Torero

Definitely; amazing movie. Just watched it recently again. It's so full of thoughts, symbolism and ideas; don't watch trailers or read about it; watch it! 9.2/10 on my list.

yeah, my 1st upvote Carl, good start and initiative! My experience is not so much in building flyers (I need more time and space for my work to convey), but some ideas: - lay-out & design - I would avoid using so many font types. Stick to two or three max to emphasize your point (like "Domination") - text so far is decent, maybe avoid that you won't prove peaceful parenting is a solution; let that be to the reader of the flyer to conclude. You may disencourage people to read or lead people you want to embrace and convince into the opposite direction? I think what is important for any (upcoming, future, potential, present, past) parent who's reading is the reflection that living in a coercive society is unpleasant and that it starts with birth. I really like your timeline for that; great idea. "Deathbed" I don't know, maybe a more positive term? "Final rest after a (long) life"? What about including thoughts like: "Do I accept that I get spanked for an error I commit (at work, on the street, in the gym, in any social situation)?" "How do I feel when I get forced to do things which to a person with insight in other human beings is unpleasant and -more importantly- counterproductive to me forced to do them?" "Would I still consider spanking a three year old if he/she were as tall and strong as me?" "Let's picture ourselves in a win-win negotiation situation and reflect on the pleasant experience it was when we both got out what we wanted. Do we agree that with more of those situations the world around us becomes a more pleasant place?" "Do we remember the times we were most productive, most effective and most respected in a social situation? Do those times relate to violence and force or to peaceful, negotiation and rational interactions with others?" "Child bullying is an increasing problem in a society where mass schooling is abundant. Even if our children are not attending that brainwashing freaky factory [just my thoughts, mayyyybe some rewording for the flyer ] they are exposed to other (bullying) children. How to respond well to and treat bullies is a main part of win-win negotiation skills for children." "How did you experience the virtual cycle of "disobedience"-domination-more disobedience-more domination etc. in your life? Was it ever productive in the end? Did it bring the best possible result to the course of your life? Or are those moments when this happened just the examples where the course of life changed for worse?" "What feeling do we get when we see a kid who is "disobedient" but childishly silly (i.e. not evil) in his behavior and we see him spanked publicly by his parent? Do we feel the justification or are we appalled by it?" Just some brain dumps so far. Cool initiative. When it's finished I can translate in Dutch and Spanish if you want.

How many whites are there in the world? Some 1.5 billion? Arabs are mostly white race too, so immigration of Syrians (I'm not talking about the Eritreans traveling on their backs) couldn't be "white race genocide". I shiver with ridiculous statements as "seeing other whites as extended family [and thus treat or see other races differently]". Both in my analysis of the problem and as response to it I'd like to choose a much more individual approach based on moral lines. E.g. a black libertarian/anarchist who advocates peaceful parenting I consider more 'family' than a spanking statist coincidentally with such blond hair, green eyes and pale skin, just like myself. Why should I use 'race' as defining characteristic and not moral values irrespective of race? The problem I see much more an active statist dream (mass immigration, welfare state boost and a (false flag) "terror attack" once in a while -preferably on symbolic dates-) to keep the population in line and seeing the State as "solution" for the same problems that wouldn't exist without that force. Point (8) is however the key point; every individual should have the right to live with those people they want. If people want a white (or black, yellow, Inuit or whatever) community, they shouldn't be forced to accept multiculturalism in their neighbourhood... But seeing most couples as same race (and here are 3 races dominant; white, red and black, with all mixtures between them) in every country I've been (even a statist cannot make one fall for another race by proxy), seeing the number of whites and the freedom of choice every individual has to choose his/her partner, I consider "white genocide" a pretty paranoid armchair idea not based on reality.

