ProfessionalTeabagger

Wow, what a dickhead that person is. That fact he said it's nothing personal makes it worse. That means he doesn't even have a substantial reason for attacking you. He's likely acting out how his parents treated him. The bullshit non-apology is just salt on the wound. No you cannot consider him a friend. Friends don't get to insult you.

Did the person define coercion? I'm guessing not. If you ask you'll almost certainly find out their definition of coercion differs from the one Stef uses. It's an equivocation. Coercion is the initiation of force or fraud. The one this person is likely using the socialist term "basic coercion" which refers negative things outside of violence (having to work, bad luck, stress). Also the person claiming it's a fallacy fails to explain. It would have been a good idea to explain WHY the free market contains coercion because that would demonstrate that Stef's reasoning WAS fallacious. Very often it DOES follow that what's true of the parts is true of the whole.

I wish they'd just say "communism". The video should be called "Arguments against communism". They view capitalism's abolition as defensive.

Would YOU ever want to be stolen from? If the answer is no then logically you must apple the same standard to everyone else.

Without men, who will design her clothes and manufacture her makeup?

Fraud DOESN'T involve consent. The victim is tricked into thinking they're giving consent for something but it turns out the fraudster was doing something else. I don't know what "responsible for the defrauded's acceptance of their capacity for error" means. A fraudster is a thief who uses deception instead of direct force. The is very, very simple. What prompted you to ask this question?

Oh come on. They understand the exchange but the fraudster is deliberately deceiving them. That's the difference between fraud and not doing your homework. The whole point of fraud is to fool you into believing you understand the transaction when they know you don't. Where is this coming from? What prompted you to bring this up?

http://www.allenisd.org/cms/lib/TX01001197/Centricity/Domain/1919/The%20Southern%20Argument%20for%20Slavery.pdf http://www.answers.com/Q/What_arguments_were_used_by_southerners_in_defense_of_the_institution_of_slavery

How did you get an earthship for free? Define "market".

No it's not aggression. Your criterion "3. Y does not consent to the action" is wrong. It should be "Y actively withholds consent or there's a reasonable expectation that Y withholds consent". In other words the act visited upon Y has to be unwanted in order for it to be aggression. If we were to use your criterion then NOT giving birth could also be called aggression as the child did not give consent to remain non-existent. There is no reasonable expectation that babies do not want to be born. As aggression requires there be that reasonable expectation, giving birth cannot be aggression. Unfortunately for most antinatalists this seems to be an emotional issue.

If you're not willing to have a Down's kid then don't get pregnant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs_ryinSp8Y&list=UU6TJdRrZR_WacbxJWiRZ5_g

"The Mafia" analogy is a good fall back. The government gives thousands of jobs to people??? Well so does the mafia If I don't like the state I can always leave??? Well I guess if I don't like the mafia in my neighborhood I can always leave.

Utter horseshit. You do not require a state to achieve any of this (assuming any of it is valid or necessary).

If automation is so advanced then why will they need to work?

Nothing new. As soon as I hear "human flourishing" I get creeped the hell out.

HAVE you seen it? All of it? It's a call for forcible depopulation and the destruction of capitalism. She is a creep.

Here's Stef's response to that. In order for what this guy says to be true there has to be an absolute standard of truth. If there's not then what he's saying is just an opinion and is no more valid than anyone else's. Maybe he should step up for a live debate with Stef instead of posting lame memes.

As far as I understand, that's a loss, not a profit.

If that's true then there's a great opportunity to make a lot of money. Just start selling cartridges that do not do this.

Here's a video claiming Stef is lying.

Who cares about freemasonary or these non-falsifiable conspiracy theories? What difference would it make if any of this was true? Those in power openly commit evil acts so we don't need some needlessly convoluted and silly conspiracy involving the Knights Templar.

It all starts in the kitchen. I know this may sound ridiculously simple but replace everything you're currently eating with mostly vegetables, fruit, beans and nuts. I started doing this a while a go and I'm never going back. You know the phrase "I feel like a new person"? It's a cliche but seriously, I genuinely feel like a new refurbished person. You will will go through a withdrawal because your body is addicted to the crap but after a number of weeks you will feel radically different. Also, I highly recommend juicing as it provides your cells large doses of the micro-nutrients it needs. I drink a liter or two a day along with my normal diet. Check out this great movie for further information on that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mS0YA465ts After you've sorted you're diet out just do some moderate exercise. Maybe work your way up over a few months to doing a 45 min work-out 4 or 5 times a week.

No, a universal principle is one that applies universally, not one that's necessarily universally accepted. A scientific principle is universal for example. It doesn't stop being universal because someone doesn't accept it. Who said "regardless of the actors"? Please clearly and unambiguously point out where that was stated. There has to be at least one actor to put forward the principle. A universal principle is a thing. A universally accepted principle is a different thing. Different. Do you understand? Different.