Wesley

I may have, but I would like to correct what I said to make the words match my thoughts. If someone rapes a girl for 10 minutes and the later he rapes her for 5 minutes, I don't say "Oh, look! He is showing so much restraint and this is so good that there is less rape so now rapist is good it is ok if it exists!" I instead say "He is a rapist and should stop raping." Does this make it more clear?

This is not an important discussion. (I am not conflating these, but just an analogy to show absurdity) That is like saying "I am not asking if a rapist could not rape, I am asking if they could restrain themselves and only rape her for half as long as he would have anyway". Yes, there could be less rape, less theft, less assault, less killing, or less threats, however it is still based on the existence of these uses of force and thus should not exist. Any rape, assault, killing, threats, or theft is too much.

A soldier by definition kills people and gets his paycheck from violence. This is like saying can an individual soldier restrain himself by not killing people, not using force, and not taking payment from the proceeds of force. No. His job is defined by the existence of force. It is possible for an individual to not commit force directly, but no amount of restraint can change the nature of actions as a government employee because they are defined by force. They only exist because of the force. The only actions he could do to not commit or support force would be to not do his job and to not accept his paycheck which means that Bob would have to basically quit his job and he would not be a government employee. No amount of restraint can turn the job of enacting force and getting paid through the proceeds of force into a virtuous job not existing in force, for that would define it out of his current job. This is like having a soldier. Only they aren't paid through taxes and they don't kill people. This defines them out of being a soldier. Is this clear?

I posted this in another thread, but I thought I would repeat it here with some minor updates for increased clarity. (Unfortunately I can't view YT videos at work, so I will watch it later.)

Yes, you keep missing the point. Government by definition of its existence is violent. Thus, no amount of restraint is possible in order to be peaceful because if government were peaceful, it would not be government. Parenting is not defined by its use of force. Thus, you can be a peaceful parent through "restraint". (Though hopefully you just do not want to use force so no restraint is necessary).

This makes it no longer a government. So no, this cannot happen.

http://aas.org/learn/careers-astronomy#business Planetary Resources, Inc. http://www.planetaryresources.com/ List of private spaceflight companieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies Are we entering the age of private spaceflight?http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2013/0930/Are-we-entering-the-age-of-private-spaceflight Most of this is happening because public funding for astronomy and space travel has declined significantly. Without any public interference, things would continue in the areas where they can get private backers.

I would like to put a comment out for anyone who is posting in/following this thread. A few people have been noticing some slow-downs in performance when loading this thread because of the embedded videos. If the video is good and is very important to the meaning of your post, then please embed it. If it is not important and just a song or lyrics, then not embedding will probably improve load times. If you just paste YT text, the forum should automatically embed it. In order to prevent this, highlight the test and click the add link button. Paste the link into the URL field. With the hyperlink added it will not embed the video. Hopefully the thread will continue to grow and we do not want people with slower connections to take a looooong time to load all of the YT links when many of them may be unnecessary or not of interest to the reader. Thanks! No Knock Radi Lindy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV7u91A3KGQ The video actually is important to the meaning of the song, but because there are graphic images of violence, I have decided to not embed it. A good song for spreading the message, but it will bring up a lot of emotions in the video and sounds. Lyrics Snippet: It’s a no-knock raid, Don’t be afraid We’ll shoot your dogs, In front of your kids Cuz we’re the SWAT We’re here for your pot, And all the cash that you got, We are adrenalin junkies taking orders from the top, The KGB and the DEA, They’ll make you disappear, Like in Guantanamo Bay, In the middle of the night, You’ll have nothing to say, If we get the wrong address it doesnt matter anyway, We’ll still get our kicks, We’ll still have our fun, Yeah we are the SWAT, We are adrenaline junkies til the drugs are all gone, It’s no-knock raid, Don’t be afraid, Paramilitary police-state on parade, It’s no-knock raid, Don’t be afraid, You do the time for your victimless crime, And it’s a no-knock raid, It’s a no-knock raid, Don’t be afraid, Song Meaning (from the description): "No Knock Raid," written and performed by Toronto-based musician Lindy, is a searing indictment of one of the most aggressive, ubiquitous, and mistaken tactics in the War on Drugs. Consider only the most recent raid to cause a national outrage: On May 5, 2011, 26-year-old Jose Guerena, who survived two tours in the Iraq War, was shot and killed during a raid on his house by a Pima County, Arizona SWAT team that fired dozens of bullets through his front door. Guerena, married and a father of two, had just finished a 12-hour shift at a local mine. Law enforcement sources claim he was involved in narco-trafficking but have yet to produce any evidence supporting that claim. Officers involved in the death have been cleared of wrongdoing. Guerena's death is not an isolated incident. As USA Today reports, an astonishing 70,000 to 80,000 militarized police raids take place on a annual basis in America, many of them on mistaken suspects and many of them ending with injury or death for police and citizens alike. As Reason Contributing Editor Radley Balko and others have documented, the militarization of standard police practice is a direct consequence of the modern-day War on Drugs, started 40 years ago by President Richard Nixon - and perpetuated by every administration since. (For a comprehensive report on the failure of the drug war to achieve any of its stated goals, read "Ending the Drug War: A Dream Deferred," by Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.) For supporting links to all stats cited above, longer clips of raid footage, and more, go to http://reason.tv/video/show/swat-no-k... "No Knock Raid" written and performed by Lindy. Produced and directed by Hawk Jensen. Performance footage directed by Victor Tavares and Zachary Koski About 4.50 minutes.