Will Torbald has said it all in very clear words, but I just wanted to add where and how it all went wrong with Pelafina, namely in "her" first post in this topic: In this post "she" shows she has no idea what kind/realm of 'thinking' and wording "she" is talking about and mixes them all up, wraps them like it is some kind of rational argument and spits it in the faces of thousands and thousands serious scientists and those who follow that as a hobby. Philosophical thinking & wording - very rational - brown - "know", "observe", "operate" Religious "thinking"/wording - irrational - red - "believe", "faith" Scientific thinking & wording - rational - green - "theory of evolution", "scientifically" Law thinking & wording - rational but limited - blue - "proven/proof", "fact" Chavvy amateur no interest in the subject showing "thinking"/wording - irrational, very emotional - pink - "it is the best guess we have" It is a common mistake seen in discussions about scientific subjects online. People asking for "proof" and "facts" are not talking scientific language. We have observations, measurements (data), experiments, tests, models, theories, hypotheses and interpretations of that. That forms a theory. So if you consider an observation factual (in law wording), then a theory is indeed not a fact. It is based on facts; the observations, measurements and all. If you don't dispute the "facts" (observations; the biodiversity of life, fossil evidence for evolutionary changes, polar bears and brown bears, dogs bred in the most extreme varieties showing "evolution" (at least the gene part of it) live in front of our supermarket eyes)), then it's your turn to present a valid, rational scientific theory on "Evolution theory is not the model for the diversity and origin of species, yet Pelafinism is". If you dispute the facts then you show why some facts cannot be trusted, start with the facts you do trust and build your hypothesis on that. That hypothesis you test with blind data, data not used before. If the data confirm your hypothesis, you have a theory. If not, back to the drawing board. The theory needs to be falsifiable and show predictability. If the theory of unicorns is that they do not exist as fauna in the real world and tomorrow one sits next to you in the bus, you have a problem. I am curious to hear Pelafina's never-heard-before-no-Evolution-nor-Creationism-but-100%-water-tight-in-explaining-our-origins-story.

In the past I've contributed some things on "human-induced" "global" "warm(onger)ing": - recently on the taxation fraude - https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/45681-please-review-my-agw-global-warming-argument-for-soundness-and-offer-critique/?p=417869 - when I started, much more elaborated why this "hypothesis" (it's political, not scientific!) is non-sense - https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/40032-climate-change-series-thoughts/?p=389331 Please stay away from falling for the trapping narrative that this "Antropogenic" "Global" "Warming" (or any label they gave because the warming just doesn't want to happen...) is something scientific. It is not; it is a purely political scheme. Climatology is still a serious natural science. It is infected by a lot of fund-spoilt "research" and vast propaganda and the "peer review" on publications is far from free, fair, balanced and honest. But the root science is ok. Serious scientists do not fearmonger, yet even if corrupted towards "humans are to blame" cautious. It's the politicians and the show boys who doomingly spread this anti-scientific virus*. There are so many traps set by these people in the narratives they use. It's infected in every brainwashed school kid's head and that is the scariest of it all. Let us all be crystal clear on this: - CO2 is part of the Earth since the beginning (loooong loooong loooong before us) and will be there until the end (let's say some 3.333.333.333 years after us) - you, me and every other living organism is breathing out CO2 every second of the day - we (all) drink sodas and beers, some go for sparkling wines. This is just CO2, normal carbon dioxide - CO2 is not (a) pollution/polluter and it will never be - CO2 cannot be avoided, stopped, nullified, sequestrated, canned, trapped; it's completely natural and if not concentrated harmless (like most gases) Paying tax for air/a gas we all breathe. Every second. Mán, not even in the sickest sci-fi-comedy-cheap-a$$-movie they could come up with such a plot and get away with it. Well, very "well" ** paid... * the nature of the "research" is by definition anti-scientific because none of their models have (shown) any predictability, the very foundation of a scientific model itself; it means all the science is anti-science; politics, propaganda. Call it MengelismTM ** not a moral "well". More of a poisoned "well"

"Correlation does not equal causation" is a cliché, it's not an argument; it's just a fact as that drinking 5 liters of alcohol a day does not equal a soon painful death. Yet the correlative effect is pretty easy to spot when looking at causes. But it's not an answer either. I asked you what cause there is for the biodiversity. So the "answer" including negating causation is senseless. After a few tries you: - fail to explain -in your own words, in your own "non-faith-based" trolling natural scientific well-argumented, well-outlined system or lack thereof- what causes both the similarities and differences between species, if it's nor evolution, nor creationism. "A third way" I've never seen presented anywhere. - part of science is that in order to attack a well-established theory, you need to present an alternative, and better (for it to win on scientific arguments) proposal. You have no intentions to do so, so how seriously you think people take you? - you fail to argument why you think science (in its core philosophy and empiricism) is based on "faith" None of those 68 downvotes is mine, but I quite understand where they come from.

