Mister Mister

That's a little vague though. It seems to me like good parenting would certainly involve reminding a child of their mistakes. Rubbing their face in it, teasing or ridiculing them about it, borders on abusive though. But I don't see proof that his children "fear his displeasure". Seems to me like you're reading a lot into a facial expression.

at what cost?

I don't see that all the downvotes are really justified. You make valid points and are obviously passionate, but haven't been insulting or manipulative. I would not say Trump is a warmonger, but neither is he a non-interventionist. His perspective in foreign policy, as in immigration, and trade, is to do what is best for average Americans. So if there are people out there that are a threat, he advocates destroying them, but not intervening in the affairs of the world toward some humanitarian or globalist ends. In particular I find the idea intriguing, of charging Japan, Korea, and countries in Europe, for US military presence there. If it were me, I would just pull all the troops out, but people always freak out and complain about how bad that would be - Putin would invade the Baltics, N Korea would invade S Korea, and so on. So Trump's approach is, "fine, what's it worth to you?". The effect would be positive on the budget either way. I don't necessarily agree with the above positions, but that's how I understand they are arrived at. I don't think they are 100% right, but still they are way better than the budget-destroying, neocon mad world domination policy we've had the past several decades. If Trump is such a war-monger, why do the neocons hate him so much?

This kind of global utilitarianism, assumes that it is everyone's obligation to "solve" everyone's problems, and also ignores the fact that there are massive conflicts of interest between and among people in the world. There is no "we" who unilaterally desire to solve all these problems: do the addiction counselor and the drug dealer equally want to solve the problem of drug addiction?

Nobody "formulates" society in the absence of a State, that's the point. Without a state, society is organized around clear, rational, universal principles, which are understood and agreed upon by most everyone in society. In the same way that language tends to be universal and agreed upon by a society, though it makes small changes each generation, but doesn't need a centralized institution of some Grammar Nazi Police banging on everyone's door to get them to obey language. Rather, the central ethics of Peaceful Parenting, Reason, Empiricism, Non-Aggression, Negotiation, Private Property, Trade, must replace the current culture of Statism, Democracy, "Disciplining" Children, Emotional Manipulation, Propaganda, and Taxation, in order for a free society to come about.

That's a good question. The answer is probably because there is a stigma against this sort of thing. In the case of lion hunting, the money that rich thrill-seeking Westerners will pay to be able to shoot male lions (which is helpful for population control, as male lions will kill the cubs of other prides), is very helpful to many African governments, and has incentivized them to maintain lion populations, and by corollary their environments. So, while shooting lions may be offensive to many environmentalists, it's actually been great for environmental preservation. The same could be true of elephants and rhinos potentially, if the well-wishers would keep their nose out of things they don't understand.

why aren't women called creeps?

Hi and welcome to the boards. Are you actually Jean Claude Van Damme?

Good comparison. I would add, that they both assume that people who mean to do harm are going to obey signs on the wall.

Most feminists couldn't define masculinity or femininity. Another thought that occurred to me, is that feminists are okay with masculinity in the form of the State as long as it serves their interests.

If a really smart or really tall person is born, like IQ 160 or 7 feet tall, and he has lots of children, that raises the collective IQ or height of the genepool, despite regression to the mean. Does that make sense?

Any time you are using the word "seems" in a philosophical context, pause and reflect, you may be on shaky grounds. The foundation of UPB, as I understand, is that, though it is true that morality does not refer to anything in reality: "should" statements don't compel matter in the same way gravity or electricity does, "rights" are not a property of human beings the way hair-color or warm-bloodedness is, in order to make "is" statements, you must refer to certain "oughts". Furthermore, in order to engage in a rational debate, you are assuming particular "oughts". Hume's very argument implies an ought, in that he is saying "oughts don't exist in reality, therefore you OUGHT not to apply them to human behavior!!!!".

women have more choice of mates, as it is easier for them to turn down men than it is the other way around. Men tend to be the ones asking, and women the ones acquiescing or rejecting. So if a woman says yes, most men will stay with her until things get reaaaallly bad. Furthermore, women have evolved with the capacity to distinguish between men who are dependable, and men who aren't. nearly every culture has cues to help recognize this, and also understands that the less dependable men can be more physically and sexually attractive in some ways. So part of the problem is women's choices, but even more important in my opinion, is the breakdown in cultural communication of this information to men and women - any limits on sexual "freedom" is considered oppressive and old-fashioned, and the idea that women at all should have to rely on men in any way during the child-rearing process is misogynistic. the analog for men is that oftentimes the most physically attractive women are the most shallow and manipulative and potentially abusive. so for a woman to say she didn't know a man was dependable, is like saying a man didn't know a woman was crazy after dating her for year. still, it's understandable that a man could get in this situation, and part of the responsibility lies on his family and community to protect him from these kinds of women. On the personal level, I might ask your girlfriend if she thinks you are reliable. Also, do you know about her family history, and what bearing, if any, that might have on the issue?

