ClearConscience

I'm just going to plop this here. The solution to the "Muslim problem" is to be firm in your convictions. Any Muslim that lives in western society is going to feel uncomfortable, especially Muslim women. Don't cowtow to their reactions to your culture. The French are AGGRESSIVELY taking this perspective - to the point where they're actually denying individual liberty. I'm not advocating BANNING Muslim culture, to that regard, but never give any of your freedoms by virtue of "religious tolerance"... ever. That's the point. Allow people to do their own thing how they see fit, but be mindful of the underground group of people who want to enforce their ideas on you, and attack them hard. Be ruthless. France is being ruthless as fuck, surprisingly. This is France. Westerners think of France is being passive. They're not being passive at all in this regard. That's what you have to do, in the face of a religion that has its roots in intolerance. Sharia law is not your law, and if they want a government that enforces it, then they can go someplace else. Maybe Muslims need their own Israel. That is the Westerner's solution to strict Judaism, is it not? Perhaps Islam needs its own place CALLED MECCA, Saudi Arabia, where they can have their Sharia Law and live in that society that they see fit. But if those "diaspora" Muslims think they can invade another culture and institute their own rules, as a nation, we all need to stand up and say that this is not your home. It is your home, if and only if, you agree that tolerance is a virtue, and that people have the RIGHT to be immoral on this planet. If Allah allows for immorality on this planet, then institutionalized governments should allow for immorality on this planet. That's the principle. That's the winning argument with Muslims, and Christians, and Jews. God doesn't smite gays, and sexual deviants, and people who commit thought crimes, and those who endorse evil in this world. The role of government is to punish people who attack others, to ensure that you can live in peace, to defend you from invasions, to increase societal well-being, and to provide the greatest amount of individual freedom as humanly possible. The end. That's the purpose of government in western society. And any statute that opposes these aims will be aggressively opposed.

No, because there are plenty of women who are losers too. I don't like the judgment that's implicit in the question, but if you define what a "loser" is for men, then that same definition applies to many, many women. And believe it or not, a "loser" male who meets the right "loser" female, can enhance one another in such profound ways that both become winners. You don't have to be intelligent to succeed in life. You simply have to produce. Being productive is about being focused, working for something, or someone, and about sacrifice more than anything else. The combination of two "losers" can create a serious force to be reckoned with. No person is lost. People are a product of their environments more than you would believe.

Yes, because the prisoner's dilemma exists. The end.

I'm a bit confused at what you're hung up on. I agree that the purpose of action is what determines whether that action is rational or irrational. For instance, if your purpose is to provide an education for your children, it would be irrational to mandate that your children are not allowed to attend school. I implore you to ignore your opinions regarding public education, indoctrination, and all that for the moment. If your aim is for your children to be educated, then it is rational to instruct them to attend school, rather than the opposite. But, if you also have a competing purpose/goal/objective/aim for the safety of your children, and you hear that there is a bomb threat at the school, then the purpose of protecting your children will necessarily override the previous purpose to provide education. But allow us to suppose there was no substantive bomb threat, but you feared for the safety of your children nonetheless. The instruction to not attend school due such fear would be irrational. The fear itself is irrational because it does not correspond to a need. In other words, if the fear were tied to an existing need, then the action would be rational. I am drawing a distinction between legitimate fear and illegitimate fear, and this distinction is relevant to whether the action, as a response to fear, is rational. Rational action is action that is narrowly tailored to fulfill an existing need. When you adjust your definitions to make these important distinctions, the claim that "purposeful behavior [sic: I'm an American] can be irrational" is entirely tenable. ​Perhaps my misunderstanding is the use of the word "external forces" to refer to emotions or instinct. When I am emotional, that emotion is not external to me. I am fear. I am sorrow. I am glee. And those emotions are very much rational responses to external stimuli. Only where there is some defect, some damage, do these emotions not respond rationally to external stimuli.

