JohnH.

"The authorities in Prince William County, Virginia, are pursuing child pornography charges against a 17 year old who exchanged nude picture texts with his 15-year-old girlfriend. The police have even filed a warrant that would permit them to take the teen to the hospital, give him an erection-producing injection, and photograph his penis. Prosecutors want to compare this photograph to the one the teen sent to his girlfriend, establishing that they depict the same thing..." Source.

Something from nothing as explained by Lawrence Krauss. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3X5OetLdQPw

Read some of his responses in the comment section. A few people have given him possible solutions but he refuses to accept any of them. I doubt his sincerity.

Another band, Mastodon, is doing the same thing. http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-mastodon-bitcoin-20140611-story.html

To be called a philosopher you must have other philosophers say that you're a philosopher? How does that work? Writing books and articles, giving speeches on at least 3 different continents, and being the source of millions of downloads on the subject of philosophy is "merely discussing or dabbling"? Seriously, do they know anything about Stef's work? Hypocrisy alert.

Maybe Stef can explain it better.

Humanity is a word we use to describe all human beings collectively. When we say humanity is capable of great evils, we are actually describing the actions of individual actors in aggregate. An individual can perform evil acts and not evil acts, but an act cannot be both evil and not evil in the same respect and at the same time.

Clarity is important. If you think having clear definitions is sophistry, then banana-rama niner pop whiskey. Let me say it once more, "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time." The bully is either hitting the kid or not hitting the kid. He CANNOT, under any circumstances, simultaneously both hit and not hit the kid. In your example, he IS hitting the kid. The action of hitting and not hitting cannot exist. Humanity is incapable of doing anything–it's an abstraction.

Let me clarify what a contradiction is: "one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time." I can punch you in the face or not punch you in the face, but I cannot simultaneously both punch and not punch you in the face.

If someone proposes an entity with contradictory properties, we can say that the entity does not exist. For example, what would you say to me if I told you that a square that is also a circle exists?

This is the same approach I've started to use.

Could this be an example of actual misogyny? I know feminists throw misogyny around any chance they get, but if there were a time to use it, could this be the appropriate time?

Starting around 1:29:00 Ian Freeman admits to not listening to Stef much ("I don't listen to much Stefan Molyneux"), misrepresents Stef's position ("having sex and having children is going to solve the problems of human freedom... let's talk about peaceful parenting and have some babies"), yet feels as though he in a position to say that it's a "ridiculous idea". This is why I love the FDR community so god damn much. The dedication to self-knowledge, philosophy, and virtue that I encounter with you people is mind-fuckingly amazing. I've been trying to find other libertarian-minded communities to interact with but have yet to find one that comes even close to the standard set here.

You didn't write those specific words, but you did directly compare the two. Shit, you titled the thread, "The popularity of FDR compared to TYT".

Is this an objective or subjective truth claim? Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

They never seem to catch on to the fact that they are worried about monopolies while simultaneously proposing one.

Hasn't it always been an oligarchy?

"Confined, bereft of reason Withering in toxicity The deadly fumes deceit And we all reek of complicity Humbled, brought to our knees By the weight of our own guilt Our innocent ways the catalyst To injustice and inhumanity."

Got both meaning I have both platonic and romantic relationships with women.I doubt most of you are even interested in having platonic female friends. A couple of us have made it known that it is possible, yet none of those that maintain the position that it is rare, nearly impossible, suspicious, unlikely, reality, etc., have sought for advice on how to have them. If you don't want female friends in the first place then of course you won't be able to have female friends, but let's get the causal line straight. To put it another way, if you want to learn how to fly a plane but don't know how, you can't go around telling pilots that it can't be done.It may be the case that, for whatever reason, some of you will always be overcome with emotional turmoil every single time you try to be just friends with a female. If that is the case, then I completely understand why you wouldn't want female friends. However, using this as our starting point will most certainly result in confirmation bias and projection.When I was teenager I found it incredibly difficult to be just friends with women. Looking back, I can say with absolute confidence that the issue I had was a serious lack of self-esteem and desire for attention. If any girl gave me attention I immediately "fell" for her. It wasn't until I matured emotionally and developed a sense of self that I found myself able to talk to women in a way that didn't involve sexual or romantic feelings. It was hard and took nearly a decade, but it was worth it. Is this your problem? I have no clue, but if you want to be able to be friends with women it wouldn't hurt to explore this idea and other alternatives. If you have already decided that you don't want to be friends with women then what you're really asking is, "Can I be friends with someone I don't want to be friends with.Cynicist, i quoted you, but my response isn't necessarily directed at you.

I don't understand the bolded. If they don't want to be with you, they are unavailable to you. This is true for every non-romantic relationship you have. All of your regular friends find you deficient (to use your term) in one way or another, and likewise you find them deficient in one way or another. I think you should ask yourself why you find yourself romantically attracted to people that are unavailable to you. Doesn't the fact that they are unavailable make you not want to have a romantic relationship with them? I have found myself in the situation you put forward; I got both. Earlier you stated: But they don't have similar goals, they don't want to be with you for whatever reason–maybe they find you physically unattractive–nor are they available. When you say available, do you mean single?

Assuming he wants the relationship and she doesn't, I could understand why it would become difficult to have a platonic relationship with someone you have unrequited strong feelings for. However, I think the biggest factor at play is his emotional stability. If he's incapable of working through his feelings and accepting the fact that she is only interested in a platonic friendship then he has bigger issues to focus on (self knowledge). To use your analogy: if you couldn't get the car with the upgrades (she doesn't want a romantic relationship) would you then refuse to get a car at all (platonic relationship)? It has always been easy for me to be friends with women so I might be coming at this from a different perspective. I see a romantic relationship as an upgrade over a platonic relationship which is an upgrade over a non-relationship. If a romantic relationship is off the table, I have to be honest with myself. Since all of the qualities that I like about this person are still there, it would be nonsensical for me to downgrade all the way to a non-relationship.

"In today's news, government convicted a retarded kid of illegal wiretapping. In other news, the government has announced that they have stopped thousands of terrorist attacks by way of their wonderful webcam snooping program. With an excellent 13% unwanted nudity level. The government is great, and none of their employees jerk off to pictures of you jerking off. And as always, I leave you with my government mandated sign off. I love you Barack Hussein Obama. Long live the Emperor and savior of the American race."

I have more girl friends than guy friends, so I'm going to have to say yes, guys and girls can be just friends. I actually prefer having girl friends over guy friends. That's not to say that I dislike being friends with guys, but my experience has been that most of the guys I meet always want to talk about sports, chicks, and other stupid crap. They never want to, or perhaps aren't even capable of, opening up with me on a personal level. Girls I know still like to talk about the female corollaries to sports and chicks, but they tend to be more willing to become emotionally vulnerable with me which enables us to have a better relationship. If you find yourself incapable of being friends with members of the opposite sex, maybe you should try to discover why, because I can attest to the fact that it is indeed possible. Different goals in life. For example, maybe she wants kids and he doesn't or maybe she wants to dedicate her time to work and he wants someone that will be around more often. There are plenty of reasons why you can be sexually attracted to someone and not want a romantic relationship. I find one of my girl friends semi-attractive, but have no interest in a romantic relationship because, among other things, she has a child and I don't want another.

"Yeah, but what about..." I hear this more than anything else.

Your definition is generally what I think of when people say shallow. Based on that definition, my experience has been that most people I encounter, regardless of sex, tend to be pretty shallow. However, since I am a man, I have more in common with the shallow topics that men tend to bring up which can cause me to underestimate their true level of shallowness.