Zainstaluj Steam
zaloguj się
|
język
简体中文 (chiński uproszczony)
繁體中文 (chiński tradycyjny)
日本語 (japoński)
한국어 (koreański)
ไทย (tajski)
български (bułgarski)
Čeština (czeski)
Dansk (duński)
Deutsch (niemiecki)
English (angielski)
Español – España (hiszpański)
Español – Latinoamérica (hiszpański latynoamerykański)
Ελληνικά (grecki)
Français (francuski)
Italiano (włoski)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonezyjski)
Magyar (węgierski)
Nederlands (niderlandzki)
Norsk (norweski)
Português (portugalski – Portugalia)
Português – Brasil (portugalski brazylijski)
Română (rumuński)
Русский (rosyjski)
Suomi (fiński)
Svenska (szwedzki)
Türkçe (turecki)
Tiếng Việt (wietnamski)
Українська (ukraiński)
Zgłoś problem z tłumaczeniem
I'm flattered, truly.
But you'd be taking on a large burden. I'm emotionally broken, jaded, and burnt out from a lot of stuff. It'd be like taking in a 3 legged dog.
Would I like to? Sure, but to put that on someone and not warn them isn't my style.
I'm dealing with it, but that's where I'm at.
So, uh, yeah. Beware 👻
atus has to be advanced that appeals to our intuitions and instincts,
to our values and our desires, as well as to the possibilities inherent
in the social world we inhabit. If successful, this conceptual appar-
atus becomes so embedded in common sense as to be taken for
granted and not open to question. The founding figures of neolib-
eral thought took political ideals of human dignity and individual
freedom as fundamental, as ‘the central values of civilization’. In so
doing they chose wisely, for these are indeed compelling and
seductive ideals. These values, they held, were threatened not only
by fascism, dictatorships, and communism, but by all forms of
state intervention that substituted collective judgements for those
of individuals free to choose