Psychophant

He is working hard, plays his cat music regularly the whole day long but nobody leaves a dime in his bucket, so the free market fails again.

No 1 is irrelevant cuz neccessity is not a moral category, otherwise anything that isn´t strictly necessary would be considered immoral by default. "Take that bag of gummi bears away little fellow, cuz it is not necessesary and therefore immoral." You could also make the same case for plants, cuz being sentient doesn´t constitute for being a moral entity. You can neither argue with animals nor with plants. They cannot respect or even recognize your selfownership, thus selfownership cannot apply to them. Murder is a legal term and has no meaning outside of a statist realm, although murder is an emotional charged term animal rights ideologues denounce omnivores with. No selfownership means no enslavement but you use those categories which indicates an implicit question. Torture is a different category. Wasn´t it the Non Torture Principle or something? It is not in the best interest of farmers to torture animals, cuz it ruins the meat quality due to cortisol.

If other people are the problem than solitude is the answer. There is no "we" there is just me in my life who has set his cause on naught.

There is no community you are involuntary part of. If it is not in a vacuum doesn`t mean anything in terms of legitimacy. That`s right, if a vow is just a form of signing a contract, it has no meaning beyond it. I am not opposing people who are into BDSM in the same way I am not opposing people who are conservative, as long as they are not advocating the gynocentric model which "throws men under the bus."

I agree, why would you make a contract if you trust that person, since you had any time necessary to make an informed decission and in the world we live in only in extremely rare cases only the man has to bear the major risks the contract entails. Imagine you enter in a business relationship with someone who can terminate the contract at will and get most of your assets on top of it. A weekly BDSM session is cheaper.

It has boiled down to submissive behaviour towards women and since concepts are not limited by their definitions, I am talking about the modern understanding of chivallry as it has manifesed itself in the real world - which was quite obvious. Chivallry is not just "Don´t kill women and children," cuz we ain´t knights anymore + You don´t need a concept like chivallry for not killing people anymore, cuz it is quite obvious that killing people aside from selfdefense is immoral. It is just an outdated concept that grants females preferential treatment they don´t deserve by default, just because of the accident of birth. It is not very sexist is like saying spanking your children once a month is just a little assault. You act like a feminist who comes up with the dictionary definition if you criticise feminism as if a definition would be restrict reality. @8:39 ... or play human toilet paper. Just for the perverts out there. @13:00 Get that I-reduce-chivallry-to-the-least-questionable-position guy?

Easy fella, looks add nothing to the validity of the statement and she is fully responsible for what she said.

Yeah, but she is responsible for the drivel she spouts. Ignorance is really no excuse, unless she was mentally retarded. i like cutsie chicks as long as they are as smart and witty as cute.

@22:50 The Pareto principle, not again. (20:80 or 80:20) Health conciece is sometimes an euphemism for health obsessed or body obsessed aka vain. Since nobody dies healthy, the extremities aside - obesity and healt obsession, there is lots of middle ground. E. g. your nutritional intake is balanced and you ain't exactly a couch potato. Speaking of extremities, if you ruin your health by being a couch potato your life isn't going to be long, beside that there is no causation for a prolonged life span due to so called health conciece life style. You simply cannot make a case based on extreme examples.

Yeah, but she chose to hold a speech. I would refuse to hold a speech I didn't wrote and I couldn't agree 100% with. Sophistry drives me nuts. Especially the umbiquous statement about feminism and hate. Does she wants to shut those people down who perceive feminism as a hate movement or does she wants to turn the sistahood into an egalitarianhood?

Interesting in this context means someting like "I don´t give a shit but I am trying to look concerned."

If you suffer from it then it is not productive in any shape or form. If actually other things are more immportant to you have slit into an adiction. Addiction is an continuum.

Yep, sophists work with fuzzy terms like social justice or healthy lifestyle. Something which isn`t totally unhealthy is healthy to some extent. For instances the chain smoker self-medicates his childhood trauma to the extent he can feel normal again. The side effect, an increased risk of lunge cancer would make it defiantly unhealthy for the average lad.

Easy bro, you cannot own peoples´ perception of you, cuz that would mean to own their thoughts about you. Those social justice warriors trying to bully people into acceptance try to enforce acceptance which is futile.

If they are paid voluntarily they aren´t paid to much, cuz a voluntary business transaction is benefitial to both parties otherwise it wouldn´t take place.

Then refrain from things in your life that aren't strictly necessary. Eating plants for example, if you can get the same nutritions from cattle. If it is not torture it is moral to eat animal, since it is no violation of the NAP. I don't think you can make the claim that all cattle is tortured but hey, the burden of prove is not on me, although I would suggest that farmers aren't interested in diminishing meat quality: http://www.cattlenetwork.com/drovers/columns/editorial/reducing-cattle-stress-will-help-you-improve-beef-quality-113971094.html

You could have them all, cuz your sperms whould be liquid platinium valuable enough for a 11 out of 11. Otherwise I am not quite sure if you wouldn´t be enslaved by the sistahood as human sperm factory.

Feminists who have no impact on reality ain`t actual feminists, cuz feminism is an ideology who advocates female supcremacism and the hatred of man. Albeit they use the label feminism wich has a female connotation instead of egalitarian, a form of humanism. That would like be me calling myself a "good" KKK member who doesn´t want to kill niggas or hate on them but complain about a lack of white gangsta rappers or a being a "good" Nazi with an affinity for jewish prostitutes. People can make up stuff all they want, as long as they don´t actively oppose the bad ones, they don´t have much credibility, haven´t they?

That´s why gynocentrism has so much destructive power, there are a lot of pussy addicts who cater to such trash. A pussy for a baby boy´s foreskin, a pussy for a man´s live.

The degree of inaccuracy of a theory is determined by the lack of knowledge - variable, flaw in logic.

What has the age to do with anything? Bullies prey upon the weak or weakminded, especially if they are most likely sociopath. Dat chick dat bullied me durring my first 8 years of school can lie with a straight face and make it credible - in case you don't know about micro expressions of course. Stef had a micro expression as he talked about Ana Kasparin and the "productive" exchange of ideas - sarcasm . Micro expressions are unusual facial expression that aren`t in accordance with what has been said.

That's a great video on male solvent of female manipulation:

There is no ethical burden in this case. A proper comparission would be the difference between rape and love making. If you give words power, they can destroy you. The same sentence is not abusive to anyone, it requires a precondition. The intent was harmless but the fraidy cat wees his pants for the next month, due to false perception. It is actually pretty simple. You cannot universalize meanings and perceptions, since mental conditions and language are about to change in context and on individual basis. It is like with active dreaming, you decide whether or not there is a boogie man, cuz you can change the story to your liking. In the realm of objective reality, it is fairly easy, someone shoots and kills you, he is responsible. In the realm of language and mental conditions, it is not that easy. The bullets are only there if the person to whom has been acted upon is buying into it. If you do the Stef and say "it was just projection on your part and has nothing to do with me" the bullets go *puff*. I don't know how to put it easier.

So we need no fire departments because tsnunamis are causing more harm or genocide is more urgent than regular mass murder. Communism is more dangerous than national Socialism, cuz communism killed more people. How about developing a treatment for both types of cancer and stop the victim olympics, since it is likely that this treatment might work for other types of cancer as well?

The planet has survived ice ages, gigantic vulcano eruptions - floods of lava, an gigantic meteor impact followed by enormous tsunamis and earthquakes, climate changes as periodical events. Yeah, and a bunch of scientists who don't buy into the alarmist narrativ are blamed for an ostensible apocalypse. Science is about truth, not about alarmism, right?