Liberty

I think we'll need this thread now..

I don't think you necessarily have to be defensive at that level. For example, someone who owns berkshire owns a company that should do well in a bad environment because they have a strong balance sheet and the ability to benefit from bargains. I don't plan on shorting stocks, but I like buying companies that are run in such a way that they can survive and thrive in difficult times (if not thrive immediately, at least come out stronger than their competitors because they acquired good assets in fire sales and such).

http://altiusminerals.com/press-releases/view/263

I just finished watching the keynote video and I liked what I saw. I'm sure it'll sell really well.

http://longtermvalue.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/fortress-paper-at-last/ It might be a bit circular to post this here since they mention this board in the writeup.. :)

Didn't Ericopoly just say in the other thread that he did 110% on what I assume to be a few millions?

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/09/intels-haswell-cpus-will-fit-in-everything-from-tablets-to-servers/

Every time I see a photo of him I immediately think of Steven Pinker. It's probably the reason why I noticed him in the first place, actually..

Blurb: Mining and entertainment mogul Frank Giustra in conversation with Tommy Humphreys - August 28th, 2012. Topics include inflation, natural resources and wealth creation.

Thanks guys. I know he's also a friend of Kuppy, who's stuff I tend to like (he's cool-headed and even-handed about things, with many useful insight). I want to figure out if Fleckenstein is similar, or if he's more of a one-note doomer. I'm trying to follow sources with all kinds of inclinations to hopefully get more of the full picture, and who knows, maybe he could be one of those. Not sure yet though, but thanks for the pointers :)

Hetero prisoners don't become gay, they just sometimes sleep with other men because their options are rather limited for very long periods of time, and in some situations sex can be used as a weapon (it has been in all wars throughout history, and not always man on woman). That's not the same thing at all as becoming gay. I'm pretty sure that if they had a choice, they'd sleep with a woman (and they do when they come out). For example, if I had sex with a man right now, either willingly or by force, it wouldn't make me gay. I'd still be attracted to women. I'm pretty sure that same would be the case for you. Don't confuse the act and the sexual orientation/attraction. Of course, some prisoners are gay to begin with and when they come out they are still gay. But if you have a closeted gay man who has sex with a woman for years and even has kids, that doesn't make him straight either. In other words, sometimes heterosexual people can have gay sex and homosexual people can have heterosexual sex. That doesn't change their sexual orientation. In fact, as far as I know most gays report that their first sexual experience is with someone of the opposite sex (though I'm quoting from memory, so I could be wrong on that -- maybe it depends on where they live (rural vs big city)).

Hey, So this name has been popping in a few conference calls I've listened to and on a few websites I've been reading. I found some of his free articles and also his paying newsletter. https://www.fleckensteincapital.com/index.aspx I just want to do a quick reputation check here: Any of you familiar with him? What do you think? Anyone subscribes to the newsletter and can comment? I'm not endorsing him or his ideas by asking this, I'm just curious about him. I haven't heard/read enough to know either way... Thanks!

Well, as long as you refrain from judging others...

I'll quote myself from earlier in this thread: Not that the why or how is that relevant once it's there. I mean, it's interesting to know, but even if you don't know, it's still there and the question becomes 'what do you do?', to which I answered: Imagine you were gay, then ask yourself how would you want to be treated? Then treat gays exactly like that.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/us-boom-in-oil-production-spells-peril-for-canadian-crude/article4535525/ These are only projections of course - it would be interesting to go back 10 years and see what they were saying would be happening today - but still interesting.

One doesn't go without the other. That's like saying that the heterosexual act is an abomination, but that heterosexuals are just fine. They can be heterosexuals, they just can't ever do anything about it. Does that make sense to you? In the same way that being hetero means you are attracted to the opposed sex and that sometimes (if you're lucky) that leads to sex, being gay means you are attracted to the same sex and that sometimes (if they're lucky) it leads to sex. Being gay is like being a man or a woman or black or white, it's not something you choose. Saying that gays are fine but that the gay acts are abominable is like saying that women are fine but that menstruating is an abomination, or that being a man is fine, but having an erection is abominable. It's blaming people for who they are.

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying you believe that humans were created whole, and that they originated with Adam and Eve (presumable a few thousand years ago)? If that's the case, I think we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that, because I don't feel this will be a very fruitful discussion.

