Wuzzums

What the difference between obamacare and socialist healthcare?

I don't understand the phrase at all. It comes off as if you're saying free-market-care is feasible therefore we need socialist healthcare and socialist healthcare is different than obamacare (which is socialist healthcare). This makes absolutely no sense.

I see. However that's only true on an economic spectrum, the far-right dichotomy you're referring to. I've had several arguments with people that don't really know what they're talking about and think the left is about free speech and protecting the weak and the right is about protecting conservative values. Let's not forget anarchists refer to one another as "comrades". Communism is a disease that seems to seep into every ideology whether right or left.

Stefan's an ancap/libertarian/voluntarist, he's neither left nor right. The end goal is a stateless society, this is what most FDR listeners aim for. It's a long term goal. He went into the politics sphere in the last 2 years not to support some political agenda but to buy us more time in order to raise more and more peaceful generations.

That's an interesting statement. How long have you been listening to FDR and in your view what makes FDR right-wing?

I saw a little bit of the gamergate episode. I thought it was great. Then I realized it wasn't satire.

You know how you can't satirize the left because it's already an extreme satire of itself? Well, The Onion pulled it off.

You are making several fundamental errors regarding the terms I used. You're just broadening the definitions to include some example you thought of as an exception. "Predator" has a specific definition which bars bacteria, plants, jellyfish, and other brainless organisms. An apex predator is a predator that has no other animal (predator) above it that uses it as a food source. How does it NOT make us a superior organism? Reductio ad absurdum: if you are correct that relying on X number of organisms to survive does not make us superior then an alien species has no way of determining which is the superior species, a human or a hamburger. Humans have split the atom and are capable of blowing up the Sun, but I guess that's not really that impressive for a fire-ant supremacist such as yourself. At this point you're trolling, right? You're trolling. You got me. Haha.

Evolution is an objective process. It cannot possibly favor anything in the way a human might favor a brand of ice-cream. Organism more equipped to survive survive, in other words evolution favors the ability to survive. Therefore survival is an objective value in the same way that 5 > 4. (5 being brown bears and 4 being pandas seen through evolutionary lenses)

So pandas and brown bears have an equal chance of survival?

But if it's a more sentient and intelligent machine how come it managed to get itself in a situation where its survival depended on a lesser intelligent and lesser sentient lifeform?

There are tall chinese people in the NBA. Yes, life and survival of the fittest is an objective value. Evolution is an objective process predicated on the survival of the fittest. This is not to say that "might makes right", otherwise Bill Gates would be able to benchpress a truck. The environmental pressures are always changing and evolution is a constant race to remain in the same spot and so far humans have not been dethroned even though we are not the mightiest so to speak. No. Fire ants and humans aren't competitors. Humans are the apex predator therefore from an evolutionary standpoint we are superior to all other lifeforms on this planet. Humans have not failed to eradicate fire ants. Humans can eradicate every living organism on Earth, we just choose not to.

Human life is more important that any other form of life conceivable because you're human. It's basic biology ffs. Evolution cannot give rise to ANY species whatsoever that did not favor its own over others.

It's not. Wish MGTOWs would go back to that.

That was my understanding also. I listened to a lot of Stardust and Barbarossa and a pretty ominous undertone came to light: "women are useless because they have needs". The people who are really into the MGTOW community will attack anyone that has a relationship with a woman. I gave up on them once I saw them recruiting kids (teenagers) into their lifestyle. They started out actually having a point but being inside an echo-chamber is the mental equivalent of inbreeding. Only a matter of time until some really deformed "babies" come out. Are you implying there's something wrong or at the very least nonsensical in having kids and enjoying the company of people like you?

I agree. Marriage is a bad deal for western men, that's for sure. The law is against them, the culture is against them, and marriage can even be forced upon men with tenfold its drawbacks and none of its benefits. However MGTOW lays this down at the feet of women alone, when it's the state that corrupts them. MGTOWs telling men it's women's fault takes away blame from the state which is a changeable factor. Women have been the same for tens of thousands of years and if there's indeed no advantage whatsoever in marriage then surely the MGTOW phenomenon should have come into existence a long, long time ago. If only there was a way to get a lifelong partner without involving the state. If only there was some way 2 people that want to spend the rest of their lives together could find some way to reach a mutual understanding without involving a third party...

So we can only keep liberty by taking away the liberty of owning your own body? And this avoids socialism, how?

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Is it that pornography should be banned because it capitalizes on dehumanization?

