about the afterlife, diktats for living, or promises to unveil the true meaning of existence. Atheists don’t believe in gods. That’s it. Atheism is a religion in the same way that bald is a hair color or not collecting stamps is a hobby.

      I hate to break it to you, but “Man” isn’t any more permanent that any other of the 99% of all species that have gone extinct.

      You seem awfully concerned with how Dillaunty and Peterson are dressed. What’s up with that?

      Delete
    23. Perhaps confused! It's a boring waste of time. God, god. It doesn't matter. The lessons contained are what matters. They are the gold that our predecessors have given us and refined over centuries and they contain the wisdom to save us and help us. You aren't sure what “core symbol systems of the world religions” means? Jesus Christ. Really? You aren't sure what “core symbol systems of the world religions” are? OK. Symbol systems like the flying snake or Christ on the cross triumphant or the swastika or the yin yang or the lessons from the Bible like Paul's Letter to the Galatians, or Jacob and Esau etc etc. These are the core lessons of the earth. You don't throw them to the wayside because you can't find an objective proof of God. So fucking boring. I would rather see men like these on stage, in their impossibly stupid looking shoes, speaking about and applying these core lessons to our modern (industrial) malaise.

      What is interesting about the god claims? Can you explain to me why people are interested in that? As an atheist myself, I could care less. What is the appeal of that? Maybe there is one, I don't see it. I'm confused as you say.

      It is not even anywhere close to interesting when compared to the study of religion (and mythology and mysticism) Not that I like the guy - he's boring as fuck and just an average college professor but all Peterson was trying to tell that fat fuck idiot was that if it is subjective, not objective, it is based on faith.

      "It’s hard to imagine a secular humanist organization that has as its goal replacing the Roman Catholic Church." The point is they would replace it if it appealed to people as deeply as Christianity has. It's not a choice they would make.

      "I hate to break it to you, but “Man” isn’t any more permanent that any other of the 99% of all species that have gone extinct." Yes, thank you. No offense but that is stating the obvious. The point is man as an individual is more important than any system, which are temporary in comparison. That is how I read it. But it's not important. I don't mean to try to sway you. You may be smarter and less that confused than I. Thanks for your response. I wish you respect, the best of evenings wherever you may be and the best of world and the fullness thereof.

      Delete
    24. Oh dear, I just saw this pearl of wisdom:
      "By the way, I don’t need to take it on faith that the world is round. All I need to do is go somewhere and watch things come over the horizon."

      If you, dembot, had a couple of brain cells to rub against each other, you'd certainly realize that while the hypothesis of spherical Earth does help explain some of the optical observations, it most certainly isn't proved by them, because there could be a million of other explanations (optical illusions caused atmospheric refraction, for example).

      Delete
    25. "So fucking boring."

      Hmm. Talking about the old white-bearded man sitting on a cloud shooting lightnings would be boring.

      Listening to deranged Randists is even more boring.

      But reading Nietzsche, Spinoza, and some such shit may not be, I'm told...

      Delete
    26. Start with Notes from the Underground. That pretty much explains is all. “In short, one may say anything about the history of the world—anything that might enter the most disordered imagination. The only thing one can’t say is that it’s rational."

      Delete
    27. Anonymous @934P,

      Well, I’ll have to confess to knowing what religious symbols are, but I don’t know what distinguishes “core” symbols from ordinary symbols or how those symbols form systems. Flying snake, check. Swastika (the versions from Indians of both types), check. Crux et orb, check. Yin and yang, check. But what wisdom do these symbols contain? And if their referents are important “lessons”, why wouldn’t we just study those lessons?

      In Galatians (as I understand it, anyway), Paul frees Christians from following Jewish law in direct contradiction to Jesus’ admonition that he hasn’t come to change the law. “Not one jot or tittle” as the KJV would have it. What’s the lesson in that? Galatians does give the attributes of the good Christian (kindness, goodness, self control, etc.), but do you (or anybody else, for that matter) need a god to tell you that those are important?

