Mister Mister

In general, there are a lot of problems with the "justice" system, my guess is that really only 5-10% of the people in jail really need to be separated from society, the rest are victims of the State having legislated crimes out of thin air, and the court system bullying people into plea bargains. That said, there are definitely cases where women who have done horrible things get off easy because vagina. I wonder if a way to eliminate racial/sexist bias would be to have the person doing the sentencing, have only the facts of the case, not know the identity of the people involved. I know some have proposed this.

don't know of anything atm, but it seems like it's only a matter of time before something comes along. I think the future of social media is not a centralized corporate structure like Facebook or Twitter, but something more open-source and customizable, where we connect directly to one another, rather than through some central hub where they can control trends of information flow.

Marriage can be thought of as a contract. I think it's actually healthy to think of it this way, and be more explicit than the cliched vows of "Love, Honor, and Obey", for women, and "Love, Honor, and Cherish" for men. I've played several weddings professionally, and I don't believe I've ever heard of any vows that include "I vow to have sex with you when ever you ask". I doubt that many, if any women would accept such a contract. Or if they did, what would they ask for in return - total control of your bank account? It's true, the power in relationships has swung way too far on the woman's side, but this is taking it way too far the other way I think. The answer of course is as much voluntarism as possible. As men we should strive to be someone that women want to have sex with, just as women should strive to be someone that men want to protect and provide for. Calling on the State to guarantee you sex from a woman would be just as corrupting as using the State to guarantee resources has been for women.

lol liberals have this funny habit of just repeating what someone said with a shocked and outraged tone, "Can you believe he said X???? He must be shunned and ruined forever!!!!". They forgot about the part where you actually have to PROVE WHAT THE PERSON SAID IS WRONG.

nice vid as usual but you gave Stef a kinda fat face.

Sorry I'm not sure what you mean. I don't know what there is to defend or justify. The OP was simply pointing out things happening in the world that we don't hear about because of selective media bias. This is a criticism of BLM, because they present a supposedly Universal moral argument - "black people are being unjustly harmed and no one's doing anything about it", but they only bring it up when it's a white cop, and usually the media omits key details, or even fabricates narratives as in the case of Mike Brown. And the hatred and resentment they stoke only leads to more harm being done, as we're seeing in Milwaukee. Meanwhile, the key members of BLM are making a lot of money, including Shaun King who is pretending to be black and steals money from charities, they are getting a lot of press, and moving their way into proximity to political power. But they're not actually helping anyone. You and many other people try to attack those of us who make this point, by saying we're "blaming all black people" which is a collectivist nonsensical argument. That's why I called you out. So I don't really understand what you're criticizing me about.

I thought it was interesting the practice of "ear-notching", as a primitive version of property rights. And that these people must have a culture and perhaps a biology that makes them trust one another, or this would never work.

I hear this response a lot. Something like, "because you point to blacks victimizing blacks, you're saying all black peoples' problems are their own fault." It's a complete straw-man. Only a collectivist thinks of human beings harming other human beings as "bringing it on themselves". When a black person harms another black person, that's one individual harming another individual. The overwhelming amount of violence towards black people is from other black people, from spanking to gangland murders. Ignoring this issue is harmful to black people.

Not sure I understand the question lol...compared to what? What would you be trying to achieve by doing this? What is the political climate where you work, and your tenure status (if that's what you're worried about)? What do you mean by "accuse them of racism?". Are you just trying to prove a point? Interesting topic though. In Stef's last talk with Dr. Duke Pesta, he mentioned how mistaking a Guatemalan for a Mexican is some horrible racist "micro-aggression", yet this same ideology will gleefully label the wonderful multicultural diversity of Europe all as "white people".

can't watch

I've heard a lot about Trump not paying money that he owes to people. Does anybody know more about this?

Every cosmology relies on the infinite, in some way or another. Sometimes they call it singularity, or by other names, but sooner or later your model of the universe is going to involve some kind of infinite, or division by zero, where your ability to conceptualize breaks down. This doesn't mean there is a sky ghost you can appeal to for favors, but it remains an open question about the nature of reality.

Thanks for the feedback guys.

