Gavitor

Like I said, it all depends on what you want to define god as. What good is a word whose meaning no one knows? People often replace a word with "god" and act as though they are saying something meaningful, I would argue they are not.

1-2 Then I stand corrected, my point still stands that if live people are not there to stop them then the outcome would be different. 3. Again I pointed out there is a difference between sacrificing your life and risking it. Sacrificing your life means you will die as a result, risking it has the chance to live. 4-5. No worries 6. I didn't bring up wants, I said that if you die you can't actually change anything after. IE if you die and fail that's it, you don't get a second chance. If you live and fail you can at least try again. What situation demands that you die?

1. I disagree, those cops aren't doing a very good job if they are dying and more migrants are continuing to flood in. Like I said they would be better off alive than dead. Who will defend the west if everyone who sacrifices their lives dies? 2. Or they could just kill the invaders as they should be much better armed than them. 3. Whether you are willing to die or not is irrelevant, you will inevitably die whether you want to or not. 4. Not necessarily, running away comes with risk as well. Sometimes you have to fight to live. It's nice to see you make assumptions about me though. 5. You don't risk your life for food and water, without those things you WILL die. I don't necessarily have to kill you to get those things, and it may be beneficial to keep you alive because we can accomplish more as a group than alone. I would not kill my children because i value their life as much as my own, if you died then chances are your children did as well or did they eat your corpse? I'll try to make this as concise as possible. If you die you are no longer able to affect change, if you are alive you at least have the opportunity to try.

1. Does not answer my question. 2. Also does not answer my question. 3. False dichotomy. The 2 are not mutually exclusive, you can have a democratic monarchy. I'm arguing for neither. 4. Morality by definition has to be universal otherwise its nothing more than a preference. If its not ok why do you advocate for monarchy which is giving a person the right to do what is wrong for everyone else?

Why do you think having rulers of any description is better than none. What is the benefit of having said ruler(s)? I don't understand what the will of god(s) is, how do you determine what that is and how do you verify that it is valid? A leader and a ruler are not the same thing. A leader gives you the choice to follow, a ruler does not. I'm curious what is the principle that says it's ok for a person or group of people to do what is considered wrong or immoral for everyone else?

The funny thing with god debates is that whether or not god exists depends entirely on the definition of god being used. If god is defined a something that doesn't or can't exist then it does not exist, if it is defined as something that exists then it does. The thing is that if god is defined as something that already exists, that definition is already used by another word and therefore cannot be god. So god by definition cannot exist because everything that exists is not god by definition.

Yes because I don't see why sacrificing your life is necessary to do good. Surely more good could be done alive than dead. If my loved ones were in mortal danger would it not be better to remove them or the danger then die? If I die but fail to stop said danger how do my loved ones benefit from that exactly? Risking your life and sacrificing yourself are not the same thing. So I'm curious why you lump them together? No nothing is worth more than my life to me, because without my life nothing else would matter. Also you may be willing to risk your life for something you hold in equal regard as your own life, Ie something you could not live without.

You are going to die regardless so why not strive to do the most good possible while alive and try to live as long as possible to continue doing good?

So your concern is that in a voluntary society people would choose to remove the voluntary part of their life?

I didn't say you can't take the deal I asked why would you.

If its a bad deal why would you take it? Slavery is when you are forced into it, so your agreement was never requested in the first place. If an employer tells you to do something you don't want to do just tell them no, whats the worse they can do? Worst they can do is fire you. They can't actually force you to do anything. Unlike slavery you can choose to stop working for an employer.

How is it holding a grudge to refuse a bad deal?

Might I date this woman? Absolutely not! You already posted a full list of reasons not to. Hell the 11 failed relationships and leaving a marriage due to "dissatisfaction" were more than enough reason not to in and of themselves.

My faith was never high with Trump to begin with but I do get why people voted for him and are upset with how things are going especially after this. I look at it this way, either way fucked up shit was gonna happen with Hillary and at least there was (still is) a chance that Trump will have some positive affect. He's already done some good things, I wasn't expecting perfection from the guy and sure as hell don't agree with this stupid meddling in the middle east but he isn't all bad. Just don't forget we are still dealing with a corrupt institution run by assholes with guns, this isn't a group with everyone's best interest at heart.

