shirgall

https://web.archive.org/web/20110511211719/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bnyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf

The underlying problem is that laws like that were made simply to gather power from interests. Now the people freed by this decision "owe something" to the campaigners than won the synthetic battle. A lot of lawmaking is influence-peddling, and this will be no different. The sane voices that claimed government had no place in regulating marriage are the ones that lost, no matter what the outcome.

Really? What gender has all the eggs? That's the natural monopoly I'm referring to.

I'm pushing my luck since I work for a Google competitor, but I observe that there's competition amongst search engines, and people will choose the engines that give the search results they want. I think the people making a stink want to devalue the concept of morality. They are cultural marxists (either knowingly or unknowingly).

I pretty much place all Abrahamic religions on the same scale. They all have the same base rules, even if they have been modified by later players.

That's not Stef's argument. He certainly places a higher emphasis on the value of eggs, and the natural monopoly that affords women, as well as the economic need to sustain pregnancy, childbirth, and child raising. It is no surprise that women naturally gained control over selection of breeding partners, use social pressures to keep the price of egg access high (to ensure economic vitality for child-raising), and intense social pressure to stop women who subvert the dominance paradigm.

http://m.snopes.com/jeanne-assam/

Sorry, the reinforcement of the "disposable male" jumped out at me from that story.

My experience is more like your niece's. I come from a pretty long line of atheists, and I have run into plenty of people that assumed I was rebelling against upbringing, and then wondered why I didn't want God if I wasn't rebelling. They don't like the answer, "there's no compelling reason to believe it and plenty of reasons not to."

You get plenty of stories of women sacrificing themselves for their children, and to most that's the equivalent.

Patriarchy!

That's the joke, I think, physically strong but emotionally fragile.

Well, the fact that she's a puppet of a man that fakes her voice and mannerisms for the sake of parody and comedy is even more of a farce... But she has always been portrayed as a strong female who charms as much as bullies to always get her way (or her man), and shows when something is "too much" in a light-hearted way.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/state-spam-laws.aspx

In contrast, the "Mom Bod": http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/06/25/mom-honest-photo-perfect-post-baby-body-goes-viral/?intcmp=features

"One drop of water will cover the world if you spread it real thin." - Kent Hovind

That has little resemblance to anything I'm familiar with. Did you come up with it yourself? It's quite novel.

The word "parasite" bugs you? I'll see myself out.

What is the "church of evolution"? Evolution is a label given to a family of theories including speciation, natural selection, and others. All of the encompassed theories are backed up by evidence, and the associated scientists in each domain actively look for evidence that would require the theories to be changed. Scientists like finding results that break theories, because updating a theory to include new evidence (and therefore be a better theory) is how scientists get famous. If you think gravity is imaginary please demonstrate its non-existence. The theory of gravity works and there has been no evidence to require that it be changed despite the best efforts of a lot of people. You don't have to know how it works to see that the force of gravity has real, predictable effects on the world around us.

Lifeboat scenarios represent false choices by limiting options. They limit freedom of action. I'll ignore the remaining invective of your post and claim we're done here.

If it's in your self-interest, but it's a violation of the principle, then the principle is supposed to govern. The principle governs because it is the right thing to do. Lifeboat scenarios are fun thought experiments, but are a waste of time compared to other things you could be doing.

Self-defense is not a violation of NAP.

https://www.coursera.org/course/rprog

NAP is a chosen positive obligation, and its adherents are welcome to defend themselves from those that do not choose to follow it. No need for any higher order construction.