Wuzzums

[quote name="utopian" post="421468" timestamp="1450915530" This woman is a great example of women as a whole. She has plenty of problems. She just goes along ignoring them all and doing her best to be happy. When I go along with her pretend world, everything seems fine. When I try to shed light on why she is having problems, she turns and runs away from me. But with her, at least in her pretend world, she offers me love. That is more than anyone else anywhere has offered me, all of their own accord. The story never changes with women. If she loves you in her fantasy then it's pretend love. There's nothing wrong, or philosophically incorrect to accept it and enjoy it. To make a crude metaphor, people pay good money to get the fantasy of being sexuality desirable but what will happen when they will run out of money? Fantasy is fleeting, reality is not. Being happy in reality will last till your last breath, being happy in a fantasy will last up to the point reality catches up. Another thing, are you happy with who you are? Because I reckon the answer is no, otherwise why are you content with her pretend version of you being the one she loves and not your true self?

Regarding the happiness of others discussion. Did it ever occur to you it might be a classic case of mistaking the world for yourself? Just because you find no joy when putting yourself in others people's shoes it doesn't mean they're as miserable as you are. Lots of people enjoy watching soccer where I'm from. Because I would rather watch paint dry it does not mean they would rather do that too and are just faking the enjoyment. I am also interested into finding out more about this woman you can't help yourself from not mentioning. You keep circling back to her, accusing philosophy as the reason you can't be with her.

Don't feed the trolls.

It's some good advice mixed in with prejudice. Now it sounds to me like it was written by a MGTOW, however it did teach me, a long time ago when I first read it, about personality disorders.

Relevant to this thread: 4chan's Guide to Avoiding Evil Women

Let's take a hypothetical. If humans are indeed either r or K, and only one subset of these is more likely to grasp the NAP, which one is it and why? The way I see it both initiate force in different ways. K's are a predatory subspecies thus they initiate force themselves whilst r's initiate force by proxy through K's. However K's are more likely to follow a principle regardless of personal benefits whereas r's only follow a principle if it's in their direct interest. Thus K's who follow the NAP are more likely to stick to it than r's. I theorize there's as much violence in a full K society as there is in a full r society. K's wouldn't initiate force against each other because they know the repercussions will be dire, thus it's best to be nice. R's wouldn't initiate force against each other because they're too busy playing victim. I like the NAP because it offers a solution to both subspecies. R's are free to be as non-competitive as they want and K's are free to express their violent urges through self-defense. Everybody wins, except those that do not adhere to the NAP.

How offensive can something be until it becomes funny? This video holds the answer.

Just when you think this whole thing can't get any more ridiculous these people still find a way to surprise you. To the Onion's dismay, reality has become more absurd than satire.

People always have an ulterior motive for what seems to be irrational behavior. If they don't get any advantage by holding some false belief they will easily shed it in the face of contradictory evidence. When an animal is attacked it will raise its defenses so it might be that when faced with hard contradictory evidence, in order to protect the hidden benefits, some people will raise their mental defenses higher. Like Santa Claus for instance. A child will be devastated when they find out he's not real not because they're suffering the loss of a person but because they're suffering the loss of presents. Imagine how easy it would be to convince people to give up faith if your argument is "there is no God BUT you'll still go to heaven after you die". It's the mental version of the sunk cost fallacy. You invested so much in a false belief that turning back now is just ludicrous.

#1 - Dyed hair

Does he mean the children included? Because that might sway my opinion on his statement. ISIS supporters are in some manner responsible for ISIS' deeds, so by this logic their families are in some manner responsible for ISIS' deeds. I wouldn't say they should be punished in an equal fashion, that's going way too far. His response seems to be pure K. I'm prone to irrational hatred too when I feel aggressed upon, it's biological. After the Paris attacks I fully expected there to be a "Burn a Quran Day" or a "Bomb The Mosques With Pork Meat Day" but nothing of that sort happened. Fighting a warfare with flowers is completely alien behavior for me. Nevertheless, it's the media. I either have to hear it from him directly or see some official statement to even remotely consider passing judgement on the guy.

What if it's FDR brand related rather than Stef related? An idea of what might be in the box is for example books written by the people Stefan interviews; and they could be sent a month in advance of the interview so as to give ample time for listener preparation. There are also several craftsmen and artists in the community and they could make FDR related paraphernalia. They could add their own creations to the package, it would be a form of donation to FDR and a way of marketing themselves.