      How about the truly horrible lessons of Christianity? Blood guilt (original sin), vicarious exoneration (forgiveness by grace), infinite punishment for finite trespass (hell for nonbelievers)? What is valuable in any of that nonsense?

      Secular humanism couldn’t replace the Catholic Church without failing to be secular humanism.

      I agree that it’s obvious that the human race isn’t permanent. But aren’t you the guy who wrote “Man is permanent”? Or have I confused Anonymi? I haven’t taken offense at your comments, none of which would have hurt my feelings even if I had any.

      I don’t mind being swayed by good evidence and good arguments. Got any?

      And thanks for the good wishes.

      Delete
    28. But what wisdom do these symbols contain.

      You have to do your own research. Or not. If you do, you will love it.


      And if their referents are important “lessons”, why wouldn’t we just study those lessons?


      Haha. Because, like art and like human souls, they are beyond rationality and communicate in a deeper way. You want Cliff notes? You want a tweet of wisdom? Why not feel the blood of the earth in the deepest part if your soul?


      How about the truly horrible lessons of Christianity? Blood guilt (original sin), vicarious exoneration (forgiveness by grace), infinite punishment for finite trespass (hell for nonbelievers)? What is valuable in any of that nonsense.

      Thise are symvbols too. Stop being afraid.


      Hey - go for it. Forgo the wisdom and depth of God for rationality. You can think your way though life with that big brain. :)




      Delete
    29. Anonymous @8:00A,

      But what wisdom do these symbols contain.
      You have to do your own research. Or not.

      The latter, because here’s how this works: your claim, your burden of production. You’ve put forth a proposition — that religious symbols (or perhaps symbol “systems”) contain wisdom, golden wisdom at that. I suspect that’s meaningless because symbols don’t contain meanings other than references to the thing they symbolize. Perhaps I don’t understand what you mean. But certainly it’s not my task to discover what you might mean.

      And if their [i.e., the symbols’] referents are important “lessons”, why wouldn’t we just study those lessons?
      Haha. Because, like art and like human souls, they are beyond rationality and communicate in a deeper way.

      Once again, I suspect this is meaningless prattle. If the lessons are beyond our comprehension, then studying the symbols won’t get us anywhere either, since the symbols merely point to the incomprehensible. Perhaps these lessons communicate in a “deeper” way, but you’ll first have to establish that there is such a deeper way. Odd that you would recommend that the men in the video discuss these symbols or that you would claim that there’s much to learn from Dostoevsky. Discussion and reading are part of that rational faculty you find so useless.

      How about the truly horrible lessons of Christianity?
      Thise [sic] are symvbols [sic] too. Stop being afraid.

      No, they’re actual claims of doxology. The cross and the orb is a symbol. It refers to the claim that Jesus died (on the cross) to redeem the world (the orb). Now perhaps you mean that the Jesus figure is itself a symbol of a redeemer and the world is a symbol of, er, something.

      You tell me not to be afraid, but I’m afraid I’m with Hitchens when he writes, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". If you got any, now’s the time to present it

      Forgo the wisdom and depth of God for rationality.

      Do you mean that ironically? (Is that what your emoticon means? Sorry, I’m too old to do emoticons.) If so, that’s an odd thing for a soi disant atheist to say. If you meant the statement literally, then that’s an odd thing to say for a believer in the mystical deeper meaning of things.

      Delete
  8. “The story teaches a valuable lesson about the difference between the things we think will serve our needs, as opposed to the surprising things which may actually make us happy.”

    The tailor was actually trying to make the hudgin happy so that he (the tailor) could get some sleep. The hudgin, who was certainly able to verbalize his complaints when the bed was wrong, could have just told the tailor what type of bed he wanted in the first place. The tailor was just having to guess what the fucker wanted.

