NotDarkYet

Essential and important question. Why DID I book the date? 1. There was a chance that the Feminism she referred to some very basic/vague "you go girl". This, I can deal with. 2. Even if she had some crazy ideas, it's possible she could be talked out of them. In this case, she has zero openness for the idea of securing the borders. Zero. Regarding the "she probably thinks you just want to do drugs". Yes. In hindsight I should have pointed out the contradiction of statement "internment camps = bad. Drugs+prison = good". But I was really really angry. And rightfully so. She'd PREFER TO SEE ME IN CHAINS than free. For the first time in her life she got to feel the consequence of philosophical bullshit.

I was on a date tonight. This woman was a super lefty. Hating on trump the whole night. Saying how horrible it was that Trump wants to build a wall. She was certain that Trump was "pro-internment" camp for possible-terrorists. Ok...I held my tongue. Later, I mentioned how I thought it was crazy that person can be put into prison for doing a drug. She replied "I absolutely think a person should go to jail for doing heroin". I replied, "So, if I do heroin, you think I should go to prison" "Absolutely" she said. I grab my things...walk away. So satisfying. Red flags at the start....her profile mentioned nothing about politics, except ONE LITTLE word at the end. "feminist". Guys, watch out.

Can you provide a summary?

How is math different than language?

The state is inevitable the degree to which superstition is inevitable.

Confirmation (today) of this black lipstick theory: A woman on Tinder (with black lipstick and crazy red hair) answered some questions I asked . - Tell me some pet peeves. - Tell me something you're a bit embarrassed to admit in mixed company. Good questions. Easy to start a conversation, right? Her reply was 1. I have a lot of pet peeves 2. I say what I want, I don't care what people think. Oh...great conversation technique lady. Could you try ANY LESS? Why did you even swipe right (ie, 'like') me? (If you're wondering why I reached out to a crazy looking person, it's because I enjoy testing the accuracy of my Malcolm Gladwell "Blink" instinct. I EXPECTED this interaction would be disappointing - and sure enough, yep! Gotta love those instincts)

In my experience, extremely attractive women are rarely challenged about their ideas. Therefore an extremely hot female will be more likely to believe in horoscopes, numerology, essentials oils, sacred geometry, feminism, male disposability etc. A debate with these women will end in tears (hers). All of this accords with my experience of online dating.

Has anybody noticed patterns in female (or male) online dating profiles? --- Simply from seeing ONE profile picture, I can almost always guess if she's a toxic female. If she looks bitchy, unhappy, and has tatoos (or crazy colored hair, or piercings) it's almost certain that her profile will reference something about.... - Feminism - How "salty" or "strong willed" she is. - Her love of animals - Her love of NPR - Veganism - Her love of Bars - What a man needs to do ("Take me to do something wild") - What a man needs to be ("You need to be tall") - What she doesn't want in a man (in a cruel way - like "no pussies") - What a man should talk to her about ( "Do NOT ask me what I did this weekend, be more original") I despise these profiles. Random story: I met a female years ago at a party and she insulted all the men around her - it was like nothing I'd ever seen. Sure enough, guess who I saw on Tinder? HER! And sure enough, she's a self described feminist/vegan with "very philanthropic tendencies"

Imho, if one can battle in a coherent sensible way (ie, not seeming angry or unhinged), then you're doing a good thing. If people see conservatives/free-market people flipping out - that doesn't help our cause. For relaxing: Peace of mind is difficult after a disturbing debate. Takes me days to get back to normal.

If you want a clincher argument - you're gonna have to go DEEP. Read UPB.

Sustainability? Isn't that a redundant goal? Suppliers in a free market would shoot for sustainability.

I heard about this on Freakonomics. It looks interesting. It also reminds me how much a hate Freakonomics' mealy-mouthed economic point-of-voiew. State loving academic lapdogs such as themselves have no principles, so they develop a fetish for data as a way to avoid uncomfortable truths.

exceptionally

Clearly a free society is the goal. But I can see BOTH sides of the political divide getting on board with this.

Take the scenario of a "knockout game" video. Clearly the video camera holder is either: 1. Filming a crime with intent to have other people watch it later. or 2. Filming a crime with the intent to have other people watch it later, and pay for it The person filming it is obviously complicit in the crime and should be prosecuted as accessory to the crime. But should a person watching it be considered a criminal? I don't LIKE the conclusion (ie, you can watch any horrible thing and not be a criminal). But I can't square the circle. How can a watcher of a crime be complicit in the crime?

Does watching videos of assaults/robbery on youtube (with advertising) incentive their creation?

I would LOVE to hear Stef and Michael take on this topic! Why? 1. Homework is not only not helpful to children under high school age, but actively destructive to their learning (http://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/news/the-homework-debate-the-case-against-homework/) 2. It destroys happiness at home. Both the child's happiness, and by extension, the parents. 3. It pollutes the child's appreciation of learning. 4. 8 hours of school is more than enough. When school is over, it's time to LEARN OTHER THINGS, to have fun, to play, to live. 5. It's disproportionally difficult for single parent households. A single parent home is less equipped to help the child deal with homework/projects. 6. It's disproportionally difficult for boys. 7. It's almost always maddening busy work. 8. Personal opinion: It's child abuse. 9. This is a movement that could have an effect. People could start fighting back at the local level, and giving children their home lives hours back.

I'm having trouble unpacking the "watching rape = supporting rape" argument. Should the same argument be made for videos of other kinds of assaults? Violence, one-punch-knockout videos, armed robbery. I'm open to that argument. But it seems inconsistent that you can go on youtube and watch thugs knock out an innocent woman, maybe giving her permanent brain damage, and that's cool. But if somebody watches a 17 year old couple engage in a (presumably) voluntary (and presumably pleasurable) act, they're a moral monster. Something's inconsistent there. Maybe the way to square the circle is to say that people shouldn't be allowed to watch videos showing people being assaulted too. I know people who ENJOY videos of punching and attacks, and I find it sickening.

Super funny! Sadly the Anthropogenic Global Warming quip was the definition of ironic.

"depends on that individuals personal association of symbols being used" = Not an argument. If numbers have meaning, then you can not use the validity of numbers to show that numbers are invalid. To do so would be HYPOCRITICAL.

Stating 2+2=5 is hypocritical because you're simultaneously... 1. Stating that numbers make sense (2=2) 2. Writing an answer that contradicts that very premise

What if I said..."There is no Truth in mathematics. Only the avoidance of hypocrisy and faulty designs."

Take is not = Pay

Is a gut-feeling a sufficient foundations for a belief system? If yes, then why bother trying to correct Stef. If no, then why don't you go after the Christians (or Statists, etc) , who have far more inconsistencies in their apologetics?

Regardless of the moral justification - I don't think that is how we win the hearts/minds of the world. Plus, they have the most guns.