Stefan, You want to engage with people... I'm telling you, you can engage with people BETTER!!! 1) Put ads on your videos 2) Film your videos in an actual set. Don't put a blank, white, wall and your handsome face as the only thing I am seeing. 3) Get decent lighting. These are things that I am demanding as a subscriber of over 6 years! If you want to spread your message, stop creating crap for people to watch (no criticism here regarding the substantive message) and start generating revenue so that you can increase your viewership. Get real!!! My preferential suggestions: 1) Paint your wall a bold color. 2) Adjust lighting so it illuminates one side of your face more than the other. 3) Put framed pictures of philosophers who influenced your life on the wall behind you. 4) Use studio lights to illuminate those pictures exclusively while keeping the painted wall in shadow. 5) Place the camera so the pictures behind you are slightly out of focus but still recognizable while your head and shoulders are perfectly in focus. 6) Put a sofa with some pillows in the background, under the framed pictures, in order to demonstrate that your channel is a place of comfort for your viewers. 7) Use rope light behind the couch to illuminate the frame of the sofa so that it is easily visible for your audience. These changes will dramatically increase your number of subscribers. PUT ADS ON YOUR VIDEOS TO FUND THIS!!!!!!!!!

When it comes to repaying victims for harms caused, this is the relationship of civil law. When you see one party sue another party for damages, this is a civil lawsuit. The purpose of civil lawsuits is to repay the damages caused by one party, against another party. When it comes to putting a person into a cage for a certain period of time, this is known as criminal law, as opposed to civil law. This has NOTHING to do with the victim. The victim is TOTALLY irrelevant. The victim isn't even necessary for the trial to proceed. The victim could be wholeheartedly against the prosecutor. In criminal court, it is THE GOVERNMENT against the alleged criminal. This is not an opinion. This is not some philosophical argument based on Stefan's words. This is exactly what they teach you in law school, day one. With regards to your last paragraph, Stefan is an advocate of social ostracism. I can say with 100% certainty, that Stefan is in favor of STRICT AS FUCK borders, and when convicted of heinous crimes, social ostracism. What this means is that a free society creates strict as hell borders and when a criminal is convicted, beyond reasonable doubt, of intentionally harming others in a sociopathic or psychopathic way, such as intentional murder or deliberate schemes to steal massive amounts of money from a huge pool of people, that they are sent elsewhere, out of society, and not allowed to purchase goods, or interact in any capacity with the society that they are ostracized from. That is the solution that Stefan presents. That is absolutely, the most clear and precise answer, to the question that you pose.

Nobody in their right mind will understand what you're referring to when you mention that 1st century philosophers regard government differently than modern writers. The only two philosophers I can imagine you're referring to are either Jesus, or Plato, and you would need to demonstrate that they showed some idea that government precedes society in order for me to even accept this premise, which I think is impossible. However, objectively, no government precedes society, i.e. men never, under any circumstances, are a product of their government. All governments, whether they be monarchies or democracies, are granted their power by the people. That is the central tenet of Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes. Government is a response to undesirable human interaction, and that is undeniably accepted by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. As far as political philosophy is concerned, there is no philosopher that I have ever read that ever, under any circumstance, even questioned the relationship between man and government in this way. In all circumstances, man precedes government. More specifically, government is a response to the fact that, in a state of nature, the individual benefits from immorality when interacting with his fellow man. Hobbes referred to a similar idea of the prisoner's dilemma. He showed that the role of governments, in society, is to take our daily interactions with one another, from being comparable to the prisoner's dilemma, into an interaction comparable to an assurance game. I suppose I would need clarification regarding the question that you're asking. Your preface is easily answered, and I'm not sure how it relates to the question about the created being greater than the creator.