    ReplyDelete
  9. CA gas prices are not significantly connected to global warming policies; however, there are anti pollution policies that add some to the price of gas, but those are public health issues. Indeed, CA has reduced pollution from gas significantly, saving hundreds of thousands of lives and improving the health of millions, which lowers healthcare costs, offsetting the price increase. Living in LA, I am grateful for the improvement over the last 25 yrs, you can not put a price on that - well actually you can, and it turns out it is not particularly significant.

    CA does have moderately higher gas prices, costing as little as $250-$300/person/yr over the national average. There are various reasons for this but is dwarfed by other savings such as CA being a low consumption of energy overall - which itself is due to CA policies as well as CA's amazing weather. Keep in mind CA has a $3 trillion dollar economy, 5th largest in the world!

    CA is quickly adopting electric cars, which are generally superior to ICE vehicles, becoming ubiquitous, and yet another CA feature that nullifies concerns over gas prices. Tesla is a bit of a vanity brand, and if new are not affordable to many; however, there are many affordable options, my personal favorite is the Nissan Leaf which one can purchase used (as I did couple years ago) for as little as $5k. In addition to the relatively low price, there are no fuel costs and virtually no maintenance - amazing cars. (No emissions either)

    CA does have climate change policies that, among other things, reduce the amount of emissions of substances that cause climate change - this is measurable.

    There are good reasons why CA gas prices are higher (some bad too, but not related to climate change policies). There are good reasons for CA's climate change policies. They are not just signaling virtue, they are virtuous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. fuck you faggot

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJanuary 4, 2019 at 8:20 PM -- I totally agree with you about the enormous value of California policies that reduced pollution and smog. It has been a wonderful achievement.

      But, global warming is quite different from ordinary pollution in at least 3 significant ways:

      1. The harm from global warming has great uncertainty. It's based on various models that give quite different answers and which are not well-validated. That is, we know that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming. But, we don't know now much these emissions contribute, and we don't know how much harm (and how much benefit) there will be from a warmer world. Also, almost all the impact will be in the future -- perhaps in the far future.

      2. Global warming is, obviously, global. So, any improvement made by CA in CO2 emissions has its benefit spread throughout the world, thus doing virtually nothing to benefit California.

      3. We do not have the ability to reduce global warming by any significant amount. The steps being taken amount to bailing out the Titanic with teacups. Even electric cars do almost nothing, because almost all the world's electricity comes from fossil fuels. When you look at the models and measure the effect of conservation on the amount of warming, the effect is too little to make any difference.

      Delete
    3. "2. Global warming is, obviously, global. So, any improvement made by CA in CO2 emissions has its benefit spread throughout the world, thus doing virtually nothing to benefit California."

      No, in fact, it hurts California and everyone else.

      The perfect is enemy of the good. The stricter the California standards, the more likely it becomes that western factories will migrate to 'pollution havens', parts of the world that have no standards whatsoever. Resulting in much higher CO2 emissions (not to mention other kinds of pollution).


      Now, this is all well-know to real human beings; see here, for example.

      And mentioning this would cause lib-zombies' and dembots' heads explode -- if they had any brains in there.

      Delete
    4. David, Mao, the concern is welcome, but misguided.

      1. The uncertainty has to do with just how bad it is, not if it is bad, even considering the least impact will have major effects causing massive loss of property and livelihood and likely lives in the next generation - misguided concern (actually we already suffer the impact by all the hundred year weather events ongoing)

      2. The benefits are both local and international - misguided and frankly bizarre concern. Mao, pollution havens is a theory that just holds no current validity, but it is something everyone is aware of and takes into account when developing policies.

      3. CA does not have to solve the entire problem, just do it's part. Electric cars will have many significant benefits as adoption becomes universal. Fossil fuel is an outdated technology/energy source, renewable sources are increasing significantly every year. Electric cars actually use relatively little electricity, they do use regenerative technology that is getting better by huge leaps. Battery technology also offers to improve energy issues. Diminishing the use of fossil fuels also reduces the threat of global tensions.

