Libertus

What are the consequences of sacrificing one's sense of integrity for another's pleasure? She has to live with herself, being an abusive parent and all that comes with it. This sets the precedent and I'm sure this isn't going to be the only time. Why would someone do that? She was acting according to her own value system. She values her husband's health higher than her son's. Should both parent's be required to consent to circumcision? Should both rapists be required to consent to a group rape? Circumcision should only be performed in case of proven, documented medical necessity. Should the mother have the ultimate authority over circumcision? Yes, if you're talking about circumcising the mother's genitals, yes. Cutting a healthy baby's genitals on the other hand, for any reason besided medical, should be considered the crime that it is. What advice can I give her to help her gain something out of this awful experience? She already gained something. She got a promise out of her man, which she valued higher than her son's bodily integrity. What is their rationale? Is it aesthetics or a religious ritual? Do they know of the possible health risks? Or are they blinded by the stupid idea that their son is going to be too dumb to pull back his foreskin and wash it? Has this already happened? Is there a way to stop it?

Since when is it a given to call the AKP "islamist"? I mean, there are far worse (more islamist) parties in the country, aren't there?

I'd prefer they get politics out of money (out of everything, really, including money). Getting money out of politics is utopian and a circlejerk, imho. Where there's power, there's money.

That doesn't follow at all. The average number of 6.6 per men could mean 10 men bedding 6.6 women each, or it could mean 1 guy bedding 66 and 9 guys being virgins.

Bill Burr. He has comedy specials, and, once they're hooked on his type of humor, weekly podcasts.

I'm not even sure what that means. Your language is so loaded with ambiguity and vagueness, and I don't mean to attack you. But can you try and communicate more clearly? I feel like I have to "unpack" your questions to discover hidden meaning. What does "drive" mean? I am alive. I also don't believe in a deity. Those are the facts. Nothing "drives" me, I'm not a car.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2014/05/01/six-ways-thomas-pikettys-capital-isnt-holding-up-to-scrutiny/#5a2ccf61a0fa http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/02/09/thomas-pikettys-focus-on-the-1-is-a-flawed-measure-of-inequality-paper-says/ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c9ce1a54-e281-11e3-89fd-00144feabdc0.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e1f343ca-e281-11e3-89fd-00144feabdc0.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10796532/Thomas-Pikettys-bestselling-post-crisis-manifesto-is-horrendously-flawed.html http://www.cato.org/policy-report/julyaugust-2015/how-piketty-misses-point https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/24/thomas-picketty-economics-data-errors http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/23/piketty-data-flaw_n_5380947.html http://moneyweek.com/controversy-of-the-week-is-thomas-pikettys-data-flawed/

I can guarantee you that no communist touches your argument with a 10 foot pole. They switch to being consequentialists, once you question their morality.

Not really, no. The "people" regulated the shit out of it, as if they owned the land and the tenants were merely allowed limited usage.

No, because in Communism you don't actually own anything.

> What drives you to live as an atheist? The non-belief in a deity, based on lack of evidence.

Of course, there will always be thieves and other criminals who don't respect property rights. Socialists. The best way to deal with them is to physically remove them, so to speak.

gone.

"Laws are based on traditional morality, pulled from philosophy and ethics." Are you saying all laws on the books, in all places, at all times during history, are in fact based on traditional morality, philosophy and ethics? I think your statement needs a lot of qualifiers in order to not confuse the hell out of people. My take: Traditional morality, pulled from philosophy and ethics are what's being used to sell the most outrageous laws to the ruled upon public, by their oppressors.

But that's also my point, people don't need to be informed and loving about these things, unless they happen to run a sports association. And everybody can avoid being subjected to comments in the mainstream media by avoiding mainstream media altogether. "Problem" solved.

Unless anyone here is running a sports association, I don't see why we should have to know these things. If the NBA wants to ban a certain group of athletes from being a member of their members-only club and participating in their competition, it should be their right to exclude and discriminate by whatever standard, whether it's medically right or wrong does not matter unless you're one of the decision-makers. Sure, if everybody has to have an opinion about everything, everybody has to become an expert in everything.

Remember, analytic claims you can prove just by analyzing the terms.

Sorry, I don't have time to listen to a podcast and decipher an argument right now - but since you're the one interested in it, why don't you write it down and present it here, in your own words?

I agree that synthetic vs analytic propositions are very different animals. One might argue that once you understand the words used in an analytic argument, the argument itself becomes redundant. If you know the respective definitions of the words "humans" and "mammals", the conclusion that all humans are mammals will not surprise you one bit.

It's common sense, but so basic, that you sometimes wonder if it really is that common.

LEÓN KRAUZE, UNIVISION: I am sure that you know about this topic: various leftist governments, especially the populists, are in serious trouble in Latin America. The socialist model in Venezuela has the country near collapse. Argentina, also Brazil, how do you explain that failure? BERNIE SANDERS, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: You are asking me questions… LEÓN KRAUZE, UNIVISION: I am sure you’re interested in that. BERNIE SANDERS, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: I am very interested, but right now I’m running for President of the United States. LEÓN KRAUZE, UNIVISION: So you don’t have an opinion about the crisis in Venezuela? BERNIE SANDERS, DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE: Of course I have an opinion, but as I said, I’m focused on my campaign. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/30/bernie_sanders_isnt_interested_in_answering_questions_about_socialism_in_venezuela.html

Satire or serious? No one can tell nowadays.

Sure he can. If Trump and Bernie beat each other up so badly that they bring out each other's extreme sides, the winner is going to be Hillary, who will appear as moderate and electable. Some say that was the plan to begin with - it's not even implausible.. how else could you make voters go for another Clinton? By destroying all other options.

In order to gain the majority of voters, a candidate has to appeal to voters of both parties somewhat. That's why Obama ran and won not as an outright socialist but as a moderate. Your argument amounts to the majority of voters going for total socialism and I think that's not (yet) realistic. The USA still has a lot of capitalist / centrist voters who will be mobilized against Sanders if he runs. It's not (yet) France we're talking about here. But none of this has to do with a debate. Sanders has never beaten a skilled debater of the right. Trump has mopped the floor with everyone so far. It's not even a challenge, imho.

Thanks. I admit I'm assuming, but dealing with comic book characters isn't an exact science anyway.