It's not okay. I'm expecting a repeat of past mistakes...

Youtube is simply becoming the new cable television. If google is dumb enough to kill the goose that lays the golden egg by pissing off the people who are making the content people come to the site for then they deserve all the problems that come from that. If all or even half of the people i watch on youtube jumped ship I'd go to where they go and if they all go to the same site that will become the new "youtube" much in the same way that everyone left myspace for facebook. The funny thing is that google will likely buy out the competing platform.

People are getting pissed for nothing... and the person who started the boycott couldn't even spell Budweiser correctly. Honestly there is nothing wrong with the commercial but because its got immigration as the theme it must be anti Trump. People are worried about commercials? Commercials that don't even serve their purpose (they don't make me want to buy anything). It's sad how many people are worried about dumb commercials played during the stupid bowl.

To know thy self.

I know, it was meant to be funny... That's the point of it though, women will date older (in some cases decrepit) and/or ugly men just because they have lot of money. I know its not love, everyone who looks at that picture knows its not love. But hey its not all bad, after all if the fattest man in the world can get a wife surely you can too.

I thought MGTOW was "men going their OWN way". What does this have to do with following youtubers? Last I checked MGTOW isn't a specific set of rules or for lack of a better term a "religion" Not everyone wants the same thing when it comes to a relationship so what works for someone else will most likely not work for you. There's an entire industry that revolves around telling men how to get women, the sad thing is that getting women isn't hard. What you've learned is that getting women doesn't mean you get the right woman (or specifically the woman you want or are looking for). Personally I don't bother with shady women, I'll wait till I meet one that meets my standards (all of which are standards I myself meet, so its not impossible to meet them). Pretty much, at the same time though that doesn't mean you get to behave like the women you condemn. Would you pass the same vetting process you expect her to pass? If you met that "good" woman would she want to date you? Why / why not?

Face to face is the best way to communicate because you get immediate feedback in the form of body language and tonality. With text you can't always tell whether someone is just bullshitting or is actually serious. This is also why things like "Poe's law" exist. Texting and Facebook messaging is a very impersonal way to communicate, it's also inefficient. Most people also hate reading a giant wall of text and will usually skim it. In the time it took you to write and proof read it you could have actually gotten well into a meaningful conversation in person. If the topic is really important to you then that is even more reason to have the conversation face to face. Kinda how its considered tacky to break up with someone via text or email. If you can't have conversations about fundamental matters face to face with someone I would question your relationship with that person.

So he points out that it was 20x hotter in the past yet life still exists... Life tends to thrive in a warmer climate so I'm not seeing any negatives from planet getting warmer. I think Ben makes some good points when he debates it.

