Wuzzums

"Racism" is the sound a leftist makes whenever someone does not agree with their opinion.

A principle is an universal rule of conduct. Some principles are moral like the NAP and some are very vile like kill all gays. However I wouldn't call the principles that are detrimental to my life evil because I define evil as going against your principles each time it's within your interest. Basically hypocrisy of any sort is evil, on a spectrum of course. Like if you have a principle that stealing is good I wouldn't call you evil unless you start complaining when other people steal from you. Some principles hold up longer than others. The NAP is not perfect because I don't know, for example, what should I do in a situation where someone verbally threatens my life and I also hold free speech as a principle. I can define threats as the initiation of force thus I can defend myself against them accordingly. I am not breaking the NAP but I am breaking the free speech principle. If a person knows they will suffer severe consequences over threatening someone verbally then they will inevitably censor themselves. The communist principle of there's no such thing as private property fails from the get-go. If the dictator's house is not his but the people's and I am part of the people then does it not follow than I have a right to live there as much as he does? This is why communism is pure evil. If a communist ever comes at me explaining to me the righteousness of his position then it simply follows I, as an anarcho-capitalist, can easily take each and every one of his possessions on the spot without calling it theft. Him defining that as theft is tantamount to him accepting the private property principle.

How is marriage done in the states anyway? What does a judge have to do with religion? I thought it was supposed to be a secular country. In my home country the way you get married is you go by the official civil union court thing where you sign the marriage contract then you're married. Nobody asks anyone what's their religion or beliefs, it's just a legal procedure. Then people can have a religious ceremony which is just a glorified tradition. You can get married by a priest but the state won't ever recognize it as a civil union unless you signed the previously mentioned documents.

Well I specifically said having principles which is different from stubborn. Can you give me some example of unpleasant heroes?

I think it's better to clearly define what we mean by "hero" rather than casting as wide a net as possible. To me a hero is one with strong principles that stands by them even in the face of adversity and does not compromise on them even if it's in their own best interest.

Sam Harris Tommy Robinson Edward Snowden Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I'm glad you were there for the child.

You're talking to yourself. I never once used the word country or referred to any countries. You are deluded if you think the people around you are capable of living in a free world. Be empirical, look at the facts. You constantly equate violence with the initiation of force. You may be justifying your revulsion towards justified violence by masking it as a moral argument. Tell me something, when someone comes at you with a knife will you be standing still or will you use violence to protect yourself? In a free society there will still be violence because there will always be people who wanna take things away from you. Freedom is not an utopia, freedom is the ability to fight for what is yours.

Of course something is not possible if you convince yourself it's not possible. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. What the hell, man? You're acting like some super keyboard detective for figuring out what I blatantly admitted to nor ever tried to hide. What part of me saying "I support other doing violence on my behalf that does not violate the NAP" is drawing attention away from it? You know. If you find some of my statements confusing you can flat out ask me and I'll respond. You don't have to go all covert about it trying to "catch me". I'm not a pokemon. This is your response to me that "proves" voting is tantamount to rape with "EIGHT" solid points. Kindly point those "EIGHT" solid points out. Oh my, god... dude. Telling of... WHAT? Telling of the position I said I hold? Telling you're having an emotional reaction to my posts? Telling of what? You're talking about institutionalized violence. Define it. I never used that phrase. I said the violence inherent in self-defense is moral and I fully support it. There is nothing immoral in Donald Trump killing the people that want to kill me.

Not with that attitude. I'm confused. Are you under the impression that in a moral and free society there won't be people who are paid to do violent acts? Violence is not immoral if it's not initiated. I'm a puritan when it comes to the non-aggression principle. People try to kill you, they forfeit their right to live. Actions must have consequences. You're referencing text you never sent or never provided a link to. All you said in response to me is that voting is tantamount to rape which is not true if your vote is the same whether in a democracy or not. Here's the current situation through analogy: The state is pointing a gun to my head and says: "Boy, you are going to get raped!" Me: "Oh, no!" State: "But don't worry! You get to choose your rapist!" Me: "What difference does that make? It's still immoral either way!" State: "Don't care, you will still get raped whether you vote or not. Here are your choices: Lena Dunham and Scarlett Johansson." Are there women out there I would choose over Scarlett Johansson? Absolutely. Will I stay at home and let the tide swirl towards Lena Dunham because I've got "principles"? No. Now do you understand my support for Donald Trump?

You equated voting with rape and I equated voting (for Trump in this instance) as self defense. It's still valid for any political candidate that you believe will save a country.

It meant Dr. Paul was a career politician. Trump was a career businessman. I don't trust career politicians. Right now I'm thinking I might very well join the statists. While savages are knocking at our door all the libertarian party is able to do is make a mockery of itself. Would you rather be some collateral victim or someone that supports a government that allows you to have principles in the first place? The initiation of force is immoral. Muslim murderers initiate force. Initiating force against muslim murderes is moral. A state that initiates force against murderers is not immoral. How's that for a principle? We're talking about the real world. Nobody here is arguing that democracy is moral in principle. What I am arguing for is that only a fool would relinquish the little control he has in a democracy because of some principle when that very little control might make the difference between life and death. I don't know how long you have been listening or a part of this community but this whole anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism thing is a long time affair. We will never live in such a world, however our grand children might have the opportunity. So isn't it our duty to stay on that path even if it requires us to go against one of our principles such as voting?

It's not murder if it's self defense.

Trump is not Dr. Paul. Trump is a candidate nobody thought would or could ever exist. Paul is a politician, Trump is a businessman. Paul is just another car, Trump is an airplane. Now is not the time for libertarian principles. Now is the time for irrational pride in western values and culture. Now is the time to fight for maintaining what we have in order to fight for libertarian principles in the future. I certainly hope so!

open-minded person = no emotional attachment, resistance to new ideas is because of skepticism which will disappear after receiving facts closed-minded person = emotional attachment, resistance to new ideas is a defense mechanism which will only strengthen after receiving facts

...as opposed to what?

We cannot accuse police for racial profiling when blacks commit more crime per capita. It's just common sense. Guy was not shot because he was smoking weed or whatever, guy was shot because he was a suspect in a robbery and had a gun on him. This is not a debate, nobody is arguing that he deserved being shot for his previous offenses. Stop trying to obfuscate the situation. The day a black man in a suit that's coming home from his accounting job gets shot by the police, that's when I'll listen to their grievances. Being a libertarian implies following the NAP, which means every single libertarian on the planet has to oppose terrorist organizations like BLM. It would be hypocritical not to.

Bloods and Crips unite because black lives matter. Isis and Hamas unite because muslim lives matter. Protestants and Catholics unite because christian lives matter. The more I try to push back all this madness, the more insane the world becomes.

I'm told in your old age this habit will evolve into you having these conversations out loud. It's not pathological but when it will happen to me I'll make sure I'll have a webcam running and just say to people I'm vlog-ing.

One idea is that men could be avoiding competition by not choosing the most attractive female. Your chances are far less to get the most attractive female when you're competing against high status males compared to when you're competing against average men for the attention of the average female. Attracting more men increases the chances of infidelity, and infidelity is not an attractive trait. So in a sense, a man can be more attracted to an 8 than a 9 simply because she does not come with the risk of becoming a cuck. Another idea is that an incredibly attractive woman which resorts to dating sites to find a partner is a clear red flag. What's the catch?

The comics giants, DC and Marvel, are more interested in numbers than anything else. Comics is an odd industry, it's fueled by people who love the medium but it cannot survive on fandom alone so they try to pander to as many people as possible. It's no secret, they've been doing every marketing gimmick you can think of since forever. The demographic they have to pander to is also very tricky: kids and people in their 20's. So what we have are stories for young adults marketed as children's stories thus you have 2 types of readers: people who read the comics as they are, and people who read inbetween the lines. The writer has to cater to people who only look at the outside story, like SJW's, and to the people who know the story is nothing more than just some SJW bullshit. An analogy would be a juggling stand-up act with the comedian trying to be a people's comedian and and a comedian's comedian. They got their numbers up when they turned Thor into a female, even though they didn't turn Thor into a female, they just put another character on the cover holding the hammer. Other attention grabbing ploys include: transforming Thor into a frog, Loki becoming a female (which everybody loved, and I mean everybody), revamping the Spider-Man narrative with a half hispanic half black half whatever kid, crippling Flash Thompson (Peter Parker's bully) only to become the superhero Flash Venom, turning the Punisher into Frankenstein's monster, turning the Punisher into Snake from the MGS series (everyone loves MGS), making Deadpool asian, making Reed Richards an evil villain, making Nick Fury black, killing Cpt. America, reviving Cpt. America, killing Cpt. America again, and so on. It's very easy for them to do these kinds of of changes because they can revert them the following month if it doesn't work out. They turn Iron Man into a 15 year old girl (that looks like a woman in her 20's, remember the 2 demographics they have to pander to?), it gets a lot of viral marketing, people that bought Iron Man comics up till this point will of course buy it out of inertia, people who are outraged might buy it out of curiosity, and people who think it's a good idea will suddenly become long-time buyers of Iron Man comics. It's just a great business idea, SJW's or not. Most of these are the tactics Marvel uses, and they work. DC however are really falling behind. They have issued a statement at some point saying that the whole comics branch of the company is a net loss, they don't scrap it because they need to keep their IP alive. There is no DC comics fan out there that actually likes DC. DC is to its characters what George Lucas is to Star Wars. The good comics that come out of DC are made for and by true-believers unfortunately there's no market for it. The market will redirect itself and it will cleanse comics of the SJW influence. Just remember, after Thor became a woman the sales dropped and now mysteriously Thor is back to his old self again.

Get back to me when you're married, then. Until then I stand by what I said.

Have you ever seen a happily married couple whose story begins with "I met him/her on OKCupid"?