dsayers

Google Stefan Molyneux Dan Edmunds. I'm not sure which one is the one you're looking for.

This is voodoo pharmacology and it's bunk. Alcohol does impair inhibitions, but it doesn't make people do things they normally wouldn't. I agree with the underlying sentiment that a person cannot impair their own judgement voluntarily then hold others accountable for the effects of it. I also would argue that it's irresponsible if not outright predatory to try and have sex with somebody who is inebriated.

What somebody has on their person that isn't harming others is nobody else's business. Whatever you have on your person, it would be arrogant for me to say that I'm "allowing it". I've carried a firearm for over 8 years, including in the capacity of private investigator/security. I have yet to put a hole into anything. That's because nobody has forced my hand in firing it, even though my hand has been forced in drawing on another human being a few times. As I understand it, the bullet hole in a plane thing is mostly fantasy. Even if there is credibility, a turbulent, emergency landing is preferable to allowing a box cutter to lead to the world's tallest building to be crashed into, killing thousands and costing over a billion in property damage.

Maybe it's time for me to get back into it then. I do know that for a long time, they've had episodes with messages, most of which were uncharacteristically sharp and accurate for media/entertainment. Back when Penn & Teller's Bullshit! was running, it was pretty incredible how much their content and South Park's were parallel in terms of conclusions. Of course I'd describe P&T as minarchists, so upon a rewatch, I disagree with them more than before. Still, better than the usual crap.

I remember Stef doing something like that not long ago. With no context, he just read a pro-spanking article substituting women for children. It was a gas!

This is begging the question. The claim that property becomes unowned upon death of an owner who has arranged a conditional transfer of that property upon his death has been challenged. It has not yet been established.

In a free society, a "no-fly list" would be a suggestion to privately owned airlines. The airlines themselves would have the final say in who their services were available to.

In the phrase, "initiation of the use of force," it's the initiation that is important. To recover stolen goods is not the initiation of the use of force. It is the collection of the positive obligation created by the act of theft. In this case, the very people the obligation was made to. The way this is worded, it seems as if "something of value (subjective)" is a factor. I would argue that the factor is that, because "Widget-mobiles" do not exist in nature, to find one that you do not own is to understand that it is in fact owned by somebody else. I would not argue that the person who finds it is required to put forth effort to establish who the owner is. This is a positive obligation, which are immoral to place on somebody who has not voluntarily created it. However, choosing to take it, while knowing it must be owned by somebody, would be theft. I do agree though that if reasonable efforts are made and no legitimate claimant steps forward, that you can morally claim ownership over it yourself. I also would go so far as to say that IF you took it for custodial purposes while you made an effort to establish who the owner is, then this behavior--though mechanically identical to theft of the same--would not be classified as theft. These grey areas are why moral clarity is so important.

For as long as I can remember, I've always preferred studio recordings over liver performances. The one person that stands out against that trend for me is Ellie Goulding. After seeing , I find the studio version just horrible by comparison. You picked the worse time to ask what I'm listening to. Lately, my 1999 version of Winamp has had all my old Insane Clown Posse and Twiztid queued up. Nostalgiac reasons mostly. Oh and I cannot pass up an opportunity to praise Ladytron!

I would also argue that it would make him culpable. Nobody pays taxes because they choose to. They pay taxes because people will steal more, kidnap them, put them in places they will be raped, and possibly murder them. Choosing between minor loss and major loss is not the same as being able to choose no loss. Assault is immoral. I think the facts can be helpful for somebody who is curious upon learning that spanking might be assault. Otherwise, it's like a smoker being slammed with smoking statistics: instant shut down with reinforced aversion to future approaches.

That's a lot of effort with almost no consideration of contracts. No, it is a formal exchange of voluntarily created positive obligations. When a store owner opens his doors to the general public he is granting temporary, conditional use of his property. The visitor gives nothing in exchange by coming onto/into his property. Theft is theft because it's stealing, not because it's a violation of a contract. This is one of the first points I made in regards to your challenge. Since you've now out-efforted me into coming full circle, I have no reason to expect that making the loop a 2nd time will yield different results. I hope you figure out why you need store entry to be contractual, for self-knowledge's sake. This conversation is over.