You didn't quite answer my question there. I was wondering what you thought of UPB as you seem to know a lot about moral theories.

What did you think of UPB since you are into debates analyzing ethical theories? I am curious why you have interest in these debates if you accepted UPB, thus you must've had some issues with the logic of the book. I may be misunderstanding, but let me know what you think.

There have been anti-molyneux people in the past. I poured over a lot of what they have searching for a reasoned argument and I have yet to find one. This kind of thing always happens when you push new ideas. As far as the RSS thing, I think there is an RSS in the bottom left corner. I don't know much about it, so hopefully that helps you. If not, I'm sure someone else will be more useful.

What Kevin said. There are clubs across the street. Or you could go somewhere else. It is more like me owning a bunch of people and then me never revealing myself to them so that they know I exist. However, if they ever deny my existence then I send them off to be tortured for eternity in the worst ways imaginable. Slightly different... Key Facts About Eternity(1) Everyone will exist eternally either in heaven or hell (Daniel 12:2,3; Matthew 25:46; John 5:28; Revelation 20:14,15). (2) Everyone has only one life in which to determine their destiny (Hebrews 9:27). (3) Heaven or hell is determined by whether a person believes (puts their trust) in Christ alone to save them (John 3:16, 36, etc.). Key Passages About Hell(1) Hell was designed originally for Satan and his demons (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:10). (2) Hell will also punish the sin of those who reject Christ (Matthew 13:41,50; Revelation 20:11-15; 21:8). (3) Hell is conscious torment. Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth” Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” Revelation 14:10 “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone” (4) Hell is eternal and irreversible. Revelation 14:11 “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night” Revelation 20:14 “This is the second death, the lake of fire” Revelation 20:15 “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire” Erroneous Views of Hell(1) The second chance view – After death there is still a way to escape hell. Answer: “It is appointed unto men once to die and after that the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). (2) Universalism – All are eternally saved. Answer: It denies the truth of salvation through Christ which means that a person decides to either trust in Christ or else he/she rejects Christ and goes to hell (John 3:16;3:36). (3) Annihilationism – Hell means a person dies like an animal – ceases to exist. Answer: It denies the resurrection of the unsaved (John 5:28, etc. – see above). It denies conscious torment (see above). Objections to the Biblical View of Hell(1) A loving God would not send people to a horrible hell. Response: God is just (Romans 2:11). God has provided the way of salvation to all (John 3:16,17; 2 Corinthians 5:14,15; 1 Timothy 2:6; 4:10; Titus 2:11; 2 Peter 3:9). Even those who haven’t heard of Christ are accountable for God’s revelation in nature (Romans 1:20). God will seek those who seek Him (Matthew 7:7; Luke 19:10). Therefore God doesn’t send people to hell, they choose it (Romans 1:18,21,25). (2) Hell is too severe a punishment for man’s sin. Response: God is holy-perfect (1 Peter 1:14,15). Sin is willful opposition to God our creator (Romans 1:18-32). Our sin does merit hell (Romans 1:32; 2:2,5,6). What is unfair and amazing is that Christ died for our sin and freely offers salvation to all (Romans 2:4; 3:22-24; 4:7,8; 5:8,9). https://bible.org/article/what-bible-says-about-hell