Initially, I just need to comment on the fact that you have a massive speaker, probably valued at above $100, set on a tripod in front of the only door to the room. You're literally required to move that speaker every time you want to enter, or exit, the room, unless you can barely squeeze through by cracking the door. You need to make yourself available to women. This shit is unacceptable. You're actually a very attractive man, if you actually bathe yourself and wear clothes that fit correctly. Your style doesn't actually matter... ever... at all. Just buy clothes, when you can afford them, that contour to your body. Let your hair grow out a bit, and walk into the cheapest hair salon imaginable (Great clips?). Find the oldest person in there. Ask for the oldest person in that is working there, explicitly. Tell her that you're conducting an experiment and you want her to give you, in her opinion, the most attractive hair cut and styling that she can based solely on the shape of your face. Tell her that your study is regarding expensive hair stylists vs. more affordable options. Actually make the claim that you're conducting a study. Tell her to do give you a cut, and a style, that she is familiar with, that she has done many times. This is a lie, obviously, but I GUARANTEE that you will walk out of that place with a $15 haircut that looks amazing. Yes, this had nothing to do with your video. I'm just telling you how to win at life. EDIT: you mispronounced several words as you were reciting that horrifically pretentious quote.

Anybody who claims that Stefan isn't influenced by his Christian upbringing contradicts the claim that early childhood development affects self-identification. Furthermore, it's a total disregard for the psychological precedent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erikson%27s_stages_of_psychosocial_development#Fidelity:_identity_vs._role_confusion_.28adolescence.2C_13.E2.80.9319_years.29)

How much research have you actually put into understanding Judaism vs Christianity vs Islam? If I assigned to you, to tell me the similarities and differences between those three religions, would you even know where to begin??? I am guessing that you wouldn't, and if you tried, you would receive an F grade from any religious studies professor at a top 20 university. I know many here don't respect academia, but even in an introductory religious studies class... one where you are required to only know the basics of each religion, I'm willing to guess that you would fail this assignment. You have no education on the tenets of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and therefore you have zero capacity to persuade anybody from their previously held beliefs. You actually need to give a shit about what they believe in order to persuade them otherwise. Jesus learned this at an early age, according to all three religions. I advise you to follow in his footsteps. Fortunately, you're unlikely to be crucified for it, lol.

I have no knowledge of what your arguments could possibly be. I have not read your post whatsoever. I have only quoted it and am responding to what I believe is most likely your initial claims based on experience alone. The reason why I am doing this is because I want to clear the air before I receive responses. The most important aspect of Christianity is to understand that Christianity is not a vacuum. Christianity is a sect of Judaism. To further this explain this OBJECTIVE FACT, Christianity is the replacement (in the book, Jesus calls it the "fulfillment") of the Davidic covenant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_(biblical)#Davidic_covenant). Regardless of what you want to call it, quoting Old Testament scripture as a representation of Christian ethics is entirely a strawman argument. I really wanted to preface everything I have to say with this statement, and I wanted to support it with commonly accepted facts... a wikipedia article. Many will scoff at the fact that it's wikipedia, but there are a lot of Christians, and Christians read wikipedia and agree to what that wikipedia article says... because Wikipedia is edited by many Christian scholars all the time.. so it's the most common, most well-accepted, most universal statements. So I require you to grant me the fact that the Old Testament is a HISTORICAL CONTEXT for which we should use to interpret the New Testament, which demonstrates Christian values. The Old Testament SOLELY demonstrates NOTHING BUT Jewish values. That being said, I find issue with none of your premises. The single, solitary, problem with you argument is simply that it doesn't follow from your premises. Simply by stating that fact that God wholeheartedly and intentionally created the capcity, fully knowing that we would fail, to sin does not in any way mean that God is malicious in so far as he "purposefully created a reality where there is pain and suffering." I agree that God created pain and suffering. I do not dispute this fact. I dispute that its malicious. Jesus underwent pain and suffering for his righteousness, correct? And I believe that is the point to all of this. The pain and the suffering is temporary and a result of our own sin, each and every one of us. Think about the free society that Stefan describes in his idealized "FREE SOCIETY" that he glosses over but never truty discusses in depth. It's exactly the society that God intended, isn't it. It's a society without judgement, where little tiny babies are treated as slightly less educated, less experienced, adults... but otherwise no different... right? No judgement, and that is exactly what Jesus prescribed, is it not? Google what Jesus said about treatment of children. I'm going to leave that to you. I want you to discover it for youreslf. What did Jesus say about how we should treat children, and then compare that to what Stefan describes. Please inform me. This isn't a rhetorical assignment. Please, I beg you, inform us of your findings.

