dayna j.

It's not a causal fallacy, because I never claimed that governments are the only possible cause of nuclear weapons. However, governments are a cause: If we know and accept that A and B are "bad", and we accept that A is the only currently known source of B, how does it make sense to leave B under the control of A? It seems to me that there are two separate issues here: 1) Whether governments are justifiable and under what conditions/argument is it justifiable. 2) Given that the possibility of nuclear weapons exists, how would that be handled in a free society. With regard to 1), If the arguments advanced by anarcho-capitalists are valid--meaning that government is a self-contradictory, illegitimate appropriation of violent power--then the existence of nukes does nothing whatsoever to change this. With regard to 2), no one knows. I would argue that no one really knows how to handle the existence of nukes under the current system, either. Governments simply provide a pretense of a solution which prevents the search for genuine solutions to problems. People may not find that convincing--or comforting--but this just illustrates the extent to which they believe the government provides legitimate solutions to problems, when it does not.

This is a joke, right?

Governments are the ones with the nukes to begin with...

I'm not sure how it is that you feel that it's okay to describe categories of people as being "fucked up" and "disordered", but there are better ways to express your skepticism. To simply say: "X is fucked up and disordered" while making no arguments and bringing no evidence is entirely bigoted, extremely slimy and does not represent the standard that we try to uphold here at FDR.

Run.

1) No. Making a guy's dick hard doesn't entail responsibility for being violently attacked. If I have something that someone wants, and I refuse to give it to them--even if I previously said that I might--this doesn't somehow transmute into partial responsibility if the item is taken from me. Similarly, there should not be an implicit conclusion that sex will occur just because a woman is being flirtatious with you, or even engages in some degree of physical contact. There might be a hope/desire for sex, or even a reasonable expectation that it might occur based on prior interactions, but this doesn't imbue someone with responsibility for being attacked. 2) N/A 3) I don't know--are you? If you're telling your girlfriend, or other women, what they are "allowed" to wear, then yes, you are policing their appearence. I don't think it is unreasonable for two people in a committed relationship to have some degree of input on one another's appearence. However, if the situation is laden with threats and ultimatums, then there might be some foundational mismatch of values going on. Based on your post, it seem as though you have expressed an opinion or preference and left it open for her to decide what she wants to do with it. This seems fine to me, but only you (and her) really know the nature of your relationship..

The entire scene appears fake to me. I don't think his response to being approached with a knife was realistic at all.

If the child is ripping out her hair, I would be very concerned about that. It seems to me that this kind of behavior exceeds what one would think of as a "bad habit", and perhaps even crosses over into the domain of self-harm/self-mutilation. Why do you suppose that this child is experiencing so much stress? I would be much more concerned about why a behavior such as this, which so closely borders self-harm, has arisen in the first place.

I've also heard that every time Beyonce has a number one hit, Ethiopian coffee farmers experience an abundant harvest.

I would say that both of those ( using precious metals as a long term "store of value", and to use it for exchange and to settle debts ) are reasons that people invest in precious metals. The particular form that you might invest in depends on your intent. If you primarily intend to use it as a long term store of value, it makes sense to invest in gold bars that are not easily divisible. If you want to have metals on hand for every day purchases, it might make sense to invest in bags of silver quarters or other silver coins.

No, I would never date a christian or religious person of any persuasion. I doubt I would even develop a friendship with a religious person. I've had no problem meeting skeptical / non-religious people and see no need to go slumming.

Never voted. Never will.

You can't just leave, because there is nowhere to go. Virtually all inhabitable pieces of land are occupied/claimed by a government. The only alternative is to leave one country to go to another. There is no choice for the non-statist.

"If you have privacy, it makes it harder for us to violate your privacy--so we can protect your privacy."

My immediate thoughts are that 3 years seems like an awfully long time to commit to doing something that you're not even sure you want to do. What purpose would it serve for you to get a PhD?

Unless his words have projected through the monitor and slapped you in the face, there is no NAP violation or use of force. This is further evidenced by the fact that you can choose not to respond--if you were truly being forced, it would not be possible to choose not to respond without suffering some kind of substantive repercussion.

It seems fair to me that the costs should be split. I would bring the issue up in advance, propose that the costs be split and see what the reaction is. The reaction you receive should provide you with useful information that you can use to determine whether you share similar values. If you were to plan a date with a man and ask in advance whether he is comfortable with spliting the costs, and he finds this idea to be unacceptable, this will provide you with important information with regard to his expectations for your role in the relationship.

Cool story, but until you can prove that such a thing as "God" exists, it is meaningless.

Maybe "The Handbook of Human Ownership -- A Manual for New Tax Farmers" ? I've always thought that one was tragically underappreciated.

I think if you want to argue against voting, then the best approach is to undermine the validity of political authority itself. Otherwise it is easy to just be portrayed as a pessimistic malcontent. You need to decapitate the political beast, not just pop the pimples that form on it's oily skin. (Ok, maybe that was a weird analogy...)

I'm a little confused by the question. What do you mean by standard and/or standardless? How do you know that this is a "standardless" age, and would would it mean if it were not? When has there ever been a universal aesthetic standard for art, and doesn't the fact that art and music fall under the category of aesthetic preferences--which are inherently subjective--preclude universality?

I think Stefan is just enjoying the spectacle. As he said in the video, Trump is independently financing his campaign and isn't beholden to the majority of the same interests as the other candidates, so it makes for some amusing soundbites.

Maybe I just don't know enough about these consent apps, but it always seemed to me like they would do more harm than good. Presumably, the concept exists to substantiate the existence of consensual sexual activity, but what is to stop a rapist/sexual attacker from simply taking the victims phone and hitting the consent button themselves? Even if it were password protected, the victim could still be coerced into providing the password.

What do you define as being "too fast"? Driving beyond the posted speed-limit, or something else? As it stands, the term "too fast" is vague. You say that all people know that driving at a high speed can kill you: This is not true. Being involved in a car accident is what can kill you--and one can get into a fatal accident whether one is driving the posted speed limit or beyond the posted speed limit. Driving at high speeds may increase the probability of death, but driving at the posted speed limit also entails some probability of death. Does the probability of death increase as one increases the rate of travel? Yes, I'm sure it does, but I don't know how one would quantify it precisely. In either case, it is impossible to get into the mind of another person to know whether they "wanted to die" or not, in this circumstance.