MagnumPI

Yeah a separate webpage dedicated to the man is just for the interest of philosophy. Removing critical posts of Trump/in favor of Rand from the board and YouTube is just a play to get people to stop hitting their kids...

What day of the week is it? Lately we're Republicans backing a war candidate who has been bankrupt (morally and financially) a number of times.

Not finished yet, but I like what he's saying. Lots of reason, obviously done his research.

Children are not adults...And unless I missed it, he hasn't filed abduction charges.

... Yes, he did. You can tell because he's on youtube crying for the camera, knowing he'll get millions of views and offers nothing substantial regarding introspection or desire to become stronger and grow from the experience. And you know what, I'll say it. Physically abused? He got hit once. Cheese and rice. I do disagree. Only thing he should be telling others is "I left the bitch". She didn't make him feel, didn't make him do, didn't force him to stop talking to anyone. He didn't 'become' anything. He CHOSE what he did. For her. And went back for seconds. Speak out, the hell does that mean? If you want to talk about it, do it. No need to elevate to anything other than conversation. Shit, she's like 90 lbs. I've probably gotten deeper wounds from my cat. If I called my friends crying over that, they'd think it was hilarious. Hey bro, my old lady punched me. No shit? You drop the bitch? No! Why, I'm just so emotionally manipulated and hurt that I'm going to stick around and do this for a while longer. I just needed to speak out. FFS...

FYI, I lost compassion at "... I took her back". Would have if he were a woman, as well. And I won't enable weakness. Got a problem? Let's fix it. If you need 2.5 million people to commiserate, that's just a band-aid for a gushing wound. Deny victimhood? You betcha. I'll help someone avoid victimhood, overcome victimhood, but not become a victim. One would think men would have learned something about begging for sympathy from this gynocentric culture. Between the alimony, child support/custody, taxes, welfare, complete economic ruin and just plain deplorable behavior from numerous generations of at least half the species, it should all be obvious how dangerous it is to embrace pity. Instead of coddling the man(whom I don't know, don't care to, never will meet), I'm going to look for something to take away from his experience. What I've gathered is something I already knew and had to learn myself, the hard way: Don't sleep with sociopaths. Throw them out if you do. Lock the fucking door... Would have been nice to have had someone sit me down and tell it like it is, but only people around were a feminized caste of obedient ladyboys and man-children. So I carried on, wept, wasted emotions on vampires, drank myself into a self pitying stupor of pathetic jelly like this guy. Got me nowhere. Found reason, put the pieces together and now I'm stronger than ever. Outside of that, teaching men that all they have to do to make things better is cry into a camera(just like a woman!) is destructive and dangerous. I won't be party to it.

Might want to elaborate a little. What kind of math, and what kind of education, are you talking about specifically? Math is a learned topic. It's not and emotional or biologically embedded trait. I can't fathom what age would have to do with learning it. I found some articles on a quick search of 'math learning age dependent'. I see that the education industrial complex seems to think an inability or difficulty learning maths is some kind of disorder, which is fuckin scary albeit perfectly predictable. (Mostly)Women refusing to take responsibility for poor teaching? How about common core! Still not working? Oh, that's a disorder... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051027082434.htm

Meh. He put up with it because she's hot, and he isn't. Want hot and crazy? Take hot and crazy, don't cry about it afterward. Or fake...

Are the results measurable or not? If so, that's it. I can't get a tooth drilled & filled and perceive the cavity is taken care of. They did it, or they didn't. And if simply thinking I don't have to worry about the cavity because the dentist is going to cure my cavity... cured the cavity, there was never a cavity. The study cited, I didn't watch the whole video, you describe as being administered by a doctor and others by a drip? Was it administered the same way? Was it a single shot of 'x' dosage vs slowly adding it across time configured in a PID loop? The little cartoon I skipped to was just that. A nurse with a syringe and separately a guy lying in bed.

Eh, can it just be that we're sick of hearing about god and christ and all the other fairy tale bullshit? Something bad happened, pray. Something good happened. Keep praying. Something neutral happened... PRAY! NO! Fuck that, I'm sick of hearing about how I'm supposed to sit around talking to myself to fix the world's problems. And I'm just as sick of seeing other people doing nothing else but talking to themselves to fix all the problems in the world.

No, we can't. Nor should we. Truth has to be universal... Or it's not truth. If one 'side' presents reason, data and the other comes with some fantasy, someone's gotta give. Guess who it needs to be? Frodo can't debate Tom Woods or Peter Schiff. You cannot bring God to non-fiction conversation.

Well, you can dumb your arguments down for idiots, certainly. But I don't like to practice being stupid. If your audience has trouble with a concise and reasoned argument, talk to someone else.

https://www.facebook.com/ladyspeech/posts/10207904453838443 I'm starting to see a lot more of this. I mean, anyone here can spot all the fallacious, weird nonsense, but it's just resonating with too many people not to be wary of this attitude. Things could get real dangerous in a hurry.