That's a non-sequitur: - no-one can deny we alter/affect our environment - true, in very drastic and shaping ways - SO: it seems "obvious", "simple", "clear" to fall for that sca...uhhh accept that "97% of ALLLL the scientists in the world agree upon the human induced Global "Warming"'...uhh..."that New York has been flooded by 2050 by 7 meter sea level rise scare tactics of a pure statist happily propagandising in schools... Gore Goebbels, let's call him. If there's anything not simple it is System Earth, from inside to outside, bottom to top: - geofysics, geodynamics - stuyding the mysterious interior of the Earth - geology, geochemistry - studying the rocky crust of her - hydrology, geography - studying the dynamic surface of the planet - meteorology, climatology - studying the atmosphere surrounding this blue-green white cushioned (almost) sphere through time (short; your weatherman, long: the climatologist) The easy way out, the pre-fabricated story, the false model, the easy deception, the non-sequitur made "oh, mankind is so dirty, then we also must be responsible for climatic changes, that makes sense, hmm, yeah, never studied any historical climatological examples, but hey, I wanna be part of that 97%, so come on, let's be honest and do not 'deny' (like it's some kind of holocaust... ) climatic changes due to humans?!", it's all the uninformed massed falling for an easily sold but heavily paid lie of grand proportions. "Safely" predicted that in 2100 everything will be doomed. Nobody of them saying this lives then, so what the heck, nobody care if I'm wrong. If that isn't already the case now (try to ask a weatherman to make a reliable model of the weather and they will fail; nature is too unpredictable; too many variables and uncertainties). They go unpunished and therefore they point horrific arrows at "climate change deniers" or other labels only given because they lack arguments to back of their fraudulent scamdalous ponzi scheme.

- how come there are so many similarities between life forms? - how come there's such a splurge biodiversity of life forms and if "creationism" AND "evolution theory" (or at least what you understand it means) are both not explaining that, what is? If you're brave enough to challenge well-researched views, you'll have to present a rational contra-explanation. That is, if you want to be taken seriously.

At present. In the geological past those numbers fluctuated drastically, see shirgalls post and the estimated CO2-concentration during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum of about 55 million years ago is 2000 ppm (2 %). Live thrives with/on CO2. And: Zeebe, R.; Zachos, J.C.; Dickens, G.R. (2009). "Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming" Nature Geoscience 2: 576–580. Atmospheric levels. Which is ridiculous, what do they want to do? Plug volcanoes? Glue mid-ocean ridges together? But please do not call it a hypothesis. That would indicate a scientific base. It does not; it has a political base. Science is just the fancy dress. Advocates I would say is the right term indeed for pushing political "hypotheses"... Not only for plants; the whole Earth is breathing and recycling CO2 all the time. The vast area of the oceans take up and produce most of the CO2. You don't even need volcanic eruptions; CO2 is degassed from the surface and soils all the time. That is impossible; CO2 is a natural part of the system we only form a tiny tiny part of. Don't listen to global fearmongerers who picture mankind as some kind of threat to the planet.... No, they're after money for air (CO2-taxations and trade deals ) and global governmental power to "stop" the "climate from changing". The vanity of it all is too childish and scary at the same time, knowing that the masses massively fall for this scam. So no; we are far too unimportant on atmospheric, global, climatic scales for the gigantic Earth. Even if we would be able to burn all the fossil fuels in the world, we wouldn't be able to trigger a global climate change; nature responds, adapts, outgasses, inhales, changes, reforms, evolves all the time and our capacities on a global scale are far too limited. That is another problem with this scam; even if you were an environmentalist who cares for governmental policies to protect Earth from those darn unimaginable greedy capitalists, you would also battle against those crooked gas traders. Every penny spent on that scam does not go to tangible environmental problems like deforestation, bad use of lands, pollution of surface and drinking waters, the islands of plastic in the oceans, etc. If one thinks those should be treated by force or by market, in both cases those topics do not get attention while a political scam does. Enron with help of the NASA clowns is behind the CO2 credits. If these crony criminals are involved even the most asleep person should wake up...

