fractional slacker

Ms. Coulter, like Stef often notes, is hella smart and a fantastic writer. Her criticisms of the left are second to none. However, she is a typical partisan statist with no use for those of us who realize politics and voting is for losers.

Is this the same as the argument from authority fallacy?

If this is the best speech you have come across, you need to get out more.I'm only 2 minutes in and I have a problem with this man's argument: "The problem is that humans have victimized animals to such a degree that they aren't even considered victims."That is classic NAA material. Aside from not providing definitions (victim/victimized, degree), this sort of narrative has no philosophical value. Why do I say that? It's just word salad du jour. There is no universal principle involved. . He might as well have said, "The problem is that spiders have victimized insects to such a degree that they aren't even considered victims." Smells a lot like structural violence to me.

Taking on FB strangers in regards to hitting children is usually not productive. However, taking a stand against hitting children to your own circle of friends requires bravery, courage, and can lead to productive conversation. You at least have a chance to bring some moral clarity to the issue even if you can't persuade someone to change their stance. You then get to decide how much you want to engage someone you are close to if they continue to argue for hitting kids. The world changes by changing that which we have some control/influence over. That is why I grimace a bit when I hear folks bash the FB platform.

Fantastic poem. Kudos for rhyming a response to communist dude.How was your poem received on FB?

Affleck is a white knight for Muslims. I find his political correctness nauseating.

The usual non sense of corruption. TPTB are frightened, therefore your speech is a threat and must be outlawed. The UK, and as I understand it Canada as well, are unabashed authoritarian states on the issue of free speech. Now the UK wants to double down."This [speech ban] has absolutely nothing to do with Islamic extremists or Neo-Nazis. In fact, attacks by such groups only serve to further expand the power of the entrenched ruling class. Nothing would be more useful to these people than violent attacks by extremist groups. No, what really scares them is thoughtful, rebellious, free-thinking citizens speaking their minds; and now they are trying to ban that…" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-10-02/uks-conservative-party-declares-war-youtube-twitter-free-speech-common-sense

At this point, it's impossible to distinguish the international bad guys from the domestic bad guys as the latter group is often responsible for starting and supporting the former group. Not to mention both groups primary existence and power base rests on the initiation of force. The propaganda machine is a positive feedback mechanism which has no use for truth - ie X (drugs, "extremism," hate-speech) is bad therefore the state needs to expand at the expense of your freedom. Furthermore, by opposing your freedoms being stripped, you are supporting X. Different day, same old non sense.

A lot of good responses so far. I beg your pardon, mine is similar to what has already been said. A proposition is either true or false. Adding a descriptor like "entirely," you create a loop hole of infinite definitions. "Entirely" has no philosophical value. The sophist put "entirely" in front of coercion so that they can change coercion to mean what they want it to: structural violence, racism, pollution, and their favorite of all exploitation. By using loose terms like "entirely" and "beneficial," this argument becomes the fallacy of adjectives, not an argument of logic.

Is it possible to come up with a universal LEGAL definition of consent before sex? Outside of a 5 page notarized legal document, not sure how that could be. Even if the parties both sign, one party can claim they were intoxicated ex post facto and void the the contract, and legally move to prosecute the other party. The state has now managed to insert itself into any and all sexual activity between consenting adults IF they are enrolled in college. The supply side of victims is well and thriving. What could possibly go wrong? SMH from article:"De Leon has said the legislation will begin a paradigm shift in how college campuses in California prevent and investigate sexual assaults. Rather than using the refrain "no means no," the definition of consent under the bill requires "an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/29/california-bill-requiring-college-students-to-give-consent-before-sex-becomes/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_fn

Whenever I hear a man (or woman) declare "I am feminist," the first question I want to ask is compared to what?If you are working towards a free society, would you go around declaring yourself a republican, democrat, green? You might, but people would look at you like you had an arm growing out of your head because that terminology is only of use in a statist system. I would challenge any self described feminist, including Stef, to explain why and how if those labels aren't of use in a free society, why are they are of use now?

