Unkie you didn't answer my question


Monica

 

Because if I did. . . by the time you'd have rectified the situation. . . it wouldn't be now.

 

Monica

 

That said, sell the S, and prepare to squeeze into a tiny spot. . . but enjoy. Frankly, there's not much stopping you. . . except ahh. . . you know, school.

 

Hehe. You said, rect...oh never mind.

 

indeed sir i have a water pic isnt life grand

 

"Rectum? I nearly killed him!"

 

Why must they be naked? Isn't there some allure/mystery in being partially covered?
Is wanting mo a reflection of your expected white, male privilege and sense of entitlement?
And what if there *are* more? Perhaps they would collaborate and rebel against institutionalized oppression? Then what?
Who decides whether they are hoes? And should we consider our language when describing this population?


Oh and when you're done with that, can you tell me how you feel about federal foreign aid, as well as marketized philanthropy? kthx.

 

It's business time. Business time is NOW.

Not really. Covering is like sauce - you only need it on spoiled meat.

In my case? Sure, why not. In WSB's case? It's mostly a function of his inability to spell and/or type.

Nothing exceeds like excess.

Perhaps. However, your assumption is based on a priori institutionalization. It's equally possible that the oppression is voluntary, and thusly, sexually passive aggressive, which may be even more satisfactory for the party(-ies) involved.

If you're talking about said (very unlikely) collective rebellion transpiring, then perhaps they might assume a more assertive role. In which case, WSB would probably be back to square one; with a handful of FAIL.

If one is to assume absolute equality sans common gender roles, than the respect given will probably be the respect earned. To which, it could very well not be a question of whether or not they are hoes, but rather, what kind of person they may be (along a spectrum twixt slaves, hoes, ubermench, to demigods, etc.).

Given my answer to the prior question, as well as addressing the assumptions therein (in the earlier questions), a discussion of semantics is just inviting Dr. Chomsky to an already illustrious fap fest.

Federal Foreign Aid should be qualified within two stripes:

Stripe-the-first (Liberal, for lack of a better term): This would be a moral response to what would be a moral dereliction transpiring elsewhere in the world. Our primary motivation would be to make a situation as, "correct (morally) as possible."

Stripe-the-second (Neo-Liberal): is a response to some deficit wherein solving/reducing/mitigating the deficit shows a benefit to the donor country. Included in this though, is the quantification of "intangibles," such as good will, branding, etc. However, even with those intangible qualities, the volition is the same.

In the case of U.S. Federal Foreign aid, I think it is now nigh-on impossible to find something so profoundly and morally reprehensible where the entire U.S. population will in fact, be moved to openly and unhesitatingly respond. While half of the U.S. would be outraged, some strong plurality are assuredly to take a xenophobic stance.

Given that, the best we can do is respond using the Neo-Liberal model. The only flaw in the Neo-Liberal model is that you still have to sell the exchange as a good thing, but with very little perceived down-side. In other words, you have to prove that taxes won't be raised or misappropriated. . . even if the exchange could be directly tax-beneficial (support of developing markets, etc.). You have to prove that cheap bananas for the population is in fact worth us sending $50M to said banana republic. . . but people are stupid, and don't want to read charts. God help them if they even try to comprehend secondary or tertiary effects.

In terms of the marketization of philanthropy, are we discussing the actual quantification of said intangibles associated with philanthropy, or the marketing of the philanthropy?

If it's the former, I say it's plain good economic science. Here's the deal with that: while quantifying intangibles would seem sinister, or at the very least, counter-intuitive, it's always well-balanced that economics is not the study of continuous or rational data sets.

If it's the latter (marketing of philanthropy), then things get funny. Obviously, say, in the case of corporate philanthropy, it's exercising good will to some benefit. To which end, comes the ever-present question of, "Why are they doing this?" Is there a profound moral compunction within the company? Have the executives judged the intangible good will involved in the exchange as something beneficial to the company as a whole? Is the exchange alleviation/mitigation for a perceived moral defecit?

It begs questions. However, if markets are indeed free, then philanthropy is the intangible exchange within that market system. To attach anything else on such a social/macro-economic level may be bad science.

 

BAAHAHAHAH