fractional slacker

Is Harris still charging $20 for his book about "free education?"

I voted yes but the question is a bit loaded by including the term "forced." No one can or should be forced to use a bathroom regardless of the their mental illness. As others have already stated, this a matter of property rights. The owner of the bathroom determines how they are used.

Cant-well talks about this all the time. The goal of anyone who believes in the NAP is to abolish govt. and have a voluntary society. That's not close to happening. In the meantime, we want the gun in the room (govt) to be used as against our enemies: the left, commies, sophists, and socialists. Those groups have no use for the NAP and we have no obligation to treat them kindly. Trump is far closer to implementing these ideas than any candidate including Gary "bake me a cake" Johnson. Don't throw your vote away on him. Vote Trump if you care about preserving Western civilization.

Physical separation based on cultural values is the solution. Forced multi culturalism continues to be a plague to our societies via degenerate, self-loathing lefties who worship the state. The enemy is not Islam, blacks, or minorities. Live separate and cooperate through voluntary trade. That's the recipe for peace. The enemy is the covert, parasitical white lefties who constantly run around screaming at other whites about racism, sexism, and homophobia. They must become the enemy of the state and dealt with accordingly. Then we can figure out how to abolish the state.

Being persuaded by celebrities should automatically void one's vote. Not sure it's good use of resources trying to talk folks out of dumb.

Slightly off topic, but I thought internet dating changed how kids meet these days. Meeting online practically eliminates approach anxiety for both parties. Is it possible women are less interested or unsure how to handle being approached?

This sort of reminds of an atheist going to church to ask about the reasons behind religion, but far worse. Church folks unlikely to become violent from questions. Do you suppose there is going to be an open and honest conversation?

What do you find nice about it?

Most atheists are leftists. Most leftists despise the philosophy of freedom. Therefore atheists oppose libertarian ideas. Most (American) religious folk/Christians are on the right. Most of those on right prefer limited and/or a smaller (than current) government. Therefore religious folks are compatible with, or at least indifferent to, libertarian ideas. That's my syllogism interpretation.

How does one differentiate between unrealistic beauty standards and realistic beauty standards?

Do you listen to or watch Stef's videos on turd world immigration? Immigration is fine between like-minded closely matched IQ cultures. It's not fine with with violent intolerant cultures.

Looks like something the Free Staters might endorse. My understanding is New Hampshire has become a haven for Massachusetts tax dodging liberals.

Sophists ( ie dating industry) are all about inflating the chasm between men and women. And for a price, they can show you how to make a connection.

I hear about this guy all the time. Don't know much about him other than he seems to be word salad chef. Does Tolle regard philosophy as fundamental to correcting current personal and societal problems? Does Tolle recognize evil? Who are Tolle's enemies?

This "activism" is more lefty "don't judge, man" non-sense. If you support the gender abolition movement, you will likely agree. However, these women pull these stunts where families with children are present. That is the issue here. In a free society, would these attention whores have an audience, other than beta cuck polyamorous losers?

regevdl Your parents were not in your corner? %*^&^*^(%$%^$%^! I am so sorry. Glad things improved after you knocked some sense into the jerk behind you.

Word is Shapiro long ago had his sights set on a mainstream (MSNBC?) news job. This is his swan song of virtue signaling. Second time this week I have seen common sense statement from Morgan. The world has turned upside down, flipped around, and spun on its head.

regevdl I am sorry that happened to you. No one deserves unwanted touching no matter the age or gender. That the school didn't rectify the situation after the first occurrence is inexcusable. The first job of every "school" teacher is to protect kids in the classroom. Were your parents any help to you with that situation?

That was funny. And that woman gets a say in not only democracy, but in the future of the species. Ugh.

Author of article is an advocate and promoter of kid fighting. What more needs to be said. Teaching kids to fight first ,without any due process, is an automatic disqualification from good parenting club. Teaching self defense against battery or assault (AKA NAP) is something no reasonable person could disagree with. Anyone want to speculate on why the author fails to give example of when a boy can hit a girl?

The woman author doesn't declare self defense as a universal right, a claim no one would dispute. She specifically states her daughter, and girls in general as victims of the patriarchy and sexual harassment, SHOULD use aggression against boys as first resort to a claim of "sexual harassment." In short, she is claiming violence as a moral principle by the following two quotes. from article: "She should punch him in the throat." from article: "I have also told her it is still the right thing to do." Which brings us to wonder exactly how sexual harassment can be defined. As far as I can tell it's another one of these vague, bottomless pits in which women draw from when seeking to justify aggression towards men. No doubt harassment exists, regardless the adjective you put before it. But more often than not, I would argue, the term is used as a weapon to gain advantage in a dispute. Furthermore, instructing young girls to use violence at any hint of sexual harassment, without a clear and concise definition, is reprehensible. Suggesting a combative escalation, as Troubador points out, is seriously messed up. Now imagine a man penning similar article instructing boys to violently lash out at perceived or, in fact, actual claims of sexual harassment. I wonder how many parenting blogs would champion that idea. Agreed. The r/K theory is applicable. However, bigotry, prejudice, and most importantly a claim of violence as virtue is what I found most problematic.

More misandry dressed up as anti "sexual harassment." I would like to punch this woman's husband for the crime of giving her children - children she will likely infect with this bigotry and prejudice. Despicable. http://www.scarymommy.com/raising-boys-sexual-harassment/

Given we have to deal with government and be forced to subsidize "public spaces," what is your viewpoint? Should we allow/encourage topless equality, or should we use laws of the state to discriminate based on gender? 1. You are out with your kids. Would you feel weird, or fine if you were in the presence of a guy on beach without shirt? 2. You are out with your kids. Would you feel weird, or fine with a tranny spreading lotion all over her chest in front of your kids? Here is a leading Free the Nipple proponent. http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/amber-rose-frees-nipple-racey-twitter-photo-article-1.2567800

I believe Stef uses the term "good men" as push back. It is to eviscerate the constant narrative of single mothers as being single because they are victims of lying, cheating, dirt-bag men. You virtually never hear a single mother story include "He was a good/great man but she was a lousy girlfriend/wife."

Are gender abolitionists an offshoot of egalitarianism?