Slavik

To be honest, transgender people have been using whatever restroom they deem appropriate for a very long time. Only recently SJWs decided to take on this issue and add yet another layer of government. Personally I do not much care, one thing should be kept in mind is that Transgender people should have some empathy for others when they choose to use a facility, by this I mean that if a TG who looks like the one you posted is indeed a Male to Female, then they should understand that it is not going to be met with understanding if they want to use a woman's restroom, the opposite applies as well.

I didnt say that your Idea would make things worse, what I said was that I do not see the policy changing because the change would not benefit Democrats and it looks like Democratic party controls the government.

Yes, I would love to see Stef Making a rebuttal video.

Concept is an idea, physically it does not exist as a thing by itself. Concepts however can be separated into grouping and those that point or describe something or descriptors. Grouping concept such as (forest, crowd, etc.) points to a combination of singular things. Concepts that are descriptors point directly at something, well those that describe singular things (tree, chair etc.) Language by itself is indeed a concept, if you think about it this way, if there were no humans on earth, would things around us still exist? Yes, just because we gave something a name doesnt mean that we have brought it into existence.

Personally I do not have much trust in such implementation, here is my reasoning. It really looks like the Democratic party controls the government. Democratic politicians again and again break the laws, and they are not even asked to step down, as the matter of fact it looks like they get promoted for breaking the law. Imagine the Republican party or conservative breaking the law in such a manner as Hillary has? They would have been jailed. Yes, I agree the current immigration policy is a tool for Democrats, I just dont see it changing.

There is a small flaw in this assessment. 1) Jews are mostly white 2) Jews are the very first group targeted by just about anyone, and the first who had to flee France when Muslims moved in. 3) The conflation of Ideas of some people with the whole nationality. 4) Completely ignoring Jewish thinkers/economists who even at the time of Marx spoke out against his ideas. 5) How can Israel deny national boarders to anyone? Or are we on a global Jewish control thing? Why are the Jews the only nationality that is mentioned when it is something bad, and completely ignored when its something good? Should we now speak of German in a negative light because Agela Murkel? Or English, because Hillary Clinton or welsh( pperantly she is mixed). Jewish is a nationality, not an ideology. And finally as an Ancap Jew how do I and many others like me, fit in? After all the article names "Jews," as a whole group which includes me.

Historically it was the Democrats and the left who supported Slavery and racist policies, and I mean actually in history. KKK was a militant arm of Democratic party not Conservative or Republican. Im not really sure where you are getting this, that historically it was the "right." Even the state wars were pro-slave Democrats against Republicans who were against slavery.

The Advertisement part was covered by Stefan on numerous occasions, as to why he doesnt want any adds. Other points that you make, I simply am not sure about, for the simple fact that it works for him, and his substantial and still growing audience. I can only speculate as to why he does it this way.

Why the straw man argument? Why not just ask what he meant by it?

A little about where I came from. I came from ex. USSR, born and raised. When I have immigrated to the USA in the midst of political and economic upheaval, I saw my old country move rapidly from 75 years of socialism to capitalism (not as free but capitalism non the less). This has sparked my interest. The question "How can people who lived under the dictatorship of "R" preferred system, so quickly move in the opposite direction?" Here is my hypothesis. Socialism by definition speaks of all workers and downtrodden holding the ultimate control in the society or the government providing for them. What "R" people do not realize is that socialists very quickly run out of funds, and now the "R" life-style can no longer be subsidized. After some time, new laws are passed, the welfare system breaks down, and all are mandated to work. Partying and not "contributing to the society," is no longer acceptable, or even punishable by law. Having children and not caring for them, is socially unacceptable, because the government can no longer subsidize them. The number of single parent households decreases. In the end, the "R" socioeconomic dream begins to give birth to more and more "K" type people. Now, looking at the "K" type societies, free markets provide tremendous amount of capital, therefore parenting mistakes that "breed" "R" type can now be subsidized. That which you subsidize increases, and the pendulum begins to swing in the "R" direction, possibly all the way to the extreme of socialism, which will eventually swing it right back to capitalism. These are just some of my thoughts on the matter.

