dsayers

My pleasure. I was blown away it pointed out how drugs that promote violence are accepted while drugs that promote pleasure are demonized. It's one of the reason why I'm so active in this capacity in this thread: I think it's dangerous to regard something as problematic if it's not. Maintaining that position would be detrimental to self-knowledge and rational thought. On what basis? Not saying you're wrong, but it occurs to me that you're only here because "your ancestors ate and fucked everything that they could." -Penn Gillette, Bullshit! This is spoken as if there is a moral dilemma. The making and consumption of most porn does not involve the initiation of the use of force. Therefore it is behavior that is not binding on others or is but with their consent. I see no moral dilemma other than some people are convinced that it is immoral when it in fact has no moral consideration. While you're providing materials, did you avail yourself of the materials I've offered? You made no mention of this. Also, you haven't put forth any arguments. Just re-assertions of your initial post along with some appeals to authority. This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. We'd never even think to suggest that a kid tossing a ball at a hoop dehumanizes basketball. Or that watching a game on TV dehumanizes basketball. If you're interested in conspiracy theories and immorality, then what about the one where people are shamed for being sexual beings?

How do you know? Not saying you're wrong. I had this conclusion inflicted upon me, by my chief abuser no less, to keep me perpetually in the "broken" and dependent pile. Our (my sister and me) parents used us as pawns to get at each other too. Sorry to hear your ex is being that way. I also admire the courage it takes to accept your role in choosing him, as well as what led to being able to make that decision. It sounds like you're trying to do what's best for your kids at this point.

A disarming poisoning of the well. That's what's so valuable about the "not an argument" approach. Don't tell me you're going to (insert behavior here), SHOW ME. Wish my first post in the topic would go live. Was typed yesterday and I've never done anything to indicate I need censorship or approval here.

Is he "feeding the anti-Muslim sentiment"? In the videos I've watched so far, if I could identify any overarching message, it's that all of this is only possible with a State. As well as combating the notions that we have to tolerate the intolerant, be nice to the cruel, and so on.

Don't know why this was downvoted. If you think irrationally, you are dangerous. It's exactly what I was saying up front. Focusing on one system of irrational beliefs is to address the symptom, not the problem.

That's a lot of exaggeration, Mantis. By saying eugenics, you're saying that people would not have chosen porn unless it was inflicted upon them. I don't think that's even close to true. From an epigenetic standpoint, in order to be accurately described as brain damage, it would have to be traumatic. This too looks like an exaggeration. As for addiction, check out the first half of Stef's Main point being that nothing is inherently addictive. Addiction refers to a person's receptiveness based on their past trauma. In which case, those who inflicted the trauma, and a lack of knowledge and processing are the problems. Not whether the afflicted nurse their abuse by way of alcohol, drugs, or porn. You can say you think it's bad because of X, Y, and Z, but to exaggerate preference to serious objective claims is dishonest and irresponsible.

This really pisses me off. First, the contradiction between disarming their own people while arming everybody else. Secondly, the fact that when France bombs despite parliament and the people not wanting it, the French people get punished, not those actually responsible. I hope as many people as possible come to see these contradictions.

The titular question is hugely uninformed. "Russians" is collectivizing people based on who claims ownership over them, which cannot lead to any factual consideration. OP confesses that we're not talking about 100%, so collectivizing is inherently inaccurate. "Inherently evil" is a contradiction in concepts. If something is not a choice, we cannot assign a moral consideration to it. Morality refers to behaviors not people anyways. "Disapproving" refers to a preference, not a behavior. I caution others against participation in this thread. As you can see in this thread, OP has an unwillingness to define terms, differentiate against preferences and behaviors, and has an undisclosed predisposition regarding homosexuality and what he calls pedophilia. Just in case somebody was wondering why suddenly pedophilia is on the tables when Russians and homosexuality was the topic.

This is an argument against its being displayed, not those who observe it. The fact that we don't know what it's supposed to communicate only serves to reveal how meaningless it is. How many of those same people respond to something like this want gun control? After all, the gun is a symbol too. If nationalism (a form of symbolism) wasn't a thing, would these innocent people have been attacked for what their "leader" did? Would people have been able to do the things on the scale they were done that served as motivation for the blowback? Displaying a flag is part of the problem! Of course we can say that behaviors void of meaning are meaningless.

You said this in response to a series of questions. Meaning you didn't address the questions and again put words into somebody's mouth. This lack of integrity is why you're getting downvoted. When you tell somebody they're implying something when they ask questions (instead of answering those questions), you are making it about them. When you claim you are above other people, you are "stooping that low."

This is an appeal to emotion, not an argument. This deflects attention away from what we were talking about and onto me. This neither acknowledges nor addresses the logical flaw I pointed out. This compares prior restraint to legitimate justice. You had said that we should initiate the use of force to be moral. This is an objective claim which is false as it is self-contradictory. When you make an objective claim, you are also claiming there there is such a thing as truth, such a thing as falsehood, and that truth is preferable to falsehood. I pointed out that you were not adhering to the very standard you put forth. Do you reject your own capacity for error? Are you able to identify why you experience an emotional attachment to the falsehood you put forth? Assault is already illegal. Which doesn't address the threat of assault that prior restraint is. Natural law already tells us that assault cannot be universalized. So yes, I don't think that turning to the State for a solution is effective, rational, or moral.

If use force to stop a doctor from mutilating a baby, you would be convicted of assault. I don't think turning to the State for a solution is effective, rational, or moral.

People operating in the name of the State threaten and harm people who own guns despite the writing on a piece of paper you're referencing.