I don't think the false idol of the ring and the pageantry of a ball is any creepier than their general stance on sexuality. None of us would be here were it not for sex, so calling it evil in any capacity is hypocritical. As is saying God is great, but the body he gave you is crap. No kissing until after you're married? These fathers do not want their children to be happy. Maybe they were leches, so they assume all guys are. What they don't realize is that it's ritualistic abuse like this that makes it so. You cannot fight nature and if you try, there will be consequences. Like what's going to happen when these kids, who are growing up with the internet, come to realize that sex is natural and joyous? Without any sort of education besides, "don't do it," which is demonstrably false, they'll have no sense of responsibility on the subject. A little empiricism goes a long way, especially in this regard. It's sadistic torture like this that makes it hard for me to leave religion alone. I lived a very similar hell to this. Also, it's a large part of the reason why ideas like home-schooling get so demonized as well: Many people associate it with religions indoctrination because a good portion of it is.

I don't follow. Is whether polytheism, judais religion, or atheism is true something we can alter by "casting our vote"? How can a truth claim delivered with the caveat of "whether it's true or not" be taken seriously?

Another thing to consider is that raising a child correctly is a huge investment of time and resources. None of this plop them in front of the TV and it's like not having a kid at all. In a free society, people wouldn't have the drive to have many children. Compare this to the current corruption of government that pays people to have more children, exploits resources, pollutes to no end, etc. I have no reason to expect that birth rates/patterns would look at all the same in a free society as it does under a government.

Isn't this gross collectivism? You're generalizing democrats, republicans, and even unions. There's nothing wrong with voluntary unions because they're voluntary. There's something wrong with coercive unions because they're coercive. For that matter, what does liking or hating have to do with anything? Does liking equate to the perpetuation of coercive unions? If so, the coercion is far more important that the sterile-sounding "like." Does hating equate to coercively obstruction voluntary unions? If so, the coercion is far more important that the sterile-sounding "hate." Some might be getting compensated with (partially) subsidized schooling. I don't think education is accurate. Those who are being subsidized have likely done so under contract, which would preempt or severely limit what they might get out of a union. I don't know if it's intentional, but in the context of your post, it almost seems as if you're suggesting that college sports is a given. Like weeb pointed out, if players want things that would be beneficial to people pushing their bodies to the limits, and those things will not be provided, they'll either have to bear the expense themselves or get out of the pushing their bodies to the limits game. This might end up being a market signal that people don't want such things when they actually have to pay for it themselves. I'm talking about sports in general (excluding leisurely play of course).

Old sailing advice: One hand for the boat, one for yourself. Nothing you could do for the boat makes a difference if you're tossed overboard.

Do stores exist in nature? No, they are man made. As such, if you walk into a store that you do not own, you know that you do not own it. There is no contract. Thieves are not prosecuted for violations of contracts. This begs the question. You have yet to establish that entering a store is contractual, so we don't know if they are part of the same process. Also, whether they're part of the same process or not wasn't what was being challenged there. What was being challenged was your indication that the words are interchangeable despite being completely different. When you made this mistake the first time, I corrected you. Then you re-asserted it as if no correction was made. When that was pointed out, you're changing the subject to being part of the same process. That continues to be a LOT of effort to avoid the truth. Do you own your own store? I'm trying to fathom why somebody would NEED store entry to be contractual as to warrant this level of effort to make it so.

I don't know what you're talking about. You challenged my claim that one doesn't need a contract to ENTER a store. That post is a whole lot of effort to refute it without actually addressing it. Again, these words are not interchangeable. Contracts are created before an exchange. Receipts require the exchange to have already occurred.

Have you explored why you need for my initial statement you quoted to be false? It's leading you to trying to reinvent the definition of contract rather than considering that your understanding might be inaccurate. This is an assertion only. I've never seen or heard of anybody having to agree to anything in order to enter. The closest thing I can think of to an exception would be those no shirt, no shoes, no service signs of yesteryear. Those referenced service, not entry. Or I've heard of more upscale restaurants requiring their patrons have a suit jacket to be allowed in.

