Hannibal

...

Not where I come from. I think you're missing out on something the vast majority of the rest of us experience. Not necessarily better or worse. Just different.

That just means "I'd quite like to have sex with you.". Not really the same thing :s

The thing with Objectivists is that they only really differ in their analysis, and not really at all when it comes to principle. It's a very small difference in reality, and in the current reality we live in, their analysis is correct. Perhaps if we lived in an Objectivist society, then the next evolution in their analysis would be a free market for police etc. But right now it's just not realistic.

There is a difference between receiving insults from a real loving friend, and from a pretend friend that is using you. As I've aged I've come to see it like this: When someone persistently mocks you in ways that could be credible, then they are either a pretend friend, or are damaged in some way and are behaving badly even tough they may be your friend. When someone mocks you in silly or outrageous ways, by suggesting something so obscene they are really saying 'I love you man'. It shows that you are close enough that you can say these things to each other and know that you don't mean it. It's something that wouldn't be tolerated from someone that wasn't a close friend, and as such the act of doing it - knowing that it will be tolerated - is to say "I'm your good friend and I want to remind you of it".

Is this largely what people refer to when they talk about "building castles in the sky?". It's normal. Just don't lose yourself like DiCaprio's wife in 'Inception'!

A far as I can see it, that which is rational is that which furthers your ability to act according to your nature (for want of a better phrasing). That is to say that stealing is irrational for most of us because for most of us it comes with risk, and it damages our own self-esteem and our own ability to derive real joy from a sense of self-pride. If, though, you are a sociopath, then it's only the risk that is to be weighed up when making a rational choice (in that scenario). I.e, good and evil are man-made concepts. They apply to 'man' insofar as man is common. Where man is not common (a small percentage are psychopaths, etc) then good & evil will mean something different. With that being the case, there is no difficulty is imagining a scenario where an evil (by other people's standards) man does evil rationally. That man, though, is a man insofar as his categorisation with regards to species is concerned. But his nature is not what the rest of us would consider to be that of a 'man'.

Yes. If you are inherently 'evil', by normal standards, then doing evil is rational. I.e. if you obtain real joy from doing evil, then that is good. Fortunately most of us aren't inherently evil.

It's the same reason my good friend surprised me by saying he really likes the monarchy here in the UK. I hadn't thought of it before, but as he said it's the last bastion of defence manifested in some nationalistic pride which is stopping the cancerous tidal wave of leftism from breaking over us all and washing England out to the bottom of the ocean forever. That makes no sense. Unless you think snapping your fingers to put all rapists in jail is initiating force against people who choose to live as rapists.

Fewer muslims in the UK would reduce terror threats. Here they rule the prison gangs, and native prisoners convert to islam because the food is better. It's a breeding ground for a dangerous ideology in an environment full of people of lower intelligence and little to lose.

It depends on your definition of property, as aggression is a violation of property rights. Anarchists (qua anarchism) don't believe in property, and so they can claim to be anarchists while opposing any system dependent of property rights. Of course their ideas about property are wrong. This is the crux of the issue. The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms. It mkes no sense to argue about literature before you can even agree on an alphabet.

Screams of loser.

Assuming that you can feel confident that you are in fact speaking truth, then understand this... the more self-respect you have - the more of a man you are - then the fewer 'friends' you will have. Early on you'll think this the unfortunate fact of reality. Later on you'll find it a convenient fact of reality. There is no real value in superficial friendships. A healthy garden needs a good pruning every so often. If someone can't display intellectual honesty and integrity towards you , then they aren't a friend worth having. If they do, but are just wrong, then that's fine. I couldn't bear grudge against a friend who who is honest but mistaken. Someone who's not honest doesn't display the respect necessary tp be considered a real friend.

You don't see nobility in living free and granting all others that same courtesy? What greater kind of nobility can there be than that? Anything else requires violent compulsion.

In that case I hope you wouldn't turn to the state to seek justice should your wife ever be raped.

It's trust vs faith. That's all. If you never trust, you'll live like a savage. If you always believe, you'll live like a victim. Trust is a product of verification. There is philosophy in there, i think. Because it's that reasoned distinction between trust & faith that changes everything.

Is that a bad thing? Assuming it was possible. I'm not for killing innocents, but if I knew they were pre-destined to do evil, then it would be virtuous to kill that baby. That aside, I'm sick of the Bushes

You can't expect slightly more savage people to listen to slightly less savage people tell them to stop be so savage. Make circumcision illegal, and then at least we'll have a moral leg to stand on.

I live in UK. Most of us deserve what we get (not I). Reminds me of that scene in Atlas Shrugged where Dagny executes the guard. She decided he didn't deserve to live.

By certs you mean qualifications? Lol. Like I'm gonna trust an electrician to rewire my house without killing me just because he promises he know what he's doing! That being said, in my industry (software) certs are a pure scam.

I just noticed the |pay by debit card" under the paypal link after I already used the paypal link. Either I was blind or for some reason it only showed after I already used paypal... Anyway - I finally remembered to cancel my gym membership that my working hours have prevented me from using for 2 years! So I sent you the first month's saving Stef If we pay you extra donations can you slyly slip words or phrases into your videos. Like "wibble" ? Cheers.