“I promise you that any of the sinful things you say or do can be forgiven, no matter how terrible those things are. But if you speak against the Holy Spirit, you can never be forgiven. That sin will be held against you forever.” — Mark 3:28-29 (Words of Jesus) Aka, I can rape, kill, assault, sexually abuse my children, but if I believe in God, I'm all set. However if I am a perfect person and peaceful and have a massively successful business and donate a ton to charity and raise amazing children and have great relationships, but I speak one time against the holy spirit, that is just blasphemy and I go to hell. Another Jesus quote for fun: Matthew 12:31-32: “And I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”

Shaming the kids is not the way to solve the problem. If anything, it could very easily make the problem worse as it throws the kid into more depression, or he gets yelled at or hit by his parents. I can't think of a situation where parents raise a significantly overweight kid without intervening and then get a note from a random stranger and then all of a sudden they become perfect parents with healthy eating habits. Maybe I am wrong, but I can't see it happening.

The company needs to sign up with Bitpay. Amazon has not done this. Amazon, instead, has tried to jump on the digital currency bandwagon and make their own Amazon Coins. These, of course have none of the advantages of bitcoin and are basically Amazon coupon points. Maybe in the future they will enable bitcoin purchasing. If so, then they will probably use a service like Bitpay. How people currently get around this is buying Amazon gift cards with bitcoin: http://www.gyft.com/shop-for-gift-cards/ http://www.btc4amazon.com/order As a warning, make sure you trust the source of someone you buy a gift card from with bitcoin. There are ways to chargeback the value of the gift card for a fee while bitcoins have no charge back. However, either of these sites make their money from being reliable so you wouldn't have a problem. Just do not buy gift cards from a third party on forums or something who you do not know. The more popular the bitcoin market becomes, the more that larger and larger businesses will start accepting bitcoin and the higher the bitcoin price will be.

If nothing would be able to disprove the existence of a god, then I will not waste my time trying. I would just like to point out (as a last hope) that this is the definition of delusion. Despite any amount of evidence or reason you will not disbelieve in a god. There must be a way for it to be falsifiable in order for it to be a rational and scientific proposition. Otherwise, it is just delusion and not worthy of logical debate.

I do not what you understand by "Human Genetic Monopoly". There are many organic species. Humans have a pretty large genetic diversity. I may be missing something obvious, but I hope you could explain this to me. Also, I am not completely sure that I would call evolution the free market of genetics, though I have less of a problem with that statement. Maybe I will ask my question about that after you answer the former. Everything may make sense afterwards.

I always had a couple pieces that were my favorite, but then gave the rest to friends through trading, or I think a couple year there were programs were you could donate excess candy. To me, this seems like shaming the child which is quite terrible. Imagine a group of 4 kids going to the door. 3 get candy and 1 gets the note to take home to mommy that says hes fat. That would be incredibly degrading among his friends. Not to mention that I do not think this piece of paper will bring any parents to the point where they will actually care about their child and start to establish healthy habits. I have a feeling that obese children tend to come from families with obese parents, though I have no data to back that up; it is just a hunch. Giving dried fruit or jerky is a good idea. I think I got an apple or two when I used to trick-or-treat.

Using Bitpay, any business can accept bitcoin at no risk of holding the bitcoin and at far lower fees than credit cards. By the end of every day, whatever the bitcoin balance is in your account it gets converted into USD and sent to you (minus a 1% fee) Or you can pay a few bucks a month and get no transaction fees.

Just was wondering what people thought about this. If discussion starts, I will add my opinion. http://www.valleynewslive.com/story/23823811/woman-handing-out-letters-not-halloween-candy

I would be happy to help impart some knowledge about wallets, exchanging, and security if you are interested when it comes time to get your coin. Obviously, if the knowledge is more broadly desired I can post it publicly on the forums and if not then I can just answer any questions you may have.

Health Care is Actually Really Cheap! Might be a good start

Or bitcoin is just data that can be engraved into a single gold piece to store a (theoretical) infinite amount of money and still be fire proof and easy to transport. Take That!

So you have a different truth? I do not understand and would appreciate an explanation as to what this means.

If I have an entire argument and my first premise for that argument is 2+2=5, then why would he let me continue when right at that point the argument is flawed?