If you go someplace and take something, it's theft because you are exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else. This has nothing to do with a contract. A contract is something two parties agree to prior to the exchange it outlines. A receipt is proof that value was exchanged and the issuer of the receipt transfers ownership of the items listed to whom it's issued to. This takes place AFTER the exchange.

Here is a scan of the preface from one of his books. I believe it was called Brain Droppings. I scanned it and shared it because I found a lot of meaning in it about a decade ago. Carlin was a smart man, but alot of the things he got right were by accident. He wasn't expressly philosophical, so he got some things wrong also. It might be easy to chalk it up to editorializing for comedic purpose, but his mid to late career was significantly focused, practiced, and intentional, so I would discard such a consideration. The context in which he used the word spectator wasn't just distancing himself from the corrupt, but it was also defeatist. It was him sort of giving up and I identified with this, which is why I now consider it a dangerous, and indeed irresponsible thing to say to an audience of any size. When we see corruption, there's a reason for it. It's not the end of the story, but a midpoint. If he had used the word spectator in the context of being observant and curious, he might've been open to the possibility that we'll be able to make use of the information to make corrections and improve the future. Carlin grew up on the streets of New York where he had little parental supervision and hung out with friends who had the whole NYC macho "be a man" thing going on. In this way, he normalized whatever abuse he suffered (if "only" neglect) and actually wore it as a point of pride. I looked up to him for a while. He was the first person that convinced me to question everything I was taught about religion (by example). He was anti-establishment, including refusing to provide ID to the police when he was detained one of the nights Lenny Bruce was hauled away for obscenity. He spoke out against the FCC, citing its unconstitutionality. There's lots of reasons to admire the man and his views. But like I said, he didn't arrive at those conclusion by principles.

I'm really glad to read all of that. It sounds to me like you're taking good steps and getting reasonable results. I hope you consider the payout worth the investment of time and effort and will stick with it. Thank you again for your efforts in these measures that truly do make the world a better place

ribuck, I liked the way you handled that difficult situation. I'm big on how parents model behavior for their children, so when I read your story, I wondered if maybe it should serve as a warning to other parents to not allow their children to see them using a knife? That never would've occurred to me had you not shared that, so thank you. I guess to generalize, we could say to never engage in behavior in front of the child that you're not prepared to deal with them wanting to explore. Which is obvious in terms of things like smoking and swearing, but not so much with things like handling knives. @topic: I really despise the word misbehave. It strikes me as arrogant; It frames the conversation as if the parent is automatically right for no reason other than they're the parent. Which I feel makes them automatically wrong since the environment and experiences of the child is something they are responsible for providing. For a clearer understanding of how warped that word is, just reflect upon how we do not use it in regards to anybody except those who cannot fight back. We never say that a serial killer "misbehaves" even though I can hardly imagine a more legitimate use of the term.

I assume you mean unpleasant, and I'm really sorry to hear that. I would argue that all emotions are positive because they never lie to you. To answer your titular question, what would confronting him accomplish? Either he is already aware of how he affects you or he is not. If he is, then he's sadistic. If he is not, then he's uncaring. So he's either cruel or incompetent. I'm not saying you shouldn't confront him, but I do think that like your emotions, you should be honest with yourself as to why you're doing it, what you hope to accomplish by doing it, and what the likelihood of that outcome would be. I think the more important question is the one your emotions might be trying to tell you about. Namely, why would you allow somebody like that in your life? I fully accept that dysfunction in the offspring is entirely the parent's fault. But adult relationships are voluntary. I mean, if his hygiene is half as bad as you say, it's literally a hazard to your physical health to be in his presence. I think you already understand the hazard to your psychological health. If you think that confronting him might bring about real change, then great. However, I think you owe it to yourself to save yourself before you try managing other people who are not your responsibility. Does any of this make sense?

The staff for that show must be really sleazy to be so out of material that they have to cite a statistic, not at all explore the reason behind any of it, and instead focus on one of the more wretched manifestations of it.