A generality isn't meant to be representative of every last item in the set. Unless it's 100%, a statistic isn't meant to represent every item in a set. There's a big difference between a stay at home mother of infants whose husband gets T-boned on the way home from work and is killed instantly that somebody who whores around without a second thought because hey, free shit! People respond to incentives, single mothers are people, governments provide incentives to single mothers, including by way of programs that are named in a way to indicate that adult males are ineligible. It's not really a question.

As no frame of reference was provided, I don't know what you're referring to. As long as people aren't initiating the use of force against others, I don't care how they live their lives, associate, or name themselves.

Is this a question you pose out of curiosity, or matter of factly as if doubt is sufficient? Because I think it falls apart once you begin to jump down that rabbit hole. Radiation might've been imperceptible to us at one point, but its effects were not. This is very important to understand because suppose radiation existed, but did not effect us in any way. Then for it to exist or not exist would functionally make no difference. Nor would we have any reason to suspect there was such a thing as radiation. So the fact that we can even have this conversation means the theory of outside our understanding fails. So let's take a closer look. Let us suppose that the first time the concept of a deity entered human consciousness was by observing the sun. I'll roleplay that primitive mind: I see this thing that I cannot reach. When I can see it though, everything is easier to see and everything is warmer also. This doesn't fit anything I understand. When I was a child and understood nothing about my world, I turned to this larger being who was heavily invested in my care and maintenance (parents). Therefore, I'm going to ascribe what I'm seeing as a deity since it's the closest explanation I have. Fast forward and we learned what the sun is and why it appears to come and go. At this point, deity should've been shaken from human consciousness. It wasn't though because it was a comforting thought. So comforting in fact that some people needed for it to be true. Or were subjected to others who needed it to be true to the point of inflicting it onto others. For the concept to survive for millenia with zero reason to suspect it is valid, for the ultimate defense of the possibility to be maybe it's outside our understanding, you're basically proving that it is the product of wishful thinking. I don't live in the world where deity might be possible. I live in the world where consciousness is an emergent property of matter. If someday it is revealed that hot damn, there is a deity, then that will be the reality we're living in. Until such a time, to say it's possible is to reject reality. I spent so much of my life in a reject reality mode by no choice of my own that I don't have any interest in those who do. Somebody that thinks they can wish a problem away won't be searching for the actual solution, and therefore would be a liability in my life.

It would be nice if companies could focus on providing products and services instead of pandering to HR demands, coercive regulations, people wanting them to agree with them on irrelevant topics, etc.

"Political voting is the initiation of the use of force." Do you accept this to be true? You had said that at one point you were going to give somebody permission to initiate the use of force against everybody based on what they said. Here, you're saying that what somebody says in that context is meaningless because they don't have to follow through and might not be able to anyways.

Thanks for elaborating. I understand better now. However, I now have another question: If this is your experience and the concerns you have as a result, have you considered moving? Sorry if it seems I'm straying from what you were originally talking about. However, with the talk about spying and missiles, it occurs to me that trying to manage other people can be exhausting. I wonder if there might be options that are easier for you.

I'm glad for the camera involved. Sometimes spurned advances like that have a way of turning into rape accusations.

That's what I meant when I referenced correlation. If you saw an increase in temperature and CO2 in the air, it doesn't necessarily mean that the CO2 came first. Even if it did, I think it's presumptive to assume that humans are responsible. Or that humans have the capacity to make a difference in the opposite direction either. There's no question we influence our environment. But humans are but a speck in terms of comparative size. The whole thing, even if it were true, is clearly a nanny State power grab. Certainly. But in order for a compound that can normally be found in the atmosphere in significant amounts, the amount the offender would have to be responsible for (taking proximity into consideration) I can hardly fathom. Don't forget that due to entropy, any concentration in a fluid naturally dissipates. So even a sustained "dumping" of CO2 into the air would have to be that much more to be truly binding upon others to the point of being a violation of property rights. I just don't see it. Certainly any project capable of that scale would be geographically grand to the point were simply distributing it evenly across all the associated land would be sufficient. Don't forget too that spraying salt water into the air helps to reduce the CO2 levels in that air. So such a facility could simply do that and alleviate the offense. Bottom line, the possibility is statistically improbable with an incredibly simple solution. I just don't see it coming up.

And what is the recourse if he doesn't pursue these once elected? Are these measures he could implement at will or is there a process by which other entities could obstruct his efforts in this regard? Do you accept that political voting is the initiation of the use of force?

If you're interested in trees, you look to the roots, not the leaves. We know that childhood trauma negatively impacts IQ. We know that theism isn't a conclusion arrived at by way of logic, reason, or evidence. Rather, it is inflicted upon the young, who lack the intellectual fortitude to resist, which is traumatic. I think this correlation is more meaningful, both in its ability to encapsulate the correlation you're referencing, as well as empowering us to deal with these problems rather than just summarize them.

Can you define AGW advocate please? For example, I accept that "theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral." It would be erroneous to describe this as advocating it since it's an accurate description of the real world. You can't really advocate that Earth's gravitational pull is 9.8 m/s^2. To me, the term advocate in a political context means advocates violence against those who disagree. In which case, I think it would be more beneficial to draw attention to an immoral willingness for violence against humans than to the consequences for plant life. Other hurdle could include that a rise in temperature would lead to increased saturation of CO2 in the atmosphere, so their correlation isn't necessarily directional. Also, plants are going to adapt as all life does. If there ends up being more/less CO2 higher/lower temperatures, all life will just adapt to those changes.

Since it's technically "praise thieves, assaulters, rapists, and murderers for the sake of perpetuating the nationalism delusion" day here in the empire, thought I'd bump this question. As well as encourage anybody who hasn't seen it to search for it on youtube. My condolences to those who were duped by these lies and have since come to accept the truth.