      David, Mao these are complicated issues that can not be reduced to simple bullet points or algorithms, so do not worry about teacups, worry about that teapot orbiting the sun. Corporations, emboldened by under-regulated capitalism, are taking advantage of your makeup to con people like you. Is it your biology?

      Delete
    5. "Is it your biology?"

      Yes, dear. Unlike simple dembot mechanisms like yourself, indeed: human biology makes it possible for us to think. Comprende?

      Delete
    6. @Anon 11:35-Corporations, capitalism and regulation are irrelevant to global warming. Historically, the iron curtain countries had considerably worse pollution than the capitalist countries. The country that produces the greatest amount of CO2 emissions is China, a communist country. Coming up fast is India, a highly regulated country.

      The solution to CO2 emissions will be a new form of energy that can economically replace fossil fuels. History shows that the free enterprise system has the best chance of finding such a technological breakthrough.

      Delete
    7. 12:25,
      Good point about climate change regulations not affecting corporations. So what's with them paying all those lobbyists so much of my tax dollars to fight it?

      Delete
    8. It is a misunderstanding to think the Soviet Union/Russia and China economies are communist. These are very hierarchical economies with little environmental regulations, they resemble a form of capitalism as workers have no agency. The US actually is very disproportionate in it's contribution to climate change. Technological breakthroughs come from research facilities that receive their funding from government.

      Delete
    9. In theory you may have a point, @2:43. Maybe the countries that call themselves communist and socialist aren't using "true communism" and "true socialism", whatever that means. I do know that countries that call themselves by these names have a miserable economic record: USSR, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, East Germany, various African countries, North Korea, Cuba, and notably today, Venezuela. It's particularly informative to compare West Germany vs East Germany, NK vs. SK, and Mainland China vs Taiwan, because those pairs of countries have the same culture. I was in both Germany's in 1963 and saw the incredible difference with my own eyes. I was there again in 2017, and there was no difference at all.

      Delete
    10. Same deal with the USA. They call themselves "Capitalist", but no Fortune 500 company can survive without government assistance (i.e Socialism).

      Delete
    11. I've been to China twice and it was polluted. as.fuck. You have to see it to believe it.

      Our citizens would never stand for it.

      Delete
    12. "I was there again in 2017, and there was no difference at all."

      Nah, sorry, but that's bullshit. There's still a huge difference between the eastern and western parts.

      The western part is still enjoying the consequence of billions invested in it by the US during the cold war, to produce a super-nice facade for the capitalist model.

      Eventually (it looks, now, like relatively soon) it'll level out, though...

      Delete
    13. Mao - your economic statistics might be correct. I was thinking specifically of Checkpoint Charlie. In 1963 it was guarded by troops and weapons of course. But, there was a stark difference between the two sides. West Berlin looked like Manhattan. East Berlin was depressed. Buildings still had war damage.

      In 2017, there was no visible difference between the two sides. Both were filled with smart, new stores and bustling crowds of people. You couldn't tell which side you were on.

      Delete
    14. Well, Berlin is the capital, a special case. But the eastern parts are still economically depressed, compared to the west. Despite all the titanic efforts in the last 30 years.

      Also, the mentality is still different; from what I hear, a lot of easterners still suffer from 'ostalgie'...

      Delete
    15. None of those countries used/use socialism or communism, they were generally totalitarian far right authoritarian and oligarchical. Scandinavia is where social democracy is used, which uses aspects of socialism - nice place for the most part.

      Pakman gives a decent overview, at least for my level.

      Debunked: "Socialism Has Never Worked"

      Delete
    16. Yes, @3:06, high social spending works well in Scandanavia. It's not exactly socialism, since the government doesn't own the means of production, but those countries should be proud of how well they run.