You mean like this? https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2943/text SEC. 1287. Global Engagement Center. (a) Establishment.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of other relevant Federal departments and agencies, shall establish within the Department of State a Global Engagement Center (in this section referred to as the “Center”). (2) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the Center shall be to lead, synchronize, and coordinate efforts of the Federal Government to recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests. (b) Functions.—The Center shall carry out the following functions: (1) Integrate interagency and international efforts to track and evaluate counterfactual narratives abroad that threaten the national security interests of the United States and United States allies and partner nations. (2) Analyze relevant information, data, analysis, and analytics from United States Government agencies, United States allies and partner nations, think tanks, academic institutions, civil society groups, and other nongovernmental organizations. (3) As needed, support the development and dissemination of fact-based narratives and analysis to counter propaganda and disinformation directed at the United States and United States allies and partner nations. (4) Identify current and emerging trends in foreign propaganda and disinformation in order to coordinate and shape the development of tactics, techniques, and procedures to expose and refute foreign misinformation and disinformation and proactively promote fact-based narratives and policies to audiences outside the United States. (5) Facilitate the use of a wide range of technologies and techniques by sharing expertise among Federal departments and agencies, seeking expertise from external sources, and implementing best practices. (6) Identify gaps in United States capabilities in areas relevant to the purpose of the Center and recommend necessary enhancements or changes. (7) Identify the countries and populations most susceptible to propaganda and disinformation based on information provided by appropriate interagency entities. (8) Administer the information access fund established pursuant to subsection (f). (9) Coordinate with United States allies and partner nations in order to amplify the Center’s efforts and avoid duplication. (10) Maintain, collect, use, and disseminate records (as such term is defined in section 552a(a)(4) of title 5, United States Code) for research and data analysis of foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts and communications related to public diplomacy efforts intended for foreign audiences. Such research and data analysis shall be reasonably tailored to meet the purposes of this paragraph and shall be carried out with due regard for privacy and civil liberties guidance and oversight. © Head of Center.— (1) APPOINTMENT.—The head of the Center shall be an individual who is an official of the Federal Government, who shall be appointed by the President. (2) COMPLIANCE WITH PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES LAWS.—The President shall designate a senior official to develop guidance for the Center relating to relevant privacy and civil liberties laws and to ensure compliance with such guidance. (d) Employees of the Center.— (1) DETAILEES.—Any Federal Government employee may be detailed to the Center without reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege for a period of not more than 3 years. (2) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTORS.—The Secretary of State may hire United States citizens or aliens as personal services contractors for purposes of personnel resources of the Center, if— (A) the Secretary determines that existing personnel resources are insufficient; (B) the period in which services are provided by a personal services contractor, including options, does not exceed 3 years, unless the Secretary determines that exceptional circumstances justify an extension of up to one additional year; © not more than 50 United States citizens or aliens are employed as personal services contractors under the authority of this paragraph at any time; and (D) the authority of this paragraph is only used to obtain specialized skills or experience or to respond to urgent needs. (e) Transfer of amounts authorized.— (1) IN GENERAL.—If amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to carry out the functions of the Center— (A) for fiscal year 2017 are less than $80,000,000, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to transfer, from amounts authorized to be appropriated by this Act for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2017, to the Secretary of State an amount, not to exceed $60,000,000, to be available to carry out the functions of the Center for fiscal year 2017; and (B) for fiscal year 2018 are less than $80,000,000, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to transfer, from amounts authorized to be appropriated by an Act authorizing funds for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2018, to the Secretary of State an amount, not to exceed $60,000,000, to be available to carry out the functions of the Center for fiscal year 2018. (2) NOTICE REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional defense committees of a proposed transfer under paragraph (1) not less than 15 days prior to making such transfer. (3) INAPPLICABILITY OF REPROGRAMMING REQUIREMENTS.—The authority to transfer amounts under paragraph (1) shall not be subject to any reprogramming requirement under any other provision of law. (f) Information access fund.— (1) AUTHORITY FOR GRANTS.—The Center is authorized to provide grants or contracts of financial support to civil society groups, media content providers, nongovernmental organizations, federally funded research and development centers, private companies, or academic institutions for the following purposes: (A) To support local independent media who are best placed to refute foreign disinformation and manipulation in their own communities. (B) To collect and store examples in print, online, and social media, disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda directed at the United States and its allies and partners. © To analyze and report on tactics, techniques, and procedures of foreign information warfare with respect to disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda. (D) To support efforts by the Center to counter efforts by foreign entities to use disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda to influence the policies and social and political stability of the United States and United States allies and partner nations. (2) FUNDING AVAILABILITY AND LIMITATIONS.—The Secretary of State shall provide that each organization that applies to receive funds under this subsection is selected in accordance with the relevant existing regulations to ensure its bona fides, capability, and experience, and its compatibility with United States interests and objectives. (g) Reports.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than one year after the date on which the Center is established, the Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report evaluating the success of the Center in carrying out its functions under subsection (b) and outlining steps to improve any areas of deficiency. (2) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term “appropriate congressional committees” means— (A) the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and (B) the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Homeland Security, and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives. (h) Limitation.—None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to carry out this section shall be used for purposes other than countering foreign propaganda and misinformation that threatens United States national security. (i) Termination.—The Center shall terminate on the date that is 8 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

It's too bad they don't make any more episodes of bullshit. Also I doubt anyone will ever pass the million dollar challenge and it really shows how full of shit a lot of con artists are. Have you guys seen any others who have made similar videos?