Wuzzums

What makes you think that in an anarchist state you won't have the fear of death when confronting other people? It's your job to defend yourself and put the fear of death into those that threaten your life.

You're either trolling or have no idea how logic and words work.

I never said such a thing, in fact I have stated the exact opposite. You might be arguing with some alternate version of me that did, which will explain why you're so confused. Are you seriously trying to shame me for holding back empathy towards people that wanna fuck children? A little bit of work and your posts could make the basis of a killer stand-up routine.

You're obfuscating terms. Nobody said pedophilia is a crime. Child molestation however is. The people most susceptible to child molestation are pedophiles therefore there's a pretty good chance a pedophile is also a criminal. How is this not getting through? Ever time we explain how pedos are dangerous because they commit crimes you go on the defense explaining how not all pedophiles are like that. You're making the same classic SJW argument over and over again. For their sake I hope you'll never have any children, or be around any children for that matter.

Pedophilia is a harmful disease like any other and we must treat it as such: quarantine. Homosexuality is not a harmful disease and thus we must treat it as such: not be bothered by it. I don't know how much more simpler I can explain it. And you didn't answer the question of why this interest you so much. Is it because you view homosexuality as vile as pedophilia or do you view pedophilia as innocuous as homosexuality?

It is way simpler to judge a person by what they do and not what they say. A lot of people prefer the opposite mainly because they have such great pitches for the great persona of themselves. People of no consequence like to equate preference with action. They pursue titles but not skill. I think that when such a person hears the word "pedophilia" they immediately think it implies having molested a child, much in the same way they hear the word "mother" and assume some mothering was done. I don't think it's a cop out exactly to call one disorder evil over the other. Children fall under a different moral category than adults, they're not responsible for their actions in the same manner an adult is. The responsibility of making the choice to have sex falls equally between two people of the same moral category, i.e. two adult gays having sex. In contrast to this, because a child cannot be fully responsible for their actions the responsibility for sex between an adult and child falls fully on the adult. Thus the adult makes the choice for the child. This is not evil in itself but if you consider the choice is just made for the adult's gratification then the child is objectified as just being a means to an end and not the end itself. We can safely say that molestation is never in the best interest of the child. Pedophiles are the most likely people in the world to molest children, why wouldn't a society ostracize them? It's triage. If we don't want to get sick we have to identify the sick and avoid them as much as possible. When someone has an illness that is permanent and it affects the spreading of your genes negatively, the repulsion we feel towards pedophiles is understandable. People only started accepting homosexuality when they learned it's not contagious and it does not affect them in a negative fashion. Psychopathy might also be an inherent disease and people are just born that way. Should we accept psychopathy in the same way we accept homosexuality?

Thanks for the recommendation. It's very effective.

I find it charming how a 19 year old girl refers to the 2 or 3 years of her she spent working as having wasted her life. This video is really not for me, it's for other impressionable kids like her with no real guidance in their lives... however, I can't stop myself from pointing out the irony of her saying she's quitting social media by making the decision of living off social media.

I like how he clearly explains he's selling poison to people and the people love it, and the reporter still goes "...but you're selling poison!" as if he's offering some clever new insight. It reminded me of some of the interviews Ayn Rand had where she explains what she means when she's talking about "selfishness" and the reporter tries to look clever by accusing her of not being selfish because she does favors for her friends.

One of the most honest businessman I have ever seen. I'm in awe right now.

That example is not negligent homicide. Negligent homicide is not pulling the handbrake on your parked car which leads to someone getting run over. In this example you didn't do something you agreed to do which in that particular case led to someone getting killed. It's a very interesting question, how should we judge such people morally? Are they to be considered murderers? If so then we should look upon all people that neglect pulling the handbrake as murderers even though nobody else died because if we don't consider them murderers then basically we're punishing someone for having bad luck.

I think I just invented a method to differentiate fact from fiction that supersedes the scientific method. It's less time consuming, instant, and never fails: Does a politician endorse the theory? If yes then the theory is incorrect.

I've recently read "So You've Been Publicly Shamed" by Jon Ronson in which at some point he goes investigate the porn world where he talks to this actress that talks about how liberating (or something of that sort) to be fully exposed in a public setting, how wonderful it is to become shame-free. From the writing she seemed quite genuine. After he published her story she fell into a depression because she got a lot of backlash from people who considered her life depraved and/or coming from a nasty place. She got shamed for living in a non-shame world. There's a lot of implied insults there like how she has no self-respect, dignity, how she has no free will and something in her past made her to go down on this road and so on. What about the male performers? Do you feel as much pity for them as you do the women even though they have it much worse? Porn actors are people who get paid for how good they look, how they act in front of a camera, for what they're willing to do and can do in front of a camera, and for how well they can titillate the viewer so as to throw them into a fantasy world where they're in the middle of the action. So how is this any different than what Hollywood actors do? I get ethical when I hear that porn actors have gone through a rough life but I don't have the same reaction, or any reaction at times, when I hear the same thing about movie/tv actors. I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between the two yet I still have a different reaction to them. People probably fap more to Scarlett Johansson than some very famous pornstar (look at me pretending not to know the name of one, right?) so what is the actual product movies and porn are trying to sell and why are we boasting for enjoying one and not the other?

Robert Anton Wilson, referred to as the world's foremost expert on conspiracies when asked if there are any conspiracies he does not believe in he answered all of them. This was from a man that had an encyclopedic knowledge of conspiracies. He had a fascination about finding patterns where there were none and how ulterior events seem to fall in place as if by design. Much like a Rorschach test, if you're looking for patterns you're gonna find one for sure.