I guess since we are asking questions, I will go back to my Objectivist roots and ask you a follow up. Why would you allow open flood gates? Im not really sure what you are proposing? You came in with a false dichotomy, no one here is arguing with you about Anarchy, we all agree on non-state or no rulers solution. You said Trump is wrong on immigration, I dont see how he is wrong if you take in consideration a simple fact that Trump is looking at it from a Statist perspective. "Ask a surgeon what the problem is, and he is going to advocate surgery." The surgeon is not necessarily wrong, his approach is different and from a different perspective.

There is a major difference between monitoring border and opening the flood gates. Many countries including Mexico and middle eastern states, control and monitor their borders. You have put forth a false dichotomy, it is not a choice between perfectly plugging the border hole and any other illegal means, it is the choice between Trump wanting to at least do something about illegal immigration, and Democrats wanting to open the doors wide open. Of course Im speaking from the point of view of what is presented, as I support an anarchist solution (no more state=no more welfare = private property and no more forcing anyone to pay for immigrants = only the well meaning would immigrate.

Im in the same place as you, Im taking the most maddening class at the moment "social justice," just hang tight, and remember that this will pass, your mind will stay intact even if you do not battle stupidity, but you will get your degree and will go on to a happier life. I would suggest to come to the chats here to get it all out, and maybe find a meetup group to talk to people who are of the same mind so to speak.

Sure, it is called Aspen University. It is a private college, probably one of the reasons why they are not so stuck with liberal mindset.

Among many things I am thankful for, things that directly relate to Stefan's teaching, I would happily like to add one more point. Recently I have taken a class on "Ethics," at my college, since I accept the theory of universally preferable behavior, I couldn't help myself and explained the theory in my final grade essay. I have received a very strong A. Thank you for my A.

From what I remember the topic involved IQ and not development. IQ being a genetic factor, was the point contested not the rest of the development. Development includes emotional intelligence which further encompasses ability to deal with stress, risk taking, further development of addictions, aggression and so on. It is not enough to have high IQ in order to be successful in life, you need to be a well adjusted individual to be happy, damage that spanking (or just hitting) creates has a very lasting effect on the body as well as emotional well being. If you hit a child you possible are taking away his or her future happiness and success.

This is a dream I had last night, I hope some might help me interpret it. The dream: I am in a large concrete building, I think it has 8 floors. The building is constructed out of cold grey color concrete. I walk in the stairwell, going all the way down to the basement, as I walk down to the sub floors it gets very dark and I start hearing hissing. As I take one more step into the darkness everything lights up around me in a red inferno, the stairs beneath me are melting, the rails are falling away. I charge back up running up the stairs telling all the people around me that the building is melting. With exhausted full of terror voice I tell my mother that everything is melting around us, she smiles at me and walks away. I start walking around the floors making sure that the ground underneath is still stable, fearfully I walk to the edge of one of the lower stairway and as I kneel down I see that some parts of the floor are buckling and they seem to be very soft, just like clay. The floor at the edge begins to dance its wave pattern, and I can see that it is heating up and turning molten red. At this moment I am very scared and frustrated that everyone is ignoring me, in my mind I can see the building collapsing under its own weight as the support beams and structure is soon to melt away, but no one heeds my warnings. Finally, a loud voice comes over the megaphone telling everyone to evacuate as the building in danger of collapsing. Everyone begins to exit, I run upstairs to retrieve my cats. I wake up.

Thats a great question, about my attraction to the job. I will explain. I am not at all attracted to this job, I was hired on a post where there are no aggressive individuals, as a part of my contract however, I have to go to an extreme facility once a week. This is why I am having such trouble recuperating.

