Leaderboard

The reasons that people usually "deny" catastrophic global warming are specific to that topic. There are real concerns about the science. Many climate sceptics are former environmentalists who actually looked at the science and were shocked at what they saw, Anthony Watts of wattsupwiththat.com being one example. Many supporters of climate change alarm are science groupies who don't actually look at the science themselves. Personally, the argument I find most compelling is: if the evidence for catastrophic CO2-induced climate change is overwhelming, why don't they just present a concise summary of that evidence? Instead over the years we've had a string of weak papers to try to convince the public that recent warming is something unusual, such as MBH 1998 (inappropriate statistical technique that creates hockey sticks, selective use of time series that happen to be hockey-stick-shaped) and Gergis et al (withdrawn just hours before they would have been independently found out for not having detrended their data as they claimed to have). Regarding other forms of pollution, one of the problems with climate change campaigning is that it diverts vast resources away from addressing real pollution problems. The climate change movement doesn't actually care very much about the environment (they don't mind if their policies such as biofuel mandates damage the environment), just as socialists don't care very much about the poor (they don't mind if their policies keep the poor that way).

I'm enjoying the mental gymnastics people are going through to justify murdering a human that had no say in the matter. An unborn human is still a human. Humans cannot give birth to none humans. So we know for sure that an unborn human is still human. But that human is inconvenient to irresponsible ass hat "parents" so they will deny their child's humanity so they dont have to feel bad about killing said child. Perhaps its better the child be spared having such horrid parents.

I'd caution against anyone who claims to be a therapist and uses the boards as a place for seeking clients. Drew, what you're doing is not ethical behavior and takes advantage of people who post about vulnerable topics.

Yes Retarded people are human also. You can justify killing anyone by simply removing their humanity.

The whole issue with abortion is that people want to escape responsibility for their actions and are denying the child their humanity to justify their choice.

Negative freedom is freedom from as opposed to freedom to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty

I believe I understand and empathize with how you feel about the dating/marriage predicament; in theory, no one wants to be without a partner for the rest of their lives. People want to have lasting empathetic, reciprocal love, but the problem is, excluding self-aware individuals, modern "love" has ironically become an unsexy exchange that goes against the very psychology that would allow for a rewarding empathetic (and sexual, of course) relationship. The relationships on offer for a young man like myself appear to be either prostitution, consensual abuse, or nothing; that is, you either pay for it in some way, have sex entirely too soon without paying, or go without. In this, both men and women have failed, because women have realized that the sooner they give it up, the sooner they get whatever value they seek, and men have largely been irrationally accepting of the arrangement due to their innately high sex drive. Yet, both have in truth receive worthless goods because the exchange lacks the established presence of empathetic love necessary to give those goods value. In the rush to get what each sex thinks they want, and without elders to guide us due to the destruction of the family and community, we've created a situation wherein none of us get what we really need (empathy), or even the thing we originally wanted. It's truly a sad situation for all involved, but I must put the majority liability on women, because it is they who control sex and it is men who are inherently vulnerable, in addition to being starved of empathy far more than women throughout their lives. This is also why I anticipate that the presence of empathy in relationships will only continue to decline, because women have already proven that they are incredibly irresponsible with the power they are born with. With 1 in 4 children born to single mothers in the US and with the divorce rate so high and primarily initiated by women, I can only conclude that most women themselves are not empathetic. And that isn't even counting dysfunctional marriages. Now that I think I've revealed what the situation basically is, you probably want to know if there is, as much as my opinion matters, hope for what you want. My answer is...I don't know, honestly, and were I to gamble on the answer, I would say that there isn't much hope left, because that's just the way the trend is going. However, it's not all bad news; the best upside is that there's many resources available now for those who are self-aware to help change themselves and those around them into more empathetic individuals, and perhaps find a suitable mate in the process. Finally, MGTOW means different things to different guys, and the only tangible points of intersection are understanding that women are just people, not angels and usually very flawed, and that marriage is probably not a justifiable risk if you live in a Western country (depends on certain laws, like those related to community property). MGTOW is just information and an acknowledgement of how things really are, not a prohibition on sex or relationships. Still, you should take care to make sure you don't get stuck on the negativity that often permeates MGTOW content; it's admittedly easy to get sucked into because the situation between the sexes seems pretty bad, but what matters is how you use MGTOW, like any other kind of information, to improve yourself and your life. If it doesn't serve you and it makes you feel like shit, then don't bother with it. That's not exactly the most hopeful response, but the TL:DR is that while there doesn't seem like there's a lot of empathetic women (or people, in general), there has to be some. The only thing we can do is try to find someone like that while we become more self-aware and avoid the legions of single mothers and witches. Seriously, it's like Helm's Deep out there. Where's Gandalf when you need him?

I always say the woman worth marrying is the one who refuses to get married due to the involvement of the government in marriage.

I'd caution against Steven Franssen.

A fetus is the product of the labour (as fun as it may be) of two adults. Hence, they own the product of their labour under the NAP. This includes neglecting it or kiilling it unless it is a human (when that is is outside the scope of praxeology).

1. Retarded people being on the chopping block. Well how retarded? Can they communicate their wish to live? That would prove their ability for basic mental capabilities at a human level, still far greater than an animals. So still a person. 2. Simply wanting to live, like we assume a plant wants to live because it takes in sun and water, ehhh no mental ability, an animal maybe? Well an animal cannot understand and convey the concept so ehhhh nah not really either. A human in a vegetable state? Ehh no thought, no rights. 3. To address: it is a false dilemma. We are asked to choose between A - Human DNA Zygote or B - Non logical arbitrary exceptions. There are other options. As I have mentioned my view already, you don't have to agree with it but it is not A nor is it B, so violets argument doesn't consider my option C nor any other possible option and uses B the non logical arbitrary exceptions to say that therefore it must be A. This is essentially the NAP again. According to the NAP, there must must must be an injured party or plaintiff. In the case of an abortion, where both parents wanted the abortion, the doctor who gave the abortion was ok with it, nobody else was aware of the pregnancy... who is the injured party? Well the fetus was never of sufficient capability to ever complain, nobody else is complaining, so how could a crime have been committed? Hypothetically, you could bring the fetus back to life, yet it still cannot initiate a legal proceeding nor testify. So it cannot be a party to a suit by legal standards (unless you make special exceptions and enforce them with a government where the government is the plaintiff, similar to a marijuana possession charge). This is why I say, even if you somehow prove that abortion ought to be murder morally, you can't enforce it because there is no way to bring a case properly in a free court without a complaining party.

Sorry but that is just stupid. Having a child is not an initiation of force such as its comparable to knocking someone out. If it is then just throw the whole concept of NAP out, its useless as an idea.