Infowars (Jonestown) and the Loose Change folks are not my idea of a reliable source. That sort of claim requires a massive amount of evidence. If true, are we supposed to believe there is a media conspiracy to not report this story? (edit 2 days after first post)Like shirgall and OP stated, the FBI report shows 0 murders. That does seem odd, indeed. Pinning your journalistic integrity on that one reports seems odd as well. According to Snopes, there are two reports for each state/jurisdiction. One report is produced by feds (the FBI) and one report is produced by the state (state police) in question. The can, and do, have conflicting number for the category of murder. How and why they have conflicting numbers is worthy of suspicion. You have to wonder if this type of anomaly is a deliberate attempt to troll places like infowars. http://www.snopes.com/info/news/sandyhoax.asp

Like dsayers points out, if you want to stop bullying, it would be best to look at the biggest bully first. That would be .gov. Or how about a parent hitting a child. That is text book example of bullying. Let's hold our breath and wait for the fine folks at .gov to take on hitting of children.

The left have a lengthy track record of faking stuff to bolster their victim status. Their credibility is so damaged, I just assume whatever they say is made up crap until proven otherwise.

All puffed up with vanity We see what we want to see To the beautiful and the wise The mirror always lies

Correct. That is what youtube poster cernunnos makes a case for in his discussion with the video producer who tries, unsuccessfully to conflate the state with capitalism/property rights. I am confused. I thought the video was arguing against capitalism and proffering socialism. The arguments are quite muddled and not well thought out.

BTW this video briefly shows Stef @ 1:13. I wouldn't suggest watching this video, unless you are a glutton for punishment or sympathetic to communism. It's the typical leaders are bad; capitalism produces leaders; therefore capitalism is bad. Anywho, about half way down the page an interesting exchange takes place. This cernunnos guy does a fantastic job of implementing the Socratic method to reveal the inconsistencies of the video/anarcho communism. Look for cernunnos Just out of curiosity, how do "left" anarchists define capitalism?

You can tell there is a lot of abusive history by the kid's obedience and compliance with self torture. That "mom" is a vile piece of trash. The brother is clearly a cheer leader praising the exercise of power hoping it will gain him favor in the future. It's almost like, um, what is it? Oh yeah, politics.

Pol Pot did the best job he could do. But he was wrong! Trying to substitute passion for philosophy = train wreck. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3Glks3Dmu4#t=98

Who is the guy giving the terrible speech?

Who is more irrational, the religious or the statists? How is stolen money best spent?(podcast) This American Life has a good story about this topic. Of course, they don't see the issue in clear philosophical terms, but nonetheless the truth is not hard to spot for a typical FDR'r. The title of the podcast is Not-So-Simple Majority. I think it's worth a listen.http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives Now if this religious group actually believed their god was so powerful, how could he allow what they perceive as an injustice to exist in the first place. If an injustice is discovered and their god was so powerful, wouldn't the answer be to use prayer to remedy the problem? No, the solution for them was to garner the power of their god- the state, and dominate and rule over others.Allow me to quote a passage from Larken Rose's The Iron Web. "You were taught to resent, despise, and hate anyone who has anything you don’t have. You clamor for the state to tear other people down, steal their property, and give it you. And you call that fairness. The bible calls it coveting and stealing. You are not Christians. You are not Jews. You are not Muslims. And you certainly aren’t atheists. You all have the same God and its name is government. You are all members of the most evil, insane, destructive cult in history. If there ever was a devil, the state is it. And you worship it with all your heart and soul. You pray to it to solve every problem, to satisfy all your needs, to spite your enemies and to shower its blessing upon you. You worship what Nietzche called the coldest of all cold monsters. And you hate those of us who don’t. To you the greatest sin is disobeying your god - breaking the law you call it. As if anyone could possibly have any moral obligation to obey the arbitrary commands and demands of the corrupt, lying, delusional, megalomaniacs who infest this despicable town. Even your ministers, priests, and rabbis more often than not are traders to their own religions teaching that the commands of human authority should supersede adherence to the laws of the gods they say they believe in."Here is the video.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5mZ5FBHg0A&index=1&list=FLtFR0CO0Z3lbS1CL42e-4GQ

At least it's not fascism. Mooshell O the first bully lady, wife of the bully in chief, must be licking her chops at what the Japanese are doing. If they don't lose weight, just march them out into the country, strip them of their capitalist ways, and force them to do Jane Fonda workouts Khmer Rouge style. Yay healthy living!

There is nothing about male obesity because there is no men's movement, to my knowledge, endorsing fat acceptance.

As ancaps, we endorse and support freedom of association. Not holding my breath for a male only version, but I am sure Muslims would go for it. The question is will feminists be for or against gender based car services? http://time.com/money/3305393/new-taxi-service-is-like-uber-but-for-women-only/

Great vid. Thanks for posting.I think I heard something about 300 comments. Are you referring to an online exchange you had with someone?If so, how would you compare an online exchange with a face to face encounter?