I made some posts on reddit and I received quote a few dislikes, but as you may know, reddit is a cesspool of entitled leftist neanderthals. Here is a link to the conversation: https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4t5vtj/kentucky_judge_turns_away_nonreligious_couple/d5f4wbh?context=3 My username is "WolverinesFirst". I throw insults at those who initiate insults. Mark Twain said never to argue with stupid people because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. Well, I used to be stupid. I used to be really fucking stupid. And now I'm not. So I don't fear arguing with stupid people and I enjoy getting dirty. I want to open up this discussion with a forum that supposedly prides itself on being philosophical and open-minded.

I haven't read anything by Girard and I honestly don't plan on it. I have no interest in psychoanalyzing the authors of the Bible. In my view, the historical and socio-political context is the furthest people can possibly hope to understand regarding the authors of the book. Trying to psychoanalyze the inner mind of people you've never met, who lived thousands of years ago, is a fools errand. I want to be clear that I'm not saying Girard is wrong. He could be 100% accurate. I simply do not know, and have no hope of ever being able to find out. I would hesitate to try to determine what atheists think about Christianity. Every atheist is different and often times atheists reject Christianity because they're strict empiricists. I would consider myself a rationalist. I don't know if anything in the Bible is true (it might be made up stories), but I know that those stories hold true moral virtue - because I study philosophy. And since that really really old book contains so much abstract truth, that I can verify, it would be silly to conclude that the other aspects that I cannot verify would be false. In short, if Jesus wasn't such an awesome guy, I probably wouldn't believe in the Bible. He's just so undeniably awesome.

I'm not going to speak for "many Christians" as you did, but I don't see anything said by Jesus or any disciple of Jesus that would lead any Christian to believe what you claim we believe. This entire post is a massive strawman. American politicans want to gain control over the natural resources in th middle East. That's why we're there. There's nothing in the Bible that says Jesus is coming back once America secures the oil.

I didn't read anything in this post. I noticed there was a premise/conclusion format to the argument, at first glass, so I skipped directly to the first premise. This is a false premise. god may be all knowing and all powerful, but certainly God does not control everything. Although the vast majority of Christians believe God has the capacity to control everything, I know of zero Christians who would ever subscribe to the belief that God chooses to control everything. In fact, the Bible strictly denies that God controls everything. So I'm not going to continue reading anything from this point until you amend your argument.