I think it is a question of Self Knowledge, so that you don't selectively react with emotional prejudice against arguments which make you uncomfortable.

Traditional martial arts don't offer that much useful stuff, for several reasons. One, is that many of the martial arts like kung fu or aikido are more mystical, and haven't tested themselves empirically against resistance, through sparring and competition. The styles like karate or tae kwon do that have developed through competition, are still based on fixed rules, which don't apply in a real situation. Even in mixed martial arts, many of the most effective techniques are illegal - biting, eye gouging, shots to the groin, small joint manipulation, and so on. I believe Krav Maga teaches many of these things. If you do want to go with a martial art, my understanding is that Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is probably the best, as it deals with the worst case scenario of being on your back with someone on top of you. Otherwise, the most important thing is threat recognition and avoidance of potentially dangerous people or situations, and arming yourself. If you do get into a situation where you feel your life is threatened, act decisively and explosively, not to punish or hurt your attacker, but to create an opening to get away and get help.

Some of that is true, but it's very difficult to say how much of "gender roles" are socially enforced, and how much they are biological, and how much they adapt to economics. We were only able to relax gender roles in the 20th century, because the society had accumulated enough wealth and capital so that it didn't require as much labor to run a household, and jobs moved from hard labor and manufacturing, to services, where women could better compete.

Sorry if I misunderstood. I'm not sure I accept your qualification though. The majority of the US for most of it's early history was Protestant Christian, yet we had a Separation of Church and State. IS, on the other hand, is not a majority as I understand, they are just the most aggressive, dedicated, and well-armed group in the region.

right, Germany and Japan have high IQs, but were not nice places to live 80-90 years ago. sure India is a democracy, but my understanding is they have massive problems with corruption and multiculturalism. we think of corruption as Hillary Clinton lying about e-mails, or GW Bush giving no-bid oil contracts to Halleburton - in India corruption means having to bribe 5 different government workers just to get a driver's license.

??? what does IS have to do with a free society? It is entirely an effect of statism

Eric July from this band has been on the podcast Part of the Problem a couple times, he's great.

please do call in

in common law there are generally accepted homesteading principles with regards to ownership of land - specifically, you have to enclose land, and develop it, OR have it transferred from someone else who owns it. the government doesn't adhere to these principles, it just draws lines on maps and says MINE. Oftentimes, no one from the government has even set foot on the land in question when they seize it. So, if this is a legitimate form of owning land, the government should allow it for you or me. I should be able to draw a circle on a map in the forest in Montana, plant a flag in it, and start taxing everyone who lives within those lines...what do you think the government would to? I do think it is interesting to hear a statist concede that governments own all the land however. his second point is "it's not theft if you receive something in return". That's fascinating. Again, if it is just for them to do, it should be just for all of us. Try washing your neighbors car, and stealing $20 from his house. How would the government respond? The third point about how we get to choose how the money is spent, is hugely problematic. let's say we accept that: it only makes any kind of sense in a Republic, when only those who pay into the system have a vote, and the government cannot perpetually run deficits. but if we accept his premise, the fact that nearly half of voters take more out of the system than they pay into it, AND that future generations are forced to pay for the debt which was borrowed to spend money they never voted on, still makes the system entirely illegitimate and unjust.

pack animals like humans have a general preference for those with more DNA in common. this is true across the animal kingdom. all you have to do is look at churches, who are not subject to discrimination laws, and have about 97% racial homogeneity, to see this obvious fact. furthermore, we have brains that tend to notice patterns about different kinds of people, and make snap judgments, erring on the side of caution - your train station thought experiment demonstrates this nicely. I recently heard Steven Crowder tell a story about his rescue dog, that was found on the side of the road with a broken leg, that gets anxious, not around all black people, but specifically around young black males. this would make sense if this dog was attacked by young black males. I myself have been assaulted and threatened by young black males multiple times, and I experience this. The difference is, of course, you can't shame a dog for being racist.

The Antidote to Cruelty Coming out of the Closet

Obviously we would prefer the latter, but in general, as a man, a come on from a woman you think is beneath your value, is more of a flattery and less of an insult I think. Such a woman would usually not be called "creepy" but instead would be thought of as desperate or pathetic maybe.