I would argue that those scenarios would require two different questions. One regarding weather, and another regarding murder. But again, car horns are not arrows. A person intentionally damaging another person's hearing, or doing so by means of negligence, is one act which may make use of a tool called a 'car horn'. Or jack hammer. Or firecracker. The imposition of audio to anyone within earshot, without qualification, is just making sounds. Car horns are not demon, succubus, siren screeches at any range. You can not show damage if someone behind you honks at you, unless there's some silly story like he put a foghorn on, but that's something different again. It is not a weapon, just because you hear it.

Show objectively damage results from the sound of a cars horn. When you can't... Thats why ignore.

Binding upon someone is not injurious. A billboard displays a messages, creates a thought. Immoral? No, just the reality of existence. So now we're talking about people intentionally causing harm? I thought we were talking about the introduction of harmful sound into the environment? Your definition is imprecise. And again, pulling a bad analogy in. A raccoon digging in my trash isn't theft, or stealing. Noise pollution as you defined it did not require any moral agency to exist. It doesn't even require that anyone is actually harmed. Pollution could include beaver dams. But it's obvious that you're very emotional about loud noises, in order to qualify a car horn as harmful, one would have to show damage and you've practically insulted every board member with this insinuation about bias. So, that's my piece. Cars are property...

It wasn't begging the question, before you defined noise pollution. It was a statement following: Is a car horn honk not a subset of noise? Unqualified, noise is just sound. UPB I believe is an acceptable measure. And I hit that in my initial comment in that whilst driving, or being on or near the road, nobody assumes not to hear a car horn, regardless the intent. And particularly if that's all your definition entails. Because non-moral agents introduce harmful sound to the environment. So, introducing harmful sound into the environment cannot be immoral in that both moral agents and non-moral agents produce it.

Noise pollution: Undefined. More unassociated links are being made, however. Theft is not sound. Sound is not pollution. Sound exists whether a moral agent makes it or not. Strawmen have also entered the room...

The question was specific, thankfully, so I don't need to read into underlying issues. Remove the obscurity, and you remove the problem. If the question regards noise pollution, start defining terms. Then quantify, qualify, reapply to a specific, workable scenario. We'll end up right back at the initial question, and the problem... Solved itself. A tangent was provided revolving around shouting. But that's a separate act, which would be fleshed out thusly, and a more complex analysis would be necessary. Yelling is both an old guy who can't hear, and the fat black lady on the bus t'ombout my muddafukkin baybee daddy owe me some got-deamm re-ent. So even it requires further deliberation. But then crows (particularly while mating) are noisy, does that qualify as pollution? And how can you apply morality to horny crows? On and on. This is pointless, and if that's what the topic was intended to be, I'm sorry I participated. Specifics are our friends.

Are we actually just talking about assertion? Honking a horn to say 'dick' or 'move your ass' or 'dont hit me', even 'oh hai jenny!' in car speak is the same word. Chalk it up to a language barrier. The act is the same regardless of intent and all cars have horns. To drive is to accept they may be used. Ditto for deafening goddamn sirens.

As Doug Stanhope would say, it's just "another form of doing nothing".

So, nobody's even reading what I write, and it's just turning into an ignore-fest. Baling out of the thread.

"In an anarchistic world, how would black people seek justice through arbitration or private law so that they might remain on the lands they've existed on for decades or more?" "In an anarchistic world, how would hispanic people seek justice through arbitration or private law so that they might remain on the lands they've existed on for decades or more?" "In an anarchistic world, how would Asian people seek justice through arbitration or private law so that they might remain on the lands they've existed on for decades or more?" Just more racism disguised as concern.

Meh, insults and no argument. Another one for the list.

Last part first. If the indigenous choose not to interact with civilization, they don't know the difference between the state or anyone else. Market forces come into play regarding businesses that operate this way. The people most closely invested would be responsible for providing legal representation and watching the court actions regarding such issues as much as they would their neighbors or themselves. Again, this involves either integrating the people into society or outright removing their agency. I don't see why fraud against ignorant people is any more or less abhorrent than fraud against anyone else, and would be handled the same way in any case. But I assign personal responsibility to everyone pretty much equally. If fraud can be proven, in say a private arbitration court, it would only require proof that it happened for any interested party to present their case against the perpetrator. The victim wouldn't necessarily have to be involved in the case, beyond showing how they were damaged. The burden of proof still, as it should, lies on those presenting the case. Now, if it is the case they're genetically inferior, then will you treat them as inferior? Or do I have to still pretend they should be treated like equals AND coddle them? I won't do both. The first question is irrelevant. And it's presumptuous. Had I been born to them, I wouldn't be doing much thinking at all. I'd eat, sleep, do stupid shit, get high on frogs and have sex. I have sympathy for them. Just not for their lack of advancement or involvement in the world all around them. You can Theodore Kaczynski if you want, but don't expect a handout when you're face to face with reality. Because they know about the communities surrounding them, and choose their lives. The uncontacted tribes get a pass initially, but if it's so important to you(or whomever), set up an expedition to find and teach them about the world, educate, etc, etc. It's not anyone's responsibility to cater to them. However, once you do that, they won't be what they are. If you want to treat them as trinkets, be honest about it. If you want to treat them like people, then start treating them like people. Predators are out there. I don't excuse getting drunk and passing out in an alleyway in downtown Chicago as an honest oversight and I don't excuse dancing around a campfire instead of thinking as noble and fascinating. It's just careless.