Welcome ConservativeAtheist and thank you for your interest. She is (still) a statist, but working on it. Everyone in my environment is statist, so it would become a bit lonely if that would be the breaking point. I wouldn't call them "discussions". A discussion can mean a lot, but to me it smells like rationality and reason. Talks, yes, sure. And both our world views are similar on the crucial parts. And those count. I guess you wanted to ask if she's bothered by yes being an atheist (me)? No, she's not. And at no point she tried to convert me. I've had a funny experience with a high upper class Colombian lady who was very religious though. But if cuddling while listening to some latin gospel is "horrible conversion tactics" we have to ban, fear and not tolerate, it's not that bad after all... Exactly. Because it's tangible. And while irrational in its nature, still within the rational domain of mankind's constructions. Not within the heads and hearts of people who just think there's more between Earth and 'Heaven'. Those dreamy irrational ideas are not so harmful as stealing, killing and actively creating (economic) mayhem... I can only speak for my experiences. About my girlfriend; fear is not something I have seen in her, especially not regarding God. What I meant with level of moral thinking is that compared to antitheist (and thus statist) Holland, Latin America is very different. That shows in the way children are brought up in the higher middle classes, how people treat each other, how much distrust there is for politicians and other corrupt crooks, etc... I link that to a less 60s-wave than in North America, Europe and Australia while still modernising their religious ideas. The biggest gay discotheque of South America is located here in the city. It's a bit like in the US; not fully accepted with grandma and dad, but the youth is progressive enough. The moral part to me stems from the core statements of the Bible; ten commandments, some basic ethics, etc. That is missing in antitheist NW Europe and replaced with "values" from politicians, statists, mass media and other people who have nothing to do with morality at all. It's a kind of ethical emptiness in the Old Continent. Definitely. I already felt that in Holland where the south is traditionally catholic and the north and west protestant. Catholics in general have a much more relaxed attitude in life. Calvinism may have been good to save in the past, but the extremity of it in the country was and is enormous. 1 political party in the parliament (!) gains a constant 2.5 % support, bringing 2-3 MPs to The Hague and have their website closed on Sundays, do not allow women to actively participate in politics and some more astoundingly archaic "reformed christian" (as they call themselves) convictions... In my experience here people do believe in god. They just don't go to church (a lot). Half the country lives in multi-million cities, that is also a big factor. The amount of religiosity in the modern metropoles is limited I must say. But people have their beliefs. And yes, catholic schools. The quantity of jehovas is just like in Holland or less The quantity and influence of muslims is negligible and those who are here are not of the same kind as in Europe... Community and family are very important; that's a good ground for free thinking. Not in every case at all, but why focus on the most miserable cases where the growing and expanding middle class, the driver for any country, is an optimistic sign of mankind. In many parts of Latin America. It's not all War on Drugs and Jaulas de Oro... What I've learnt traveling over the world is that people are not so easy to label and group. There's far more difference between individuals from one "group" (a label) than necessary similarities. So "the average Christian" or "more fundamentalist catholic" do not mean much (anymore)... Same for "your average muslim". In muslim countries I have been (2 of which where sharia law is active) treated very well and respectful for 99%. Doesn't mean their core ideas on men vs women or circumcision are suddenly moral or good, but first-hand experiences with (religious) people in general have been very positive.

I have my suspicions about this "zenophobia" and "intolernance"...

