In America today, it is considered worse to judge evil than to do evil. — Os Guinness (via you-before-me)

(via justanotherconservative)

redbloodedamerica:

As I pointed out yesterday, this narrative of an epidemic of white cop on black violence and murder being perpetuated by the leftwing media, the race hustlers, the protesters, the Attorney General, and all the rest of the usual idiots on the internet is a complete and utter fabrication.  There is no outbreak of racist white cops gunning down innocent black men.  And as only Bill Whittle can explain, the actual facts tell a completely different story.

Again…what are these protests in Ferguson really about?

(via justanotherconservative)

thecapitalistmanifesto:

Honest Slogans 

asker

freemarketsfreepeople asked: You say that aborting a down-syndrome fetus would be immoral, but should remain legal. What, in your opinion, makes it immoral?

libertarians-and-stoya:

I am implicitly assuming a scenario in which a woman (or a couple) wants to bring a fetus to term and have a child (ie they are trying to have a baby).  I assume this because they’re actively choosing to abort based on traits of the fetus, rather than simply not wanting to have a child in general.

So, assuming this specific case, that means that the child they could be bringing into this world has Down Syndrome.  But they don’t want that child, because it is developmentally challenged (or mentally challenged - I don’t know the specific diagnosis of DS).  While taking care of a person with DS is costly, it also treats them as a non-person specifically because it is costly to take care of them.  The value and worth of a human being exists regardless of the costs involved in maintaining their lives.  Your value as a human being does not dissolve simply because you have some kind of illness.

This means treating someone with respect.  This means defaulting to being kind and respecting someone as they are.  Until someone does something wrong - either something immoral or something that violates rights - they deserve respect as a human being.  Even when they do violate rights or are immoral, they deserve respect of their rights as a human being, regardless of the immoral action.

So, if a mother or a couple want to bring a child into this world, but decide to abort the fetus before it becomes a child because of some increased cost of parenting that means the mother or couple don’t value said future child as a human being.  They don’t give that child the respect a human being deserves, and that is immoral.

So I guess my confusion is that you think fetuses deserve the respect of a human being, which I completely agree with, but then you don’t think the law should be protecting that human being’s rights. It seems to me that protecting human rights is the upmost responsibility of government, if not the only one. 

4gifs:

Mario is a jerk. [video]

4gifs:

Mario is a jerk. [video]

(via akemkem)

afloweroutofstone:

Why don’t scientists go into law? Why don’t we have more pediatricians in plumbing? Let’s get some landscapers working on hybrid cars

(via libertarians-and-stoya)

Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm— but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves. T.S. Eliot (1888 –  1965) U.S. Poet and essayist  (via philosophicalconservatism)

(via the-liberty-republican)

hongkongstockexchange:

it makes me uncomfortable knowing that somebody somewhere is completely wrong about something and there’s nobody there to correct them

(via allmarketsbecomeblack)