Soren

How long did it take to research this?

Well as it is gravity that drives the mechanism which creates light, its fair, human interaction is limited timevise. Sure you turn the stored chemical energy in your body into potential kinetic energy, driven by gravity. But all energy production requires human work to keep functioning.

Why do you care about the nr of species? Why is it important to you?

But why not focus that tranning and dedication on something that will make you more unique, than just another, in the endless stream of meat punching bags that litter the roads of history. Keeping fit is great and If you want the ultimate in strength, speed and skill try dancing, if you need something where pain is a major challenge try climbing.

Why do "you" want to hit people for Money?

Well I don't know what to do, but personally I am a total coward around people like that, just blend in to the background. If I have to say something then its along the lines of "yeah thats a really bad situation" maybe I would go as far as saying that shooting people for not supporting the soldiers is not something I agree with. And then I would just stay away from that person as much as posible.

Allright. Well I think that is a good way to say why we should not eat humans, as I don't see many "books" on the subject of grass eating made by cows.

Ethical inconsistancies, you mean like vegans who have no moral problems eating a living organism if it dosen't feel pain the same way they themself do? I was merly point out that killing and eating animals which some vegans consider "abuse" of animals. Might not be considered bad by a well treated child/adult.

Some people are very much against abusing animals but have no problem abusing humans. Hitler being the prime example.

Can you give a brief of the arguments, I already feel disgusted and I don't want to end up on some child molestation IP list?

Well they don't have a human consiousness, as we can emprically tell. I personally think, and its just my thoughts, that animals expirence the world in a similar fashion to the way we do, this constant "movie" rolling before their eyes, they experience stimuli. The big difference is how they react on stimuli, how it seems they are unable to reflect on their own actions, stimuli-respons learning. They are organic robots or biological machines as you say, their consciousness is just their "OS" plants have a very different "OS", in that regard the capability of the human mind is what makes us different and gives us free will otherwise we are mostly biological machines by weight too. They are part of the envoirement that surrounds us and is just as valid a food as other living organisms. So why don't I treat them the same as a flower, because of the value they provide is different. Because of their physical features they can be easy to project emotions on too and empathize with.

So Lions are evil? And are animals just free to treat us like they want to? Letting animals be what they are, what about animals which have been breed to be food? When comparing humans to animals the important difference is that we are humans and they are not humans. They can't poses property, they can't be reasoned with, they can't be responsible, they don't look like humans, they don't act like humans, they don't think like humans, they are physiological different. Sure there are similarities because of our shared animal past, but they still are not human and not close to being so.

I love that "pile of uncooked chicken breasts" comment, feeling the burn.

I clearly wanted to respond since I did. Given what you wrote I could not grasp why you replyed to me because its like I don't even exist, you are just off on some rant. When did I refuse anything in this thread? If it is true? It is true, that women are smaller and weaker physically on average. The video is about how women mitigate perceived risks. What is the purpose of this comment other than I guess disempowering women?How am I granting them the victim card automatically, or is this comment even directed towards me? So you agree that women are smaller but you think that in a straight fight a woman has a good chance of matching a man? "..not very empowering" why are you suddenly employing feminist shaming tactics? Well actually I don't assume that, it could also be a aggressive larger woman og a group of aggressive women while I think w on w is a more fair fight the weaker you are the less likely you are of taking chances.Your comments seems very incoherent and not directed at me, it's more a collection of rants.

Take it as an insult if you wish I was genuenly curious, why you would reply to me with all those assumptions?

Excuse me, why are you talking to me when its clearly a conversation you are having inside your own head?

You are right by that definition we are not part of the government. My thinking was that we all support the government if we live in a modern state. I pay taxes. I used to vote, I use the government infrastructure and so on. Most of us have done things which in one way or another supports the government. I haven't really done anything observable to resist government other than typing so you can't prove that I don't support the government. Maybe I am just kinda scared that you would feel it was moral to shoot me if we meet and I confronted you about something. But okay I think I see what you mean, I don't think its morally wrong to attack the government. I didn't give more of an answer because I don't know and I don't want to spend time debating penalty right now.

Here is my thinking(not sure if its also stefs argument, but he has said something akin to it), In the modern state we are all part of the goverment whether we like it or not, the responsibility is spread out smearing everybody. On top of that we are all propagandized to the extreme. So we all start out in a roughly equal immoral state. So what counts are our actions afterwards, as I see it you can't just pick up a gun and go on a moral genocide, because the government is immoral. You are part of the government and you are no better in the outset. You have to judge the actions of the individual, as we know the cop uniform is just a costume. A cop confronting you is not an aggression more than any other person confronting you is an aggression, if you say its because he has a gun then you could equally well retaliate violently against a guy on the local shooting range who confronts you. If the cop points a gun at your or tries to arrest you and you have not committed any NAP violation that would validate this, you would be moral in defending yourself. Hope this makes sense All the 3 questions you first ask are really the same "can a guy with a gun be considered a treat if he confronts you". But as your questions point out you have to make a judgment yourself based on the situation and the nature of the confrontation. Any human who confronts you is a potential threat if they have weapons or not, as they are all "armed". To the next questions: Well I don't know what would have happened had he not attacked. The shop owner would be justified demanding restitution and compensation.

Well the cop in this case was protecting the property of another, which Brown had stolen thereby breaking the NAP. So the cop was acting in self defence on behalf of the shop owner. In what way does he confront you? If you are not in immediate danger then I don't think you can be justified in attacking them.

He stole and assulted people how would you place him on the high ground? Also aren't you effectivly saying that its okay to beat up any person which is employed by a goverment?

As the video is called "13 thing women avoid doing" it seems to me rather a view from the inside a woman head rather than a feminist argument for rape culture. And the woman might not always be thinking about getting away from rape as much as she is thinking about not being approached by guys who wants to date her.

Maybe its my propagandized upbringing but I don't find the second video that bad many of the situations have women in at greater risk due to their smaller statue and weaker physical abilities.

Don't know about you Guys but I find masturbation with free airflow to be just fine, putting your self in a near death situation seems highly dysfunctional to me. And why would he cut himself first or is that supposedly a lie?

Okay interesting question whether a DRO would ever chose to conduct a sting operation? Well I do not think its worth feeling slimy about it was not a NAP violation or something of that nature. And as an actor you will always be doing a kind of propaganda when you act.

Just out of interest what was the training aspect? what if you replaced FBI with DRO would the actions still make sense?