shirgall

In France you get a vigilante death sentence for insulting Islam... but in Saudi Arabia you only get 1000 lashes and 10 years in jail. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30744693

Unfortunately this is tantamount to politics by bumper sticker. It's easier if you think about the Latin. Left -> Sinister Right -> Dexter You get either the devil or a serial killer. The real answer is that giving in to the "left/right" dichotomy surrenders you to a narrow view of political thought that looks like a number line. There are an incredible number of political points of view. Instead, call things what they are.

That's kinda my point, getting there means fixing that. No one would be saying, "there oughta be a law" or "there oughta be a king" and that's a revolutionary social change.

I would research "sciatica" by the way. Sometimes when sitting there are nerves in the lower back that can get pinched that make it uncomfortable to sit in certain ways. Not saying this is your case, but you may find it interesting.

That's kinda broad, but the anti-establishment thing from that era is kinda legendary, don't you think? Maybe it looms larger to me as a child of the late-60s.

What lies at the heart of the evolutionary changes is a sudden shift of the debate to an unexpected place, where the battle lines have not been drawn and fought over for a century. Only a third of the people in the colonies wanted to break away from England, and the American Revolution happened because they manage to force confrontation. They never expected to win and forge a new country. But look at the attempts to move the debate that happened recently: the Tea Party and Occupy. Both started with a dissatisfaction with bailing out Wall Street, and then went in wildly different directions because of the old groups that co-opted them (conservative religionists on one side, and communists on the other). Once co-opted, neither side really did anything useful again, because they returned to the old battle lines that have existed for decades. The anti-Establishment rallying cry in Rothbard's work above reminds me a great deal of the same thing I was hearing when I was young and watching the struggles of Nixon, Carter, and Ford.

I don't know why it's so hard to see that the victim of people that don't play by the rules is people that do play by the rules.

"The behavior may have come naturally to Nick..." That is a horrible thing to say. She should be ashamed of her medieval sexist attitude.

Yeah, the defense against Alinsky attacks is to name the tactic for what it is and hold people to their own supposed standards.

Sometimes people get used to noise and they miss it so much it bothers them. People that have visited my rural environment comment on how quiet it can be. In the heart of winter, though, you can hear the highway and the train that are only a couple miles away. *I* hear them, but my city cousins cannot. But the other noises you mention, the yelling, the putting down... those are harder to run away from, and even harder for me not to propagate. I work on it. http://mynoise.net/ There are peaceful noises you can add back into your environment, at least. I totally get you

A missing factual and ethical underpinning is a minor problem that's easily overcome with the Tinkerbell effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinkerbell_effect Make it so!

Let's make this about free speech instead. I like that better. https://reason.com/blog/2015/01/07/the-white-house-on-charlie-hebdo-then-an

The key is that there is no change in supply. If you get there first, you can buy. If you get there later, it's sold out. The rest of that paragraph:

Yeah, "the evidence is obvious therefore there's something wrong with you" attack. That tactic is pure Alinsky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

The transition would certainly be a problem, but once you got there I suspect they wouldn't tolerate anyone trying to lord over others.

Three heavily-armed gunmen shooting up a newspaper office in France because they printed cartoons that offended their religion is hardly an immigration issue.

I didn't understand his video that way. The State creates the black market by creating the barriers to entry: taxes to profit from evading, bans to profit from violating, quotas to profit by exceeding... Without the State none of these profits can be realized. Free markets don't have black markets. But the State doesn't really exist (it has no mass or energy of its own), it's really an abstraction bunch of people using force to oppress everyone else. It's we give them our consent the State is really us.

Ah, I think see the difference. You are saying when someone demands respect they want you to defer to their authority. I was saying that when I respect something I have a bias towards some person or thing, but I can still challenge them or it if I have evidence that they are wrong. An important difference.

Pretty much all the best jokes of the movie...

Bad Grampa, perhaps?

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/NYPD-Officers-Shot-Bronx-Tremont-184th-Street-287600471.html Looks like two more police shot in the Bronx.

Stef addresses this question in his January 5th show: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42976-youtube-nypd-no-%E2%80%9Cunnecessary%E2%80%9D-arrests-the-stefan-molyneux-show-january-5th-2015/

Respect is an outward behavior of appreciation for virtue. The virtuous should never demand nor expect respect, and not confuse it with gratitude. I can show respect for views, opinions, and ideas that came about by following virtuous processes. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I can even show respect for people who are religious, but nonetheless are doing virtuous things despite avowing such a belief. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, as long as I'm honest with myself about it.

Lionel checks in on this bizarre one...

Actually, I'm considering setting up my truck as an Area 51 Alien Autopsy for Independence Day...