This summer, my duo Honey Mustard released our first EP. We put a lot of work into it, and I think we are both very talented, and have merged our talents into a really great sound with a lot of potential moving forward. Just wanted to put it here, because many members of the forum have been very supportive. I also feel like discovering FDR helped me to be more introspective, open and honest with myself, which has certainly had an impact on my songwriting. You can stream it here, or download it for $6, or if you want a hard copy, e-mail [email protected], and I'll send you a copy for $12, shipping included. Thanks for listening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L104LViQeIw

Yes, that sounds right to me. Is this your question, why do different people with similar personality types choose one non-conformist position rather than another? Especially assuming that libertarianism is a rational conclusion and those others aren't, what makes the difference? It's a good question anyways.

yes, rosecodex on chess.com

Yes, basically I try to get at least one serving of whole grains - brown rice, steel cut oatmeal, buckwheat porridge, etc., nuts/seeds - flaxseed, hemp seeds, sunflower seeds, pumpkin seeds are my favorite, and 2-3 servings of legumes, especially lentils. You can make a big batch of lentil soup every week, and that's cheap and tasty protein for every day. It's true that plants don't have the protein of animal products, but they also digest way easier, so they key is eating more often - snacking on hummus or some kind of nut mixture is good for this. Also, unless you are trying to build muscle or maintain a very muscular physique, you don't need as much protein as the average meat-eater eats. Every now and then I'll have eggs or fish, and I still cook with butter sometimes, but on a normal day it's all plants.

That's a strange way to frame the question. This was actually the topic of the very first call-in show, and it's something libertarians have been wondering for a long time. Like many things, I assume it's a complex interaction of mostly genetics, some environment, and a little bit of choice. The genetics involves a combination of high IQ, and a tendency towards rebelliousness and non-conformity, willingness and even eagerness to challenge cultural assumptions. The environment has to do with how one was parented, positive or negative experiences with the State and with authority, as well as your exposure to these ideas. For many of us, as soon as we heard Ron Paul or Stef or someone else present a libertarian or anarchist perspective, we were immediately intrigued. And there is some amount of choice as well, which basically comes down to integrity and curiosity vs. conformity and social comfort.

Gender is a word that was originally applied to languages like Latin or German or French or Spanish, where nouns are male or female or sometimes neuter. It has been used by 3rd wave feminists and postmodernists to attack traditional masculinity and femininity, and present the idea that "gender" - which could loosely be defined as behaviors traditionally associated with the male and female sex, is entirely a "social construct". In other words, they argue that there are no qualities or behaviors which are inherently, or biologically, male or female - rather that certain behaviors such as strength, hard work, and leadership for men, nurturing, passivity, and vanity for women, were invented by society and imposed on children, in order to create an oppressive class structure. And that to argue otherwise is oppressive to women and homosexuals and trans people. The trans issue is particularly interesting because it kind of throws a wrench in this whole idea. If gender is just a construct, then being trans doesn't really mean anything. But if there is something distinct from the male and female brains, then it would be possible to have a female brain in a male body and vice versa. I've often noticed that, ironically, a lot of trans women present as more traditionally feminine than many modern women.

cool channel, thanks

Right, but at the same time, they won't allow insurance companies to compete across state lines...

The big ones that I can think of are that, though the President is the Commander and Chief of the military, Congress is supposed to declare war, which they haven't done since Korea - Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria have all been undeclared wars, not to mention all the lesser meddling they have done in countries like Cambodia, Somalia, Yemen, Nicaragua, Grenada, and so on, often in secret. It's not really clear, however, what the President is authorized to do without a formal declaration of war, so this, like many issues, is in kind of a gray area. Also, there is no authorization for a central bank like the Federal Reserve, and the Constitution says pretty explicitly that only gold and silver can be used to pay taxes and debts. Furthermore, there is no authorization for the Federal government to have any authority over things like education, healthcare, transportation, drugs, energy, race relations, labor laws, and so on. When these things go to the courts, they'll often cite things like the "promote the general welfare" clause, or the power to "regulate interstate trade" as basically an excuse to do whatever they want. The 10th amendment makes it pretty clear that these are all issues that should be left to the states. This was specifically put in because there was a debate in the early years of the country, between strict constructionists, who argued the government should have only powers specifically granted to it, and federalists who argued the government should have all power except what was specifically prohibited. This question illustrates the problem with something as a Constitution, and Statist Law in general - they can interpret it however they want, to do what they want, and us commoners have little to no power to enforce a stricter view of the document upon them. The Constitution is a cute idea, in fact, it is quite brilliant given how revolutionary and concise and liberal (in the classical sense) it was at the time. Nowadays, it is only useful, as you said, to show how government does not obey its laws, and how attempts to use the State to limit it's own power will fail.

you mean with the Muslim father of the soldier who spoke at the DNC?

My experience/impression, is actually that crazy is more often leveled at women, whereas "mean" or "asshole" is more often leveled at men.