The start and end of your post show no respect for my arguments. Still I will respond to the points you make. - murder, atrocities etc. carried out "in the name of" religious beliefs First point is to be skeptical about history. Current, present year history is rigged and hoaxed like crazy. How do we really know all those things that are described really happened? And all in that way? I am not downplaying nor having a blind spot. Yet recognising that the State has an interest to paint history grimmer on Church to make them, State, come out as "the better option/solution". Especially in the crucial switch years between the 50s and the 70s of past century, where State in most parts of the world gained all power over Church a lot of "history" got "rewritten". There's not 1 history, there's millions of them. Did religious atrocities occur? Of course, too many accounts to count... Are the people who committed them responsible? I would say their responsibility depends. How easy was it to evade the military, state, church, mosque, any other coercive organisation in those years? Now, from our comfy couches with intellectual arm rests we can easily say it's immoral to behave as a puppet for an evil system, but with illiteracy, diseases, cold climates, hunger, big depending families and warmongering "princes", "counts", "duques" and other psychos, it's a different thing. Did those people have access to moral thinking? If yes, and they deliberately refused, they would be responsible. But I guess many of them wouldn't have a clue, lived their lives, fed their children and survived harsh winters without reliable heating... So if they would be driven by religion or just unmasked "you have land and resources that I want to have, and taxation of the people is a nice bonus", that wouldn't matter, you say that yourself. That religion has a delusional effect on people does not mean that all religious people are like zombies of some kind. You were religious yourself, you know better than I do. If I have used the concept as a means of personalisation, then thanks for pointing that out. I try to avoid these things, as is with a far too abundant speech in news that "Germany wants...", well, "the German government wants..." that is. I am not protecting them. I am trying to place their options for moral choice in a much poorer than today historical context. History for all of us was much much less luxurious than what we are used to in 2015. Why would I? Proof (and extraordinary even more) is a rational response. Why would I respond rationally to an irrational standpoint? It's like playing rugby on a football (that is that sport you play with your feet and a ball; so not that American version...) pitch. Two worlds. If your girlfriend or the lady of liking would say to you "listen, I've dreamt this and this and I explain it like A, B, X" do you respond "there's no rationality in here, this conversation is over, don't waste my time you irrational female being..."? I certainly hope not, but one never knows... I can point out that love doesn't exist. It's just a concept for dopamines, serotonines, feromones, cupidogenes, whatever kind of rational, scientific, chemical explanation. I can at every step during our first date outline all the rational options and only stay between the lines of artifical rationality. What do you think will happen?? Any second date in sight? Talking about blind spots. Life is emotion and reason. If you want your life to be 100% rational or at least thriving towards that all the time, feel free to live it to the max is what I can say. I just choose a different approach and especially on-topic I just illustrate the relation between a Dutch Atheist, raised antitheist and priceless Catholic Colombian beauty.... Your statement is absolutist which I wouldn't like. I'd advocate there's never (absolutist necessary paradox) "only one way" to "meaningfully" divide people. That's utopian commi speech. The beauty of a free society is that there are more ways to find each other and to divide where necessary. There are even situations in real life where the initiation of the use of force can be benevolent to many and not noticible by the victims. And you call that irrelevant. I wouldn't. Statism is much harder to beat than religion. And the only one, like outlined above. To statism a rational response works. To falling in love, loving that coloured butterfly or seeing sunset clouds as a sign of god, it's senseless and unnecessarily spent energy. So the difference between Statism and Religion is relevant from two sides; difficulty and rationality. I think dividing us is not the best approach either. Seeing the truth doesn't come from ostracism in the world of luxurious social contacts. It comes from binding us and pointing arrows in the right direction. Rational arrows do not hurt irrational targets.

I asked two questions: - how come there are so many similarities between life forms? - illustrated with a picture link - how come there's such a splurge biodiversity of life forms and if "creationism" AND "evolution theory" (or at least what you understand it means) are both not explaining that, what is? Your "answer" is a counterquestion which has no rational equivalence. Mankind is stuck to Earth and its atmosphere and will thus not be able to see beyond from Earth, so to an untrained eye the Sun might revolve around the Earth. But with some investigation this geocentric world view doesn't hold and that's why it's left for some 400+ years. If nor rational "evolution theory" nor irrational "creationism" does explain our biodiversity in present and past, then what can do that? If you're brave enough to challenge well-researched views, you'll have to present a rational contra-explanation. That is, if you want to be taken seriously...