So from that I'm getting that you either believe that there's a god that created gays just to mess with them, or that gays are heteros who just choose to be gay, or that people don't have a 'default' sexuality but must choose one. Is that correct? Which one is it? I'll also point out that you just called gays abominable, a pretty hateful term. Statistically speaking, there are bound to be many gays reading you on this forum.

If you look at the evidence, it is. There are gay people, gay animals. It has evolved. It can either have evolved as a primary adaptation or be the side effect of another adaptation, but however it happened, it did. Otherwise we wouldn't find all these gay people and animals all around the world through the ages. You don't have to know why humans have exactly the variety of hair colors that they do (why not other colors? Why did evolution pick those?) to see that it's what we got. The 'why' might be obvious or obscure, but the end result is the same. Once you've got that, the question is: If you were gay, how would you want to be treated? Then treat gays exactly like that. In that hypothetical scenario, with only two humans in the whole world being of the same sex, it wouldn't have started. But I don't see how that's relevant since things didn't happen that way and it's not like that situation is likely to happen now.

I finished reading the piece today. Very interesting, and Soros is obviously wicked smart. But if I try to boil it all down to fundamentals, he's basically saying that a way must be found to monetize the debt of debtor nations (either with Germany on board via higher inflation, or be having Germany leave and then have the rest devaluate). Is this the central point he's making, or did I misunderstand something?

So you figured that by creating another thread about this there would be less attention drawn to it? :)

I guess that's not impossible, but I find that improbable because of the way it was worded. If it was in response to a single thing by a single poster, it would have been a lot clearer than the blanket statements made here. But I can't read minds, so I can't be sure. Oh well, I said what I had to say on that.

Before going any further, I gotta ask: Why is any of this important? Pretty much everything we do goes against what would happen in nature. We build houses, we find cures for diseases, we cook food, drive cars, use contraceptives, watch TV and listen to recorded music, read books, wear clothes, have weapons to kill predators and each other, fly in planes, wear glasses, get surgery with anesthetics, take antibiotics and do large scale agriculture of species that have been selectively bred over generations to be molded to our needs, etc. So why is it suddenly so bad if something isn't how it would be in nature? Do you live in a cave? Not that homosexuality isn't natural, as it's found in lots of other species, as well as humans (those who think it's a choice are funny; did they choose to be heterosexual? And if it was a choice, who would make that choice when it's so much harder to live like that? Maybe those that had to force themselves to make the choice and constantly claim it's a choice (such as preacher Ted Haggard) are actually just repressed homosexuals who don't realize that real heterosexuals don't have to choose, that they are just naturally attracted to the other sex). The fact is, homosexual have kids; lots of gay men are in the closet and have kids with women, and lots of gay women live with men and have kids. They also share genes with their sibblings and help increase the chances of survival for nephews and nieces. They're part of the gene pool. But it's also very possible that straight parents have gay kids. It's only recently that more have come out of the closest to live strictly with the other sex, but they've always been there, as documented in ancient roman times and greeks and such. People who love each other and aren't hurting anyone. A total non-issue to me.

What has this to do with racemize and myself? Do you now believe in collective responsibility for what others say? There's no hive mind on this forum.

1) Yes, I want my point of view heard, which is why I explain my reasoning in a calm and civil manner. I have nothing to be ashamed about. 2) It doesn't matter how smart people are, they can say things that are untrue. I'm sure you agree with this in the investment field, and it's the same thing when it comes to metaphysics (especially for people who were alive hundreds of years ago before the scientific method and academic freedom). All that matters (and I mean all) when it comes to determining if something is true is the evidence for it and the soundness of the logic. You could have Einstein tell you that the sky is green because of fairies, and the evidence would still be against him, and you could have the village idiot say that 1+2=3 and it would still equal 3. 3) Appealing to authority will never convince me anymore than someone saying that Alan Greenspan or the creators of EMT were smart and distinguished so they must've known what they were doing and thus be right. Besides, I can also find distinguished and smart people who believe what I'm saying and appeal to their authority. What then? Should we compare the resumés of the distinguished people on each side and whoever has the most prestige gets to determine what reality is? No. We can only figure out what reality is by looking at the evidence and testing falsifiable hypotheses. 4) If I and other posters had been writing about things that support your point of view, I doubt you would be writing this. You are attacking us ad hominem by implying we're arrogant and extremists because you disagree with us. That's unfair and frankly I resent it. All I ever did is explain my point of view on various topics and spell out why I disagree with certain claims made in this thread. That's what rational civilized people do. Extremists and fundamentalists try to stop discussion and obscure facts, not promote discussion and point to facts.