NotDarkYet

People come out of comas. A cure for Alzheimer's is possible.

A life well lived. His work will continue to boost humanity. Respect. Admiration. Sadly, the media won't give a s****.

Interesting. Who would determine the size of these states? And if we could convince these huge countries to break into small parts...why not just go the whole way and call each person sovereign? How would the shrinking work? far as I can tell, states tend to get bigger, not smaller. Shrinking goes against their economic logic.

Namely, "feminists want gender equality".

If they want total equality between genders, why don't we see feminists proposing to men 50% of the time?

Circumcision Benefits Outweigh Risks, CDC Says https://www.yahoo.com/health/circumcision-benefits-outweigh-risks-cdc-says-104161436012.html ....and the gender hypocrisy continues.

Interesting question. Could we say that all pro-religious and pro-political statements are violent by implication?

Being alone for 3.5 months sounds like a wonderful inner journey. I'm so happy you found FDR valuable during those hours.

Big Bang + Alive = Weird is not an argument. Try something like this: Belief in ___X____ is true Belief in ___Y____ is false Belief in ____X_____ is rational because of ______ABC______ reasons, and ______DEF_______ evidence. Belief in ____X_____ is valuable because of ______ABC______ reasons, and ______DEF_______ evidence.

I'm feeling frustrated. Request for somebody to put forward a proposition.

Ken, An apologist for rape doesn't belong here. I would prefer that you don't post on FDR anymore.

Is logic and empirical evidence the best way to determine truth from falsehood?

This community values rationality. Do you have an argument to make?

http://news.yahoo.com/robot-sub-finds-surprisingly-thick-antarctic-sea-ice-161703215.html According to climate models, the region's sea ice should be shrinking each year because of global warming. Instead, satellite observations show the ice is expanding, and the continent's sea ice has set new records for the past three winters.

What is your goal here? This is one of the least religious forums on the internet.

Vietnam. We already have proof that the US government has killed millions of people. 911 is small beans compared to that.

Cruelty: Did you look at that link to the lab grown meat? No animal was killed. Suffering: I find it disturbing that your default position is: sea life feels no pain. And if it did, it wouldn't matter at all. UBP: Correct. Animals don't abide by our moral laws. It's outside of UBP. This discussion is not a UPB argument. Price: Lab meat may or may not be cheaper in the future. It's a possibility. Computers used to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and fill whole rooms. Now, computers with vastly more power are sitting the pocket of every middle schooler for just a few hundred bucks. Technology improves: 1) Home 3D food printing is on the horizon. 2) Fishing could be considered relatively inefficient compared to a future process, especially considering that fishing is the 'most dangerous job in the world'.

I assume there is some suffering involved. Although I haven't looked into it. Lab grown mean could, possibly, become cheaper. Technological advancements could make this a possibility.

Nobody knows how it would work. The market is miraculous that way. But a free society has the best chance of fixing the problem. In a free society, people could maybe: 1) Own vast swaths of private ocean where no fishing is allowed. 2) Develop consumer groups giving stamps of approval to certain business who fish reasonably. 3) Develop artificial lab grown fish meat. Cheaper. Cruelty free. And remember: Free societies would be vastly wealthier. Environmentalism increases proportionally with wealth. This would skyrocket our ability to work out environmental problems instead of slaving away to paying for wars, prisons, police, schools, etc Imagine only need 20 hours a week to have the same living standard - you'd have so much more time for environmental pursuits.

Double Bump + Mind blow.

Violence is short-hand for property rights violations: So, you only need to ask: -whose river? -what agreements existed regarding the use of the river? A free society is brilliant as solving issues like these. When things are OWNED, disputes like these can be resolved, or prevented entirely. A state doesn't solve the problem of the commons. It only makes them worse.

1) We now have Mutually Assured Destruction. Not possible in the past. Nuclear powers don't get invaded. 2) Giving the state the right to take your income (to prevent a possible invasion) is like actively giving yourself cancer because you might get cancer later. 3) A free society has the best chance of long-term survival. They will allocate resources (like defense) in the most efficient manner. 4) We've had anarchist-style tribal structures in history (Ireland, Iceland), but they were very small, and can't be compared to the technologically advanced, nuclear weapons having, philosophically enlightened anarchist society Stef was talking about.

Ken/JeanPaul, Present an argument already. Waiting...

This is free on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiYjemymE3s I can't wait to jump into this. Listening now. Mind-blowing. I'm fighting the urge to quote every line....

"killing the other human cannot be universally justified as moral since it inflicted harm upon another human" 1) Not quite. It's wrong because it can't be universalizable. (you can't both be alive to kill, and alive to be killed, for example) 2) Harm is subjective: So who gets to define 'harm'? On what time-scale? 1 day? 1 year? 10 years? Some action might hurt me this week, but eventually be the best thing that happened. (ie, losing my house in a fire...but meeting my dream lover at the homeless shelter) Thus, subjective judgement can't be used as a universal standard.