Don't distance yourself from the conversation by posting Stef's vids. You're offering them the "you're just parroting this guy's opinions" strawman on a platter. Make the arguments yourself, that way you force them to deal with you directly rather than being a proxy for someone they never met.

Captain America has always been one of my favorite superheroes. All his sentences are either a piece of philosophy or a great one-liner.

We should all agree on an uniform, shave our heads, and talk in a coded fashion just to mess with people.

"I would [die] to save two brothers or eight cousins." - JBS Haldane The genes as you said are not unique but the combination of genes is. There's nothing worthwhile in Shakespeare's works on an alphabetical order, it's the combinations of letters and words that counts.

People have been moving from one part of the world into another all throughout time. The question is not whether to let them in, the question is whether to let them in indiscriminately the answer to which is if course HELL NO. When I move to another country they have to check to see, off the top of my head, if I'm not some rapist murderer. This check-up is what pro-multiculturalism people are fighting against. What sane person would want to move to a country that doesn't care about whether you're a criminal or not? A sane person would know such a country will select for murderers to emigrate to, which is why they will try to get into more stringent countries where it will be safe from all the murderers they're NOT letting in. Obama said they should let these immigrants in because the US has a tradition of tolerance and it shouldn't fear a bunch of orphans and widows. This is factually incorrect, 80% of the migrants are adult single males and the US rounded up all the japanese citizen and put them in camps in order to keep an eye on them until WW2 was over. If you wanna let in all the orphans and widows then by all means let them in, it's not as if letting in less than a dozen people will have any impact. Here's another WW2 example. Countless jews fled from nazi-occupied Europe to the US. Where are all the countless stories of jews raping local women and going on welfare? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44vzMNG2fZc&index=

The state does what the state does regardless of the beliefs and wants of its citizen. When was the last time muslims protested the actions done by radicals in their name? When was the last time citizen protested the actions done by politicians in their name? The beast that rules over us is the same. Less advanced cultures call it religion, more advanced cultures call it the state. I am responsible for neither and I condemn them both.

The aftermath of the Paris attacks are a textbook example of how r's deal with conflict/war. Until now I was under the impression that when the shit hits the fan, r's will cow down and leave K's to sort everything out. What happened instead was them "solving" the conflict by ignoring it altogether. It's true r's and k's are separate species because I just can't get my head around their behavior. More from The Rebel Media: As I was getting riled up after the attacks someone told me not to get my hopes up about these people seeing the light because it will all be forgotten in a week or so. He was wrong, it was barely one week, they forgot about it in one or two days. Just boggles the mind.

I apologize for the clickbait title. After the Paris attacks I firmly believed that people would finally open their eyes and see what's right there in front of their eyes. ISIS did its absolute best, years of relentless labor, to help the West out yet they spit in ISIS' face and firmly refused to give them any credit whatsoever. I mean some of them sacrificed their precious lives in order to get attention yet they still blame foreign intervention and the jews. Just check this article out: Paris attacks: President Francois Hollande welcomes 30,000 refugees in the next two years Gavin Mcinnes said it best: "You can't make jokes about this anymore because it's already so absurd." You know how when you present counter evidence to people with strong beliefs what it does is just make their belief stronger? I think we're witnessing this on a global scale. These people went left for so long they finally hit the wall of sanity. They didn't stop, no, they just ploughed right through and continued to go left. Absurdity is the new renewable energy source, if only we could find a way to harness it. French father explains terror attacks to his young son

That wasn't what I was trying to say. What I said was if you easily give up on your beliefs because someone threatens you with death then it just means those beliefs aren't really valuable enough for you.

You also mentioned statists. However muslims are born in the fate, they don't really make a choice, so you could say they're following the trend of the region they're born. This just means islam is the superior culture because you abdicated so easily.

So why aren't you as dedicated? If you think dedicated people are scary, imagine how scary you can be if you but your everything into it. If someone wants you dead for your beliefs you want their death right back at them ! And I don't know if I would use "dedicated" in describing people that just follow a trend. Is a leaf dedicated in going wherever the wind might happen to blow?

The Gaadfather to the rescue:

Let's assume you're in a tank. Are you still afraid of speaking out towards islam?