I'm waiting to see if this will be my stance next year too. I'm a freelance contractor ('enterprise' software development) and next year dividend tax is up a whole 7% in one hit. They're also looking very likely to stop travel & subsistence (I currently spend about £12-15 k per year in train fares & the occasional hotel stay) from being allowable business expenses. If this happens then I might take the hint that they want me to be a less productive permanent employee (where I get paid whether I perform or not). Or perhaps I'll just work 6 months per year and claim jobseeker allowance the other 6. Currently things are tolerable, and I'm driving a new Jaguar F-Type V6s coupe. If they don't want me to drive the jag, then I'm not sure what the incentive is for me to commute a 5 hour round trip every day (I enjoy working - but not so that single mums can be sponsored to continually breed more and more net consumers, at my expense).

I'm sure i've done this before. Not donated in a while but i've started watching more vids as Stefan has produced more and i'm consuming the research he's done, more so than the philosophy which i'm already happy with by now. Pretty sure I used paypal but didn't need an account. Otherwise I might finally buy some BTC. (a few years back I delayed spending £1000 GBP on BTC when they were abut £3 each, to wait 'till next pay day, and then a week later when i went to buy them they had doubled to £6 each. "BUBBLE!" I exclaimed and changed my mind. D'oh! )

This is absurd. "Why would someone want to have casual sex with another person?" tells me that you're not qualified to say that it's unhealthy for one's mental health. (i.e. if you have to ask why then surely you don't understand it) Why would I? Because it's fun. Almost everyone would agree that having a variety of friends to have fun with is a good thing - so there's one reason right there. I see different friends with different demeanours dependant of what mood I'm in. I like to have sex with different female friends depending on what mood i'm is - they all tend to be different in that respect. Because I enjoy the female body, and sex is the most 'hands on' you can get - just like watching the countryside on TV isn't the same as hiking through it for real. And when enjoying the countryside I don't just visit one area for the rest of my life. I like to enjoy and explore different places I've not seen before. I like to visit desert landscapes, mountainous landscapes, woodlands and oceans. In the same way I like skinny women, chubby women, muscular women & all of those in various colour combinations. I have my preferences, but just because I prefer one thing less doesn't mean i'd like to never have it at all. Stef has said before - 'why eat out when you have steak at home' and 'what is that saying to your significant other?'. Well it's saying that although I really like steak, I don't want it EVERY single time I eat. What's more, if you really do have steak at home then you're lucky. Physical attraction is only one element in a well matched partner, and often chicken is a perfectly suitable dinner when everything else is good too. You'd have to mad to believe that your partner thinks that you'll always be the most attractive person they'll ever have met. It's statistically incredibly unlikely, and I won't be little my wife by making such a silly supposition. Some people don't separate the emotion from the physical. Thats fine and a friend with benefits probably isn;t for them. But many, like myself, see sex purely as recreation. Sure, there is some emotion in it for me - I don't like the idea of sleeping with random strangers. But that healthy in just the same way that I don't do any kind of recreational activity with complete strangers. I'm selective about who I spend my time with - and for sex to be fun I need to actually like the other person. Moreover, i'd go as far as to say that I could potentially care deeply about said friend with benefits. To suggest that you can't love more than one person at the same time is silly. I'd prefer not to go too far that way with someone because, assuming that they or I are single at the time, that makes it potentially harder to get a proper partner. At the very least it's a distraction. But in the same way that I can love a male friend I can love a female friend. One I might drink beer with and have meaningful conversations, and the other i might have sex with and have meaningful conversations. You just need to be careful with who you have sex with in the same way that you probably shouldn't go drinking with a friend who has a drink problem. Whether the sex or booze is considered a 'problem' is dependant entirely on context. "Why would someone want to have casual sex with another person? " -- already covered. "From what I know, it is because they either don't mind messing with other people (they are cold)" -- it's a mutual trade. I'm not sure where you get this idea from. "don't mind finding an escape (essentially an addiction) " -- or just understand that life is for enjoying. "and / or are afraid of having a deep, intimate emotional connection. " -- or alternatively they are better at having deep & intimate emotional connections with people. Hiding behind one single partner strikes me as being much more likely to be a symptom of emotional dysfunction. At the end of the day we're all grown up & consenting adults. We are capable of picking and choosing how to behave with other grown adults. Some combinations of sex partners would be a bad idea. Others would be a good idea. To call it defacto unhealthy is to project your own psychology onto everyone else. I'm not saying yours is damaged - just that it isn't representative on the whole. More often than not, in my experience, the problem is that people have jealousy issues, or self-confidence/worth issues. When it's pure recreation, and you have the decency and strength of will to ensue that it's also purely recreational for your partner, then I think that it's actually very good for one's mental health. Relationships shouldn't be about sacrifice. Whether that relation be husband & wife, or fuck buddy & fuck buddy. Just be grown up enough to recognise when it's dangerous and when it's safe.

Sounds inherently contradictory coming from a nihilist. It'd be a contradiction. Rationality is a uniquely human quality - or at least it doesn't pertain to 'non thinking species'. So if you value rationality then you must value rational humans over unthinking animals.