I recently got finished watching the debate between Stefan Molyneux and Bill Mitchell. Bill's stance was trust Trump because he's smarter than all of us. Which he is. Stefan's stance was invading the middle east is and has always been a bad idea. Which is true. Speaking as an ancap/libertarian/voluntarist, I have never bothered with politics because there's no point fighting against that which we cannot change. Before Trump's election the world had a different view on politics than today. Politicians make a lot of promises, we "vote" and if we're really, really lucky maybe a tiny fraction of those promises will be kept. I used to laugh at people that got so involved into politics to the point they were genuinely shocked when a politician didn't keep their promise. I still do this to be fair, with this whole Marine Le Pen hype. She's a lawyer, a career politician, a woman, and a socialist. Who does she remind you of? Anyways, I got invested in Trump not because of his policies but because of the man himself. He fought against literally everyone and won. I genuinely believe that if there's anyone that could put a halt or slow down the machine of power known as the state it would be him. I can't think of anyone else who could do it. Well, maybe Batman but crime-fighting billionaire playboys don't exi-- So where I'm getting at is what if the the cogs of the warmachine with Syria were put into motion and Trump couldn't stop it? What if the "most powerful man on Earth" doesn't really have that much power? A lot of shady stuff has been going on in Trump's cabinet with Bannon being pushed further away, Trump loyalists getting kicked out and neocons brought in, the corrupt media suddenly doing an 180 literally over night, other globalists start praising him, and so on. How much of these events is Trump and how much is deep state? How could we possibly even know the difference at this point? I think this is the most important question. It used to be simple. Are the democrats, McCain, Merkel, MSM, etc upset? Then it's Trump. Now's I'm just confused who's doing what. There's no point in debating x decision was right or wrong when we don't even have a method of determining if he's the one that's making it. So what do you guys think? Are these high-ranking state officials just glorified poster boys (and girls) or does the office actually hold power?

Don't worry yourself. I enjoy googling things for other people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_(skin) Skin contact with gas or aerosol[edit] This is a minor contributor and has been ignored in most risk assessments of chemicals as a route of exposure for gaseous or aerosolized toxicants. More research is needed in this area.[24] Rauma M. et al. Predicting the absorption of chemical vapours. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2013 Feb;65(2):306-14. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2012.03.012. Epub 2012 Mar 21.

No. You're trying to save face but you're being factually inaccurate.

I'm a doctor.

I watched that debate too. PJW had no arguments. He said the airbase was protecting a christian town nearby. An airbase is a military target, it being near a town is putting that town in danger because it's in the enemy's best interest to make a settlement there. Villages or towns in the middle of nowhere are the safest places in any conflict. I said he messed up at first and I said only the supernatural can make him come out on top again. The only possible way it wasn't a bad move was if he didn't kill anyone, which seemed impossible to my mind seeing how he fired 59 rockets at an airbase. Lo and behold that's exactly what happened so yesterday I would've said "it was a genius move". Now Cernovich confirmed this morning that McMaster is planning the deployment of 150 000 ground troops in Syria. I can't possibly see how this could be a good thing. Right now I can't say it was either genius or lunacy. I can however say it was a bold strategy. My litmus test now is whether or not Bannon gets fired.

Assuming you served in Syria or are closely familiar with syrian sarin attack protocol, of course. Did you just bring up a 7 year old girl on twitter from Allepo which is not in a conflict area and which is mysteriously verified on twitter as a source? Returning to the matter at hand. Cutaneous exposure is not an issue with gasses. Please read the whole paragraph before contradicting basic human biology. And to quote you back to yourself proving my point: Sweaty crampy hands? Forget it. Guess they had to let those people help themselves. Continuing: To make my point as clear as I can again: I said it was a sarin gas attack (false flag, but still an actual attack) because the symptoms of the victims and the methods used to help them were consistent. Sources: your own link. You said it wasn't a sarin gas attack because they didn't use gloves. Sources: people in the army made you practice wearing a hazmat suit.

Do you have access to the internet everywhere you go? Yes. Were you aware before today what sarin gas was and how one should deal with it? No. Do people in a warzone have access to the internet everywhere they go? No. Were they aware what sarin gas was and how you should deal with it? Of course not. The approach you take to solving a problem does not change the nature of the problem. Cutaneous exposure to the gas is not an issue. It's only toxic in its liquid state if you touch it. Skin cannot absorb gas. Coming to the scene with gas masks and not knowing what type of gas was used I would say is following the correct protocol. Secondly using water is the EXACT way you deal with sarin: "The most important chemical reactions of phosphoryl halides is the hydrolysis of the bond between phosphorus and the fluoride. This P-F bond is easily broken by nucleophilic agents, such as water and hydroxide.At high pH, sarin decomposes rapidly to nontoxic phosphonic acid derivatives."