As a small addendum, Alex isn't advocating for expanded fossil fuel use as an end unto itself, but as part of 'first principle' thinking where human flourishing is held at the top of the hierarchy of values. So for example, he's also an advocate of nuclear power generation, because that contributes to human flourishing. An example he might point out is that burning animal dung for fuel in a mud hut contributes to human flourishing, but just not to the same extent as a nuclear power plant.
If the Wicca page didn't mention human flourishing, it was either written by someone uninterested in understanding Alex, or someone who is intentionally deceptive.
I have nothing but contempt for anyone that purposely intends to misrepresent people or ideas, which is why I have such contempt for the small-minded contributors who write about individuals on Wokepedia.
I've got nothing but love for people holding differing opinion, but those who misrepresent others should be friendless outcasts in society. They will surely backstab if the opportunity presents itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
You say that like it's a bad thing. 
At least you recognise the authoritarian-libertarian cross-axis. Left-libertarian is a null set. |
I read this as I was listening to Alex on "American Thinker", where he acknowledged climate change, as he almost always does.
My question is; are the so-called experts who do things like write Wicca pages more often uninformed, or corrupt? You would think someone creating a Wicca page would have expertise on the subject they are writing facts about, as that's the point of contributing. Seems corruption is more likely.
Reminds me of so-called news saying that the orange guy refuses to condemn white supremacists, but then you can find a 10 minute montage of him doing exactly that dozens and dozens of times.
Regarding the null-set of left-libertarians... my first instinct was to disagree. Then I couldn't think of anyone could be described as such. The set does seem to contain the fewest of the 4 sets.