Honest, from 0-4:50, I don't see anything wrong with what was said. I don't really see how mandating that your children sleep in separate beds by age of 10 is important, necessarily, but sure. I'm not opposed. What's the problem? Raising your male children to be masculine and your female children to be feminine, that's fine. I'm not opposed. What's the the problem? i suppose my only minor gripe is that I would raise my female children to be masculine too, because by my definition of masculine, it just means remaining honest to yourself and not allowing others to marginalize you. Whatever... 4:50-8:10 Notice how that one white guy eventually was like... wtf?! He crosses his arms and is like, fuck this shit! Lol, that was awesome. But anyway, I don't know where this was or who these people are, but yeah, the punishments for sin in the Qur'an are asinine and anti-Jesus. I'm not going to call it anti-Christian, because there's a lot of tradition that people tend to group with Christianity, but Jesus espoused the antithesis of what Muslims tend to hold to as God's law. It's blasphemy for them to both claim Jesus as a member of Islam and also hold antithetical views to what Jesus blatantly and obviously held. Honestly, anybody who says stoning gays and imprisoning women who don't cover their hair is correct should be deported. You're insane. HOWEVER!!! I agree that the way women dress in this country is absolute insanity and homosexuals need to tone it the fuck down. I don't agree with the way women dress and I don't agree with the way homosexuals behave in America. I'm simply not a radical Islamic terrorist- lol. Trying to argue that Jesus would stand for violently attacking sinners is fundamentally insane. 8:15 Human judges suck, in your own Goddamn religion, so fuck off. Islam is evil. Cool. I agree. Stop attacking people. It's ineffective. If you don't think "the human killing" is brutal, then you first. I'll "humanly" kill you and then you tell me if it's brutal for you after-the-fact. You let me know... retard. However, I understand where he's coming from. It's a disgusting view perpetuated by Muhammad. Muhammad is a false prophet. He waged wars against his aggressors. You can't lovingly attack people. Did Jesus ever lovingly attack people? Did Jesus ever compassionately kill, or endorse the killing of anybody? BUT AT THE SAME TIME!!! This country, America, has become tolerant to the point of endorsing sin. Jesus would never do that. Jesus felt compassion for sinners, because sin is really fucking hard. That doesn't mean you turn around and say, yeah whatever, let's just go on sinning. That was the first criticism Christianity encountered and PAUL was commanded to address it. After Jesus died, Paul was commanded by God to address this criticism of Jesus' philosophy. GO READ PAUL! Everybody go read Paul to discover what you OUGHT TO THINK about homosexuality. Here you go: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+7 Read it. Learn it. Live it. 7-13 = Laws cause crime. If you want to eliminate all crime in society, then repeal all laws. If there are no laws, then there can be no crime. It is the laws themselves that create the capacity for wrongdoing. 14-25 = We are addicted to sinning. We cannot help but desire sin, especially sins of the flesh. No matter how hard we try, we cannot free ourselves from this ever-present desire within us. This applies to both homosexuals and to heterosexuals, equally. It is ENTIRELY equally sinful for an unmarried homosexual to sexually desire as it is for an unmarried heterosexual to sexually desire. (Side note: the reason why I don't want gay marriage is EXCLUSIVELY because I don't acknowledge homosexual desire as being non-sinful when the two pledge allegiances). But what is Paul's response to having these unrelenting desires, which CERTAINLY are't exclusive to gays??? We, as Christians, are all unwilling addicts (slaves to sin). Do you blame a heroine addict, who hates heroine, wishes he could be free of his addiction, but never-the-less, continues to abuse the drug? Do you condemn this heroine addict to death? Do you say he is an evil person with evil desires? How ABSURD!!! Any man/woman of Jesus would pity that addict. He wants to free himself of his addiction, so desperately, and all we (as Christians) should want to do is provide support. That is the way of Jesus. READ PAUL!!! READ WHAT HE SAID! I'm not just picking and choosing passages. The New Testament is such a fantastic read. I would recommend it, for strictly academic purposes, to anybody. I love this book. At the end of this, though, I really want to stress that the fundamental belief is that homosexual intercourse is sinful. It's not productive human behavior, and it glorifies an aspect of sex that isn't Godly. I understand homosexual desire. I really do. On a pragmatic level, it's destructive. Homosexuals can relate to women so well, and it's honestly robbing them of compassionate, loving, partners to live a homosexual lifestyle. This is an opinion that a lot of people are going to find offensive... people are going to be pissed at me. I think homosexual men have the capacity to identify with women in ways that will enrich the lives of women beyond the capacity of the vast majority of strictly heterosexual men, and it's nothing but selfishness to reject women on the basis that you desire manly flesh.

I am a Christian. I believe God is wiser than any man, and I believe Jesus is a part of God. Solomon was an incredibly wealthy commander of a Jewish army. Jesus was a poor nomad who lived off of nothing but the charity of those who appreciated the virtue of his message (kind of like Stefan, except his wife presumably has an income, but whatever.) So, let us examine what Jesus said about children and not, simple-mindedly, group all of Christian thought in with the Jews. Remember, Jesus was hated by the Jewish authority (Pharisees and Sadducees). "'At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?' He called a little child, and had him stand among them. And he said, 'I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me.'” ~Matthew 18:1 "Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Jesus said, 'Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.'" ~Matthew 19:13 I would challenge you to find anything within the New Testament that doesn't, outright, plead for people to treat children with the highest of regard. Jesus, literally, said children should be treated with higher regard than adults... 2000 years ago... when saying such things was probably the most unpopular opinion one could have, even among his own disciples. Think about that. Based exclusively off of everything I've read in the actual book, Jesus would say to treat those children in exactly the same way as you would treat an adult. If a child is currently in the process of harming another person, then use force to restrain the child. Protect the child from his/her own actions. But once the child is subdued, do not deliver violent retribution as a punishment, as if that will teach the child to behave differently in the future. Children tend not to think in terms of delayed gratification, and furthermore, they tend not to consider the delayed punitive damages of their actions. The best way to instill good behavior in a child is to teach them that their behavior is ineffective for achieving their desired outcome. It's plain and simple. Without a concrete example, I cannot demonstrate to you how the technique plays out, because every situation is different. All I can ask is that you examine what your course of action would be if that child were actually an adult, and request that you examine why your course of action should change.

Jesus espoused entirely new ideas for how we should think about Justice and ethics. Jesus was the first feminist. Jesus was an affront to the government of Israel to such an extent that they used rhetoric and sophistry to convince the general public to endorse his assassination. And you say that Stefan isn't Christian because he doesn't believe in a title... Your position is to say that a title, some particular status, is more important than the content, the substance, of the ideology. I'm sorry, I must have mistook this for a philosophy forum. What a shame. You are aware that this "example" is Jewish, for which Christianity can be thought of as a particular sect of Judaism... right? Jesus was a Jew. Your argument is unsound, though it may still lead to a true conclusion. It's yet to be seen. It's utterly astounding how one can place the chicken before the egg in such an obviously erroneous fashion. Which "more sophisticated thinkers" came before Jesus? The arguments made by Jesus in the Bible are actually very profound and highly counter-culture for its time and place, and align with much of what Stefan argues. Denying this link simply demonstrates a lack of understanding, either for Stefan's central tenets, or that of the New Testament. Stefan's criticisms of Christianity revolve almost exclusively around the Catholic tradition rather than the words written in the New Testament.

Okay... if by "control" you mean freely exercise the same privileges that all German gentiles enjoyed, by "revenge" you mean making self-interested business decisions, and by "escalated quickly" you mean systematically murdered every last Jewish man, woman, and child, only then is your version of history not abhorrently false. That's not extreme work. These sorts of scenarios happen all the time, which is why the United States has common law regarding necessity and duress. Necessity is when you commit a crime to prevent a greater harm BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE. Since these defenses are based on common law, it means that these scenarios aren't simply hypothetical. They actually happen in the real world. Calling scenarios demonstrating principles of real world American law, "time-wasting lifeboat scenarios," is unsubstantive crap and belongs nowhere near a philosophy forum. So you propose that the man hanging on the flag pole committed an evil act by violating a home owner's property rights? The only logical reason for why he didn't commit a moral wrongdoing is because he prevented a greater harm. He should still pay back the damages if he is able. This is morality. American law just HAPPENS to correspond with morality in this instance. The reason why I reference American law is because it should be obvious to somebody like Stefan. If he disagrees with American law, this is an opportunity to talk about that. He doesn't mention it at all, and instead chooses to attack the question itself, saying it's some incredibly challenging question that only serves to distract him from fighting the great forces of darkness. That's utter bullshit. Answer the question. It's not even a difficult question.

If your child was about to fight in the hunger games, would you want to go for a hike and then watch a recording of it, to see how he/she is doing after the fact, or would you be more interested in watching it live? If you actually cared about the fate of the people you're watching, then you want to watch it live, and it has nothing to do with irrational beliefs about supernatural wishing powers.

Is this real? Could you please use a little common sense? Killing is bad when you're being killed, but it's good when cancer is being killed... so how can killing be itself and the opposite of itself? Killing cancer is good because killing harmful things is good. Killing things that are beneficial is bad. You're beneficial to me. We have conversations. You're productive. You bring happiness to the lives of others around you. That's why killing you is bad. The same is true for breaking legs. If breaking a leg is beneficial, then breaking the leg is good. If breaking a leg is harmful, then it's bad. There are very few times where breaking a leg is beneficial. You're breaking something. Breaking things is usually harmful. One instance I can think of, off the top of my head, when breaking a leg is beneficial is when it's preventing a greater harm. By breaking the Nazi's leg, you can help several Jews escape being tortured and killed. It's that simple.

This guy is not a nitpicker. Counter-examples are a valid way of disproving the argument. The version of property rights you're touting doesn't allow for people to violate the property rights of others in cases of necessity where they do so in order to prevent a greater harm. I will shove you onto the ground and potentially injure you, and have zero moral hang-ups about doing it, if it will take you out of the path of a speeding bus. I violate your property rights, self-ownership, in order to protect YOUR property from a greater harm. This extends further to where people can violate the property rights of another in order to prevent a greater harm to themselves, but the perpetrators must find ways to return those harmed to their pre-injured state. In the example with the guy breaking through another person's window, he would have to pay compensatory damages to the home owner. This is the foundation of tort law in the United States. Breaking through somebody else's window without permission is an intentional tort in addition to being a crime of breaking and entering. That doesn't mean you can shoot him to defend your property. The only time you can use lethal force to defend your property is if you are reasonably in fear of losing your life or serious bodily harm. This is how it works in America. The reason we handle it this way is because it's the only way to handle these examples that conforms to justice and fairness. Stefan should have explained that, even in American law, a valid defense to a crime is necessity, meaning you can commit a crime and not be held culpable so long as the crime was committed with the intent to prevent a greater harm. That's part of American law BECAUSE it's clearly the moral way of assessing these sorts of situations. You can lie to Nazis in order to save the lives of Jews. That's not immoral at all. Why? Because you were acting from necessity. You committed the crime to prevent a greater harm, therefore you're not culpable. The Nazis would actually be culpable for your lie. They created the necessity. They are the greater harm. This is is how American law works. This is how morality works.

I think Donald Trump would stand to benefit from attacking Fox News for being too easy on him. All of the liberal media is saying that Fox News is being easy on Trump and not calling him out on his "racist" inflammatory speech. I'm not saying that Trump has said anything false or insulting. I'm saying that the liberal media is portraying him as such. More-so, the liberal media is harassing Fox News for not addressing race when interviewing Trump. It would benefit Donald Trump, the next time he was on the O'Reilly Factor, if he would say that Fox News is unfairly going easy on him. Donald Trump wants to respond to tough criticism, with the same level of scrutiny that he would receive when he is president of the United States. It's about time for Fox News to start questioning Donald on his views about race and socioeconomic class relations. In reality, these types of questions will always be softball questions. Just say what the democrats say, but then follow with the republican rebuttal. Done. It's that simple. Say the democrat point of view... sympathize with it... and then say that the country can't afford to support people who aren't willing to support themselves. The end. That's what you do. The path to success in this country will never be to live on welfare for a couple years, collecting food stamps, until you work your way out of poverty and become a highly productive member of society. This abhorrent abstraction of the liberalized "American Dream" is what lead Obama to the political arena, and it's proved to be an illusory promise. What a joke.... That's the message Donald Trump needs to run on. The "hope and change" Obama promised was an illusory promise. Who's hope and change? What master are you serving? That's the question Trump is going to ask Hilary Clinton. He needs to say, straight up, "What master are you serving, Hilary?" Whatever she says, the response will be swift and easily refutable.... because... what master is Donald Trump serving? ... .... ... crickets. Donald Trump is his own man in this election. He's serving no political party. He's his own master.

I'm glad I saw this thread. I came here to ask Stefan to respond to John Oliver's video. I really hate when British people come here and insult our country for our own entertainment... and when those "jokes" are blatant slander, and it does damage to Donald Trump's reputation, it's actually upsetting to me. And John Oliver was wise to mock Trump for filing frivolous civil suits against people all the time, so now Donald would be confirming his slander if he justly sues him for damages to his reputation. And for him, those damages are actually quantifiable. He is a literally a brand.

I kind of like the fact that the American national anthem is a benchmark for how good of a vocalist you are. I mean, Whitney Houston will be known for her performance of the National Anthem, among other things.