      As you say, the many, many failures of socialism and communism involve overly powerful government leaders. Unfortunately, that's only to be expected. Socialism gives the government enormous powers. Government leaders are apt to abuse these powers. We recall Lord Acton wrote:

      “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.” “Despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality.”

      Delete
    17. How weak should the government be? Too weak to enforce contracts?

      Delete
    18. Corruption can occur in government, but even more so in free capitalistic markets where wealth and power are much more seductive.

      Delete
  10. Packers and Movers Ahmedabad - We Provide ***Best Service Providers, Safe, Reliable, Affordable, Trusted ###Movers and Packers in Ahmedabad List, Household Shifting, Office Relocation: Choose Top Verified Packers and Movers Ahmedabad Compare ✔✔✔Shifting Service Chrages, Price Quotation, Rate List Charts and Save Money and Time @
    Packers And Movers Ahmedabad Local

    ReplyDelete
  11. After being in relationship with Wilson for seven years,he broke up with me, I did everything possible to bring him back but all was in vain, I wanted him back so much because of the love I have for him, I begged him with everything, I made promises but he refused. I explained my problem to someone online and she suggested that I should contact a spell caster that could help me cast a spell to bring him back but I am the type that don't believed in spell, I had no choice than to try it, I meant a spell caster called Dr AKHERE and I email him, and he told me there was no problem that everything will be okay before three days, that my ex will return to me before three days, he cast the spell and surprisingly in the second day, it was around 4pm. My ex called me, I was so surprised, I answered the call and all he said was that he was so sorry for everything that happened, that he wanted me to return to him, that he loves me so much. I was so happy and went to him, that was how we started living together happily again. Since then, I have made promise that anybody I know that have a relationship problem, I would be of help to such person by referring him or her to the only real and powerful spell caster who helped me with my own problem and who is different from all the fake ones out there. Anybody could need the help of the spell caster, his email: AKHERETEMPLE@gmail.com
    or
    call/whatsapp:+2349057261346 you can email him if you need his assistance in your relationship or anything. CONTACT HIM NOW FOR SOLUTION TO ALL YOUR PROBLEMS
    AKHERETEMPLE@gmail.com
    or
    call/whatsapp:+2349057261346

    ReplyDelete
  12. Atmospheric refraction can't explain why ship's bottoms disappear first over a clearly defined horizon.

    Still a whole million explanations to go.

    I'll wait.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hey everyone!
    I'm so excited. My ex-boyfriend is back after few months of breakup, I’m extremely happy that will are living together again. My boyfriend of 4yr just broke up with me and am 30 weeks pregnant. I have cried myself to sleep most of the nights and don’t seem to concentrate during lectures sometimes I stay awake almost all night thinking about him and start to cry all over again. Because of this I end up not having energy for my next day’s classes, my attendance has dropped and am always in uni and on time. Generally he is a very nice guy, he ended it because he said we were arguing a lot and not getting along. He is right we’ve been arguing during the pregnancy a lot .After the break up I kept ringing him and telling him I will change. I am in love with this guy and he is the best guy I have ever been with. I’m still hurt and in disbelief when he said he didn’t have any romantic feelings towards me anymore that hurt me faster than a lethal syringe. He texts me now and then mainly to check up on how am doing with the pregnancy, he is supportive with it but it’s not fair on me, him texting me as I just want to grieve the pain and not have any stress due to the pregnancy.
    I was really upset and I needed help, so I searched for help online and I came across a website that suggested that Dr Ahmed can help solve marital problems, restore broken relationships and so on. So, I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and he told me what to do and I did it then he did a spell for me. 17 hours later, my bf came to me and apologized for the wrongs he did and promise never to do it again. Ever since then, everything has returned back to normal. I and my bf are living together happily again...
    All thanks to Dr Ahmed if you have any marital, relationship or divorces problem contact Dr Ahmed now and I guarantee you that he will help you.
    Here’s his contact.
    Call/what’s-app: +2348160153829
    Email: Ahmedutimate@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete