Torero

Sitting here, thinking about philosophy, moral and tranquility, I am wondering; which place makes you feel most comfortable? For me it's the beach and preferably Caribbean. I grew up being a beach boy and this geological interface between sea and sand gives me the most tranquil feeling letting my mind develop in all freedom possible. Curious to hear your answers.

The fine for urinating in public in Holland is a shocking 140 euros (~150 USD). Only for people, cats and dogs can do it for free.

Not only the socialists need to line up and wipe their asses with bolivares instead of toilet paper, Alan. Also the massive number of people who actually voted for the almost officially winning (and probably was winning, but the socialists rigged the election) political opponent Capriles (son of a successful businessman) of bus driver (no kidding!) president Maduro... Like I said in the other Venezuela topic, I have many Venezuelan friends and I feel truly sorry for the state of the country. I even almost got into a physical fight with a chavista one day. I had to call my friends to hold me back from him, as he caused an outrage in me.

Excellent, excellent stuff Stefan. Great metaphores and some practice for your upcoming desired comedy show. With your French act I even opened a bottle of wine (seriously, no kidding*). Santé! Idea for the "Obamacare" point "I will think of an example in my head" on "retractable laws", what about the infamous "Patriot" Act? "[You], the people, will get your liberties back, really, promised, trust me, I'm a politician" Just one small point: the euro (the tangible currency) was not introduced in 1999, yet on 01-01-2002, it was the EMU in 1999. You later corrected, though. *and due to ridiculous import taxes here (Mike knows about them) not cheap.

Hi TheHomeless, In my personal experience (I've debated within a political party group, a lot live on less official occasions and have been debate leader on 2 occasions - once for 300 students with the leaders of 4 different religious education groups), I can recommend doing the following things: - list your own arguments for your standpoint, write them down and rehearse them - look for any counterargument you can find on the points you want to discuss and list counter arguments - stay reasonable, like mlsv2f is stating; logical fallacies, look for them and pre-counter them - stay quiet, do not get upset in any way - look for reasonable sources on your own arguments and if possible to discard counter arguments - study your opponents (if possible) - try to use rational humour (Stefans videos give a lot of examples; comparisons, witty jokes, etc.) - try to move yourself in the position of your opponents, acknowledging their viewpoints and come up with arguments exactly from those points (e.g. what are the benefits of Uber/free market apps like it from the viewpoint of a union leader or local politician) - stay honest, don't brag about points you're not sure of - be concise, don't spend too much time on every argument you have - try to avoid jargon - find and use relevant quotes by wise people in the past (Rand, other philosophers, etc.) - avoid personal attacks and evade ones that are made to you - if the situation appeals to it, try to involve the debate leader/the one who invited you all to debate the topic Will your debate be publicly broadcasted? It would be nice to post it here in the topic either beforehand (can we listen in?) or afterwards. Good luck, stay strong and defend the free market against closer-minded people.

Hi Benjamin, if you don't mind I don't react to Vanity Fair, New York supper clubs or people addicted to their smartphone. I see your point however and I don't know your age, but over time one's wishes are changing. The question is: what is most important to you? Did you make a list of qualities you want to see in your partner? Physical attractiveness, a good character, sportivity, moral thinking, religion, a good mother, stable, comparable income, level of promiscuity, life behaviour, creativity, living close by, etc. etc. etc. Internet dating has worked well in the past for me, however not via the superficial dating sites, yet meeting people over the internet in my opinion is a good way of selecting your preferences and similarities. My current girlfriend I met at an InterNations meeting, a good way to get to know people, it's a group of internationally minded people which should have meetings close to where you live. Try it out? If moral, ethical women are what you want in a partner, I tend to agree with Frosty; they are not abundant and much less than men. For the other parts I agree with MagnumPI; do not talk yourself down, yet make sure she is worth it for you, not the other way around. Best of luck.

Nice and all my support. My best mate is living the digital nomad lifestyle and fled the not less socialist country Holland. Welcome here and all the best with your smart and above all moral choice. An example for many.

The fact children are targeted with this surreal USSR propaganda in 2015 (ok, published in 2014 already)... And the obvious shameless lies in there, the happy faces, getting children into thinking the EU is the best system they could live in. The focus on finance, the "we save the people by providing fire trucks" retoric. If statism is what we oppose, then a super state (still) under construction is the biggest enemy. To abolish states at this moment seems impossible. To stop a super state in development would still be possible. If enough people wake up to it. You can -if you like- download the full pdf of the "cartoon" at that site. There's 44 pages of propaganda in there, for those who are interested to see it all ad not just the examples I posted.

Don't ask me, I'm just the messenger. But if only signing up for "presence" in the European "Parliament" (not a real parliament) provides an average month's salary for the Greeks to the EP bastard in 5 minutes is not called fraud (stealing money), then it's pretty easy to explain. Just move the goal posts such that fraud doesn't exist, just like there were no shortages in the USSR...

I thought I had seen (almost) everything, I thought nothing could beat the propaganda machine of the USSR, the nazis or similar immoral systems, but this EU propaganda is really really sickening... The ironically titled cartoon book for children... 'On the road to victory', can be bought or downloaded here. Some examples of this filthy surreal propaganda, spread in public schools over the heads of the most innocent: I'm speechless....

I don't see the world as a pure economic calculation. Of course it would be fair that she pays next time or does something else to "reciprocate" me paying for the first date; a gift, a gesture, a surprise, composes a song, whatever she's good at, not necessarily economic in value. A relatively even split of things I'd consider normal. But that doesn't need to be money. I am pretty classical in that respect and luckily living in Latin America where that's the culture. But even back home in Holland, where feminism is abundant I did this. Splitting the bill would mean a "violation" of my own world view which is that it's not a pure economic calculation. No matter the horrors of the practice itself. Sitting in a romantic restaurant and going over the bill and split it in 30.45 dollars each, brrr, it would give me the creeps. Nothing wrong with me paying the dinner and she pays the drinks afterwards or whatever we do on a date. If she expects that because I pay, that will be the same throughout the relation afterwards, she would be a gold digger which is not the type of person I fall for. It always worked fine this way for me. But if for you and your date something else works fine, that's equally right. It would be immoral and senseless to project my methods and ideas to other couples; I don't have anything to do with them and respect their different behaviour (how couldn't I?).

I am here because I finally found a place where reason rules. Not "church fantasies" or political propaganda, there are many places where those "values" are spread. I am not against anyone believing their religion has all morality that they need, on the contrary: I see much more danger in believing in statism and corrupted science than in people believing in gods. The problem is that you project your ideas on people who are not religious. And that you claim "natural law" (which I see as very important, being a natural scientist) as "church law". Natural laws are defined by nature, church laws are defined by churches (religion in a broad sense). Hence they can never be (set) equal. I will leave the other fallacies in your last post aside.

Although I am Dutch, I would never go it. I pay, of course. She can pay the second date or surprise me with something else. People (mostly guys) who expect that if they pay they get sex do not understand people. They should go for a prostitute instead.

But why would you use that oxymoron term? Anarchist cannot be the same, not even roughly. Anarchism opposes statism. Libertarianism (NAP, respecting personal/private property) opposes socialism (a state-guided society, not respecting personal/private property). The personal/private property difference only exists in the minds of marxists. See Wikipedia. A house can be property AND a mean or production (if you have an office in your house, if you use your house as home school, etc.). There is no distinction between these two properties, only a semantic one. Pity you do not want to answer my questions on the examples, especially the handicapped one. For him/her the wheelchair can be regarded as a mean of production, for the one "stealing" it, it may be just joy. A horrible situation, as the poor handicapped person has no right to claim his/her property (back)....

Ok, this closes the door. And wouldn't you call it Church Law then? The guardian of Natural Law would be Nature (not the magazine). I really wonder how you ended up on a rational philosophy board. The "Church" has no right of law whatsoever apart from maybe inside their buildings. Forcing homosexuals to follow your church laws, while they don't even believe in your religion, why?? Well, not that I expect a rational answer; you don't seem to care about rationality. Instead, indeed, your speech can be considered hate speech, as you hate people for what they naturally (by natural laws) are.

Hi LibertarianSocialist, everytime I see your name I have to wonder how you came up with that oxymoron name. It sounds to me like a vegetarian carnivore or a peaceful warmongerer. You say: I am always curious to hear people defend the destruction of private property and apart from rational philosophy I am curious to see how you would explain practical situations like: - what happens with handicapped people? In a world without private property, it is thus possible to take (stealing doesn't exist without private property) someones electrical wheelchair and go joy riding and that poor poor disabled person has no right to claim his/her property back? Would you agree that that is pretty horrible to say the least? - what happens with damage? If I would take "your" car (or a car you use a lot in that non-property world) and crash it, who is going to pay for the damage? Who makes sure you can use the car again tomorrow? - who is maintaining this system? Who in a world without private property has the right (which you could consider a property; who owns the right) to reclaim the property someone claims? So, in a concrete example: if one takes someones property (possessions, things, stuff) and claims it his'/hers, the police (or whatever agency there would be in your world) comes and takes it "back" to provide that stuff again to everyone? -> isn't that police, or agency doing just that at that moment; claiming property, which according to your own principles wouldn't be possible in the first place? I really cannot get my head around the so many contradictions that would occur in "your world", let alone the complete chaos it will bring... But as I take you seriously as a fellow member here, I would like to hear your explanations for these in my opinion contradictory positions and impossible practical situations.

I see not a single rational argument here. You start off about the past (which we cannot change) and the word homophobic. I'd define homophobia as an irrational fear of gays. And yes, based on what I read from you, you fall in that category; you stated you object to "that gays are 100% positive", hence my question without taking a position; what is negative about gays? No answer. Then you digress to pedophilia?! WTF? How does that come into mind/play? There is no relation between homosexuality and pedosexuality (the sexual part of pedophilia) at all. Homosexuals are adult males or females that simply have affection and love for the same gender. With mutual consent. Pedophiles are adult males or females that have an affection for and interest in children (who cannot have the same level of consent that adults have and on top of that are far less strong to resist unwanted behaviour). Children as in people who have not yet developed any sexual organs. Efebophiles are adults who like adolescents, so people with some sexual development, yet not completed. The 16/18 year limit may be a rather arbitrary (someone 1 day before his/her 18th/16th birthday would be considered a child and suddenly 1 day later it's an adult), but that does not mean there's no science (biology) or reason behind this. You seem to live from fears or so, first of homosexuals and then you jump to a foolish position that pedosexuals will "in the not so very far future" in the same box. There however is no historical basis (pedophilia/efebophilia was more accepted in the past, in the Netherlands in the 70s it was even openly advocated by parliamentary political parties) nor any logical basis (the consent part) nor any biological basis (the adult vs not fully grown people part) for those fears. So, in absence of any rational reasoning, ethics, moral and philosophy I really cannot see what you're doing in this topic. I specifically asked you for reasonable debate, yet you divert to pedophiles when we were talking about "the gay agenda". If the gay agenda is to get worldwide acceptance of gay people as just as valid as heterosexual people, then I see not a single problem in that. Because biologically that IS the case. Even if you consider homosexuality a biological "distortion" (not inclined to reproduce), there's still nothing wrong with that, just like people with 6 fingers on one hand or lactose intolerance have a biologically different characteristic from other people, that does not make them abnormal and less that they should be treated like abnormal.

Did you read the links I posted? L1 and L2 do not "do" something, they are theoretical "points" which are supposed to be the result of gravitational forces. Yet they are presented isolated; two different systems (Earth-Moon & Earth-Sun), where these systems do not exist. There is only 1 gravitational system; an Earth-Moon-Sun system. Now you are reversing the point: You take the claim that there are "satellites" in these places (which are not places; they are not fixed) for granted and argument that therefore these points (and satellites) are/must be real. Based on my research satellites do and can not exist. Rockets do not work in "space" at all. It's exactly the point; for the many many many stolen tax dollars NASA is presenting the world CGI and fantasy, yet seem to still have somehow "authority". That authority is destroyed by physical laws. Your position seems to be: NASA is right, so everyone who says they're not is wrong. My position is: physical laws are right, so what NASA tells the world cannot be right. And yes, it was a big shock to me too that all these beautiful images and technology only can be false. Exactly this. Ok, I understand your suspicion. And it may be true what you say, but it also may be that these details can be seen due to the high apparent albedo of the Moon. The problem is that one would have to come up with completely new calculations when the distance is not right; the size of the Moon, the orbital characteristics, solar and lunar eclipses, etc. If your starting point is "I have the feeling the distances are not right" then the other factors also are not right. Do you know if anyone has made such calculations which support your intuition? I am not in any way attacking your intuition, I see where you're coming from and you have a good point. It may be interesting to see or find out new calculations and thus distances, size/diameter, etc. such that it fits the observations and can predict (predictability is crucial for natural scientific models) phenomena (like solar and lunar eclipses). There is no ignition in space, not even of the kind NASA tells the world. Rockets do not work in space. They work in atmospheric conditions where temperature and pressure are not (near) zero. According to the stories, those crucial factors in space are near zero (both pressure - vacuum and temperature - NASA claims space T is a mindblowing low 3 K). Rockets cannot work the same way in both regimes as they are so different, both physically and chemically. At vacuum pressures (rather the lack of them) and at near zero temperatures everything becomes a solid, or in the case of the lowest atom number elements a super fluid, see these phase diagrams for Helium (He) and Water (H2O): Too many people still take the NASA version of science for granted. Yet, it's the unspoiled science (physics and chemistry) that discards the stories NASA tells the world. There is no propulsion of rockets in space, as there's no gas. Not to forget that all the material properties (e.g. rigidity/hardness, conductivity, and so many more - mechanical, chemical, electrical and magnetic) of the rocket and the "gases" (which do not exist) leaving the nozzle get completely crazy at these unimaginably low pressures and temperatures. My suspicion is that everything would break down in near-static (hardly moving) single molecules or even atoms in space. Of course we don't know if space (everything above what we call "atmosphere") is a vacuum as all the "knowledge" comes from the same NASA crooks, but both P and T are drastically lowered when moving away from Earth, so it makes sense to assume this goes on farther from Earth/more into "space" until finally ending up in a near vacuum and near zero Temperatures.

I see a guy taking NASA's stories for granted and explaining the image. The Lagrangian points (he presents the "camera" that took the "photos" of the Moon and the Earth being in L1 (@ 0.99 AU)) are pure fantasy. They are not points (as they would follow the Earth orbiting the Sun, so become orbits) and they cannot be right because of the gravitational effects of the three main celestial bodies. You cannot regard an Earth-Sun gravitational system and exclude the Moon nor regard an Earth-Moon gravitational system and ignore the Sun. It is always a three-object gravitational system which makes that the theoretical Lagrangian points orbits shift all the time in 3rd order equations. More about this Lagrangian fantasy can be found here. Ah right, sorry for having missed it. And I agree, it's laughable about the "camera" that NASA tells us they used on this "space" probe they "positioned" in the Lagrangian "point" 1 of the Earth-Sun gravitational system (which doesn't exist, see first part). I am however curious how you come to the idea that "celestial distances" are not right? On what basis? There is no possibility that any telescope would see any remnants of Apollo "space" craft on the Moon, as man has never been there (nor is able to get there). Maybe they should point a telescope at the Nevada desert, the Hawaiian surface or Stanley's studio in the UK, that would help a bit... The LRO "images", the so-called "undeniable proof" that man landed on the Moon, are not from 1971, yet 2009. Indeed, it's hilarious that a multi-multi-billion organisation like NASA wouldn't be able to show crystal clear images of the "lunar" landers with 2009 technology if they were really standing there. You would indeed expect those LRO images to be much much better than what they could produce in 1969-72. Evidently that is not the case.

What is negative about gays? Do they bother you? Are you saying that two adults who love eachother, have free will to choose a partner just like you, me and everyone else, but are of the same sex is negative? What is your rational basis to call that negative? No, I am not going to read any links; the idea of a forum is that you discuss with eachother and that you argument your points. And on a forum where -finally!- philosophy is the core value you do this rationally, so based on principles and ethics. And see my earlier post; what is the biological basis for the claim that "children can be made/crafted gay"?

Great you posted it, pretzelogik. Indeed: - static clouds over a period of rotation from South America - Australia (some 1/4 + Earth rotation, so ~6+ hours) - impossible - a strange static black rim on the right side of the Moon - the Moon has a much lower albedo than a Full Moon would look like from Earth - NO stars/galaxies in the background; pitch pitch contrastless black, yet Earth and Moon are sufficiently exposed - impossible - the shadows on the lower left (start) and upper right sides (end) of the animation - they will "explain" it away is being the circular camera lense, but in the first frames on the left you see a "jump" of this shadow - in order for this "video"/pasted set of images to be real, the camera on the space thingy should be statically focused on the Full Earth-Moon system - how do they want to accomplish a space thingy being static in space? The more NASA jokes one sees, the more ridiculous they become... and yet the general public accepts and loves these without any criticism. Pretzelogik (and others), did you see the "subliminal" SEX joke of NASA yet? "Shot" by the "Deep Space Climate Obervatory" satellite on July 6th If you don't see it at first glance, here it is...

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money, is what Thatcher said. So it "works" only up to the eventual point when and where the money stops and socialist dreams crumble. I've tried to summarise this in a simple image:

My main motivation in life is to enrich myself and my friendly surroundings (friends, close family, partner and future offspring) with as many experiences as possible, learning and understanding more about the real world (so not the faked, propagandised and corrupt "world" portrayed in the media) every day. On an intellectual level what motivates me is to enrich in knowledge and philosophy; i.e. being able to understand and as best explain why rational thinking is so important to live a better life. In a business sense what motivates me is to enhance, spread and apply my understanding of the long and wildly interesting history of Gaia; the only tangible "goddess" we all came from, live on and return to after we die.

Exactly, see my new signature. It's pretty easy to be "reckless" when your risks are covered by others, forced to do so involuntarily.

Great job, thanks!