Hi, I am working in a psychiatric hospital with a severely disturbed individuals, on most days everything is somewhat calm. There are some days however that send me into a spin. On a few occasions I get targeted by these mentally ill patients, and there is a lot of aggression towards me, I redirect them the best I can, but by this time the fear that I experience sends me into a tail-spin. After effects of such episodes, I feel severely dissociated. Once I deal with dissociation and "come back," I feel extremely stressful for days, sometimes even weeks. My question is, is there any way that I can deal with my stress, to relieve it much faster? Thank you for replies in advance.

You should watch the video, in the video you will see an old man being jailed for feeding the homeless. The video is an answer to who is going to feed them, as in right now government jailing those who feed the homeless, so it follows that in free society people will feed the homeless since they wont get jailed.

I have read what you have wrote, and what you dont seem to understand is that when It's different term, it means that morality of actions change in this instance. self defense is not murder because you are protecting yourself. Murder is the opposite. If you disagree then by all means give me an instance where murder is acceptable. All you have said is "murder is acceptable sometimes, and have never given an example." The current system has nothing to do with anything, so I have no clue what you are talking about. And as far as preferential treatment goes, the system you are proposing gives preferential treatment to women. Marriage is an explicit contract, which means that if children come into play, then it can be enforced, as there is no such thing as an implied contract. You have too many special exceptions for the woman. 1) If she doesnt want a child she can use a myriad of means to not have a child -- man has no such options 2) If she decides to have a child, she can carry it to term, give birth -- man has no say in it, in your scenarios 3) If man and a woman have a one night stand, she may get pregnant give birth to a child and then hunt the man down for child support - man has no say in it The points above is how proposed forced child support outside of marriage can be taken advantage of, and not description of current system. So what you end up with is, what a woman wants is what she gets, it is as far from universal as you can possibly get. Sex is consensual, both parties agree to it. Having a child is a completely different step that both need to agree on and have an explicit contract aka. marriage. Having such exceptions for one party is where I do not see any logic at all, it is not universal, and non universal rules can not be present. Universalize the principle, then we will be able to argue for it.

Religion is assigning meaning to patterns no matter if fallaciously or not. You didnt rebut the other pattern creation, faces in objects, or objects in things around us. It is not the gene that didnt see the correct pattern that was exterminated, its the gene that didnt see patterns at all, or wasnt looking for them.

It doesnt necessarily follow that you are genetically predisposed to see actual patterns. As an example, we are genetically predisposed to see faces, look around your room and try to notice faces in the inanimate objects, you will see a lot, mere patterns that we make into faces in our minds. Have you never looked at the clouds to see if you can make objects out of them? The same applies. The greatest false pattern creation is Religion, how many times have they committed "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, the whole thing is one giant fallacy. Would it be correct to say the same about religions "How many instances of "coincidence" does it take before a pattern can be confirmed? "

Well you have presented it as such, when you said that pregnancy is equal to causing harm. It is not the role of who takes care of the child that is in the question. The problem that I have presented while addressing your principle of forced child support, is the man not being able to get away from any responsibility, even if he never wanted to have a child with a woman in the first place, and this is the problem you have not addressed. You talked about implicit contracts when no such contracts should exist, marriage is the contract nothing else. "She takes care of it, you pay for it," is not universal, as she can apparently not have such responsibility if she doesnt want it, while the man doesnt have such an option in your scenario. You have too many special exceptions for the woman. 1) If she doesnt want a child she can use a myriad of means to not have a child -- man has no such options 2) If she decides to have a child, she can carry it to term, give birth -- man has no say in it, in your scenarios 3) If man and a woman have a one night stand, she may get pregnant give birth to a child and then hunt the man down for child support - man has no say in it So what you end up with is, what a woman wants is what she gets, it is as far from universal as you can possibly get. Sex is consensual, both parties agree to it. Having a child is a completely different step that both need to agree on and have an explicit contract aka. marriage. Having such exceptions for one party is where I do not see any logic at all, it is not universal, and non universal rules can not be present.

My apologies, I have misread it.