An old movie gem from 1963. It's a case study about how a relationship with an unstable person slowly deteriorates into the the victim having had his identity fully sucked out of him. The servant uses most tricks in the book like slowly pushing out people that might be able to help or throwing sex whenever the employer seems to wise up.

A demagogue if I ever saw one> "Free healthcare, free college, free porn, you and your loved ones will live forever, you'll never get fat, only attractive people will want to have sex with you, season 3 of Firefly, a hoverboard !"

I might be wrong but it did you put forth the proposition that anarchist force is not lethal force? Again, might be way off topic here, but I want to point out that anarchist force is self defense and self defense includes lethal force. Nevertheless, the state has poured millions maybe billions (citation needed) in researching non-lethal force: http://neweartharmy.com/Welcome.html Some seem feasible like the glue cannon and the... uhm... "sparkly eyes technique".

If we watch our language towards vulnerable people lest they kill themselves are we really doing them a favor or are we actively participating in enforcing their vulnerability? The only way they can toughen themselves up is by being exposed to adversity maybe in a gradual fashion. It's about the male and female approach to nurture. Women tend to protect their young from the world, men tend to toughen their young for the world. A balance has to be met because an extreme in either situation will lead to a failure to thrive. This is why in a group women tend to constantly compliment each other and men constantly insult each other. Failing to reciprocate in either group will lead to ostracism. The white feather campaign is like the mother of all shit-tests. If you don't enroll it means you're weak and cowardly for not fighting for your country thus women won't go out with you. If you do enroll it means you're weak and cowardly for being so easily influenced by a feather thus women won't go out with you. Catch-22.

I don't know how accurate is to put suffragettes and the white feather campaign under the banner of feminism. The 3 were separate movements after all. It's brilliant how feminism managed to co-opt all these movements to the point when we in the present think every movement is a feminist movement. Like atheism, they co-opted it and now it's atheism+. Or the universal suffrage movement which of course was co-opted and now we refer to it as the "suffragettes movement". Or how feminism is trying to co-opt the men's right movement by equating feminism with human rights and implicitly men's rights. It's like a virus that slowly replaces its host in order to get the credit for their achievements.

Immorality is defined as the "initiation of force". What Stefan has brought to the table is that he made morality the default position of humans and only through action, i.e. the initiation of force, can one become immoral. Usually when people refer to morality they think of it as something that implies action, it comes with an instruction set. From this definition of morality they derive the definition of immorality as being the opposite of morality. If x is a moral action, then the opposite of x is immoral. This gives way to a lot of interpretation and the opportunity for certain individuals to persuade people into doing what's not in their best interest. If it's moral to help the poor, then you're immoral for not helping the poor. However, if you do the opposite of that, define immorality first then define morality as the opposite of an immoral action there's no more confusion or room for interpretation. This is of course true if you define immorality as the initiation of force. It's just one simple instruction on how to live a moral life yet somehow people have a very hard time following it. You could define immorality however you want but it just becomes confusing. We all agree murder is immoral yet to put murder under the same category as lying seems like going overboard. The scenario "putting someone in an unavoidable situation" is too vague. Did the person at some point have the choice of opting out of the set of events that led to the unavoidable situation? If so then it does not break the NAP. An example would be someone drinking a bottle of Ipecac. They will vomit, it's unavoidable, yet they did choose to drink the bottle in the first place. If the person didn't have a choice in drinking the bottle of Ipecac then it's obvious that he was forced to drink it, therefore it's the initiation of force, therefore immoral.

At this point I can't even tell.

I see myself as a very rational human yet Stefan's arguments didn't really have an effect on me even though I saw the logic behind them. What I'm trying to say is that I didn't consider myself an anarchist up until I noticed how happy Stefan was, how he didn't have to deal with all the annoying things we trick ourselves into believing we have to do. The "emotional" (or the benefits) argument is what worked for me in the end. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist because there's logic behind the arguments, I'm an anarcho-capitalist because I want what Stefan has. "What's in it for me?" If you can answer this question for people they will come to you for advice.

I always have these kinds of trouble when debating with people. Far too late do I notice they use different meaning to words than me. I try to remedy this by using concise mathematical definitions, no abstractions, no new terms, etc. When people say I'm wrong (even though how can I be wrong when I'm defining how I think) I ask them to define themselves that which I'm wrong about so as to use their definition layer on. They inevitably go into some lengthy confusing definition which boils down to how they feel about things. For instance with morality. They defined it as that which is the basis of love. I asked them to define love and they said love is something you feel. Their syllogism of course implies that morality is subjective, which makes no sense and when called upon I got the usual moving the goalpost, false dichotomies, etc. This one time I got called upon for not knowing what I was talking about. I proved that I was by quoting the dictionary, after which I got promptly accused of having a very narrow point of view. "Not everything in life boils down to definitions!", they said. I conclude therefore that defining terms doesn't really matter, the nuances of language don't really matter either. What matters is whether or not the person you're talking to has some skin in the game, i.e. they have some ulterior motive they wanna prove you wrong. Quite recently I had a debate with someone in which I used the socratic method to find common ground. After I showed them we both agreed they quickly concluded I was wrong and ended the conversation.

When reality mimics art.

"There is no single determinant of sex." I don't know how I could possibly refute this, except by quoting any phrase from any biology textbook ever written.