Ok, a claim, not an opinion. Then I agree/support partly (with) the claim but the crucial part of a religion is the supernatural/transcendental/irrational-by definition. If you define religion as "a system of beliefs" then statism can be a religion. If one involves the irrational part it wouldn't be. I am not saying that supporting statism is purely rational, but the concept of the state is very tangible. How you want to count it (killed people oversees, oppressed people "at home", taking money from people who didn't voluntarily choose to sign that "social" "contract") is not the point. It is tangibly there, that concept. So yes, it very much exists. If not your salary would be 40-50 % higher, I hope... A non-secular religion? To me secular means no mixing of the Two Priests; State and Church (or mosque, synagogue, temple or whatever). A non-secular religion then would be a religious state (like Saudi-Arabia, or for statists North-Korea), so religion enforcing statism? I wouldn't call it behaviours of the people who believe Statism is a valid concept. And what means valid? I consider valid a pretty important word and the simplest scrutiny would make Statism invalid. But it is a concept, an idea and it is to all our disappointment very real, it exists. But the thing is; it is not well-thought. At least in my experience in the world most people do not see the state as convincingly the best option. They're not anarchists, unfortunately, but they are not true supporters of The State. I also came across people who do, but even in socialist NW Europe it is not the majority. It's visible in the voting patterns; still too high but pretty low % of people who (still) do vote. The vast majority of people do not really know they are inflicting violence upon others by (morally) supporting the state or statism. So their behaviours I cannot hold them accountable for. In my surroundings I am promoting libertarian philosophy, but let's say the average supermarket clerk is not into it and will never land on them. Are they vicious violators of valid property rights? Are these people convinced proponents of an immoral eternally growing monster? I wouldn't say so and it would put one in a socially impossible situation if one would only live like that. Stefans philosophy enters much better with truth and sugar than with bitterness. And yes, the sugar is needed, in normal social situations. Religion - as I see it, including the superstitial/metaphysical part - cannot be replied with rationality. It is a different field. I am an atheist so it would be foolish to prove that god doesn't exist. It would be as foolish as fighting someone falling in love. It's a feeling and feelings go deeper than ratio. I don't see that as negative; we are emotional beings, but others here might not be pleased by it. I see your point and my idea was not to collectivise. That's why I chose the words "many", "much harder than" and not "all", "ever", etc. Most absolutionist statements I don't like. And spot it's not a contradiction. It would be contradictory to say "I don't like any absolutist statement" as it is an absolutist statement in itself. "Most", "many" is not; it describes -at least for me- first-hand experiences. Now, my childhood was very different from yours, growing up in this indoctrination. But for me it was both opposite and the same (see the nuanced response at the start of this post); my parents were both; leftists, convinced statists and antitheists. If theism is irrational, and yes, I see it that way, then I really cannot understand how a rational person could advocate antitheism. It's like convincing an attractive young woman who lived without men around for years that falling in love* for life with that first well-built worker that drops by is not the wisest* idea... *Wise would mean rational, while falling in love is irrational. Even if some parts can be rationalised (you know what you fall for), it is useless as the act itself is irrational. Just like superstitial/metaphysical beliefs (religion in the definition I use) The same in relations. I'd rather convince my girlfriend/future wife of the irrationality of "rational" statism, then to have to bother what she thinks if she sees a nice sunset and if "god is talking to her or not". And in those situations, she finds me even more; rational atheists are less romantic and impressed by the wonders of nature, in my opinion. It doesn't matter. What matters are values and ethics. And while organised religion has exceeded all imagination in destroying just those, that does not mean that individual religious people are lacking those. In my not-so-limited experience atheist woman could do a lot with values and ethics. Another point I discussed before shortly in an Amish thread is that religious people have something higher than the state or "what y'e see on TV" which many atheists (and surely the ones who haven't found philosophy) which I consider better than empty atheist statists. If religion is limited to "what I believe (in) and doesn't harm others", which is except for horrible things like circumcision, forced indoctrinations etc. mostly the case in religious people I've seen on this planet, then what's the problem with having a partner who "sees" "signs" of "God"? Maybe I am thinking something irrationally (I see thinking more as a combination of thinking-rational and feeling-emotional, but that might be me) as well? Then why is she "wrong" and I am "right"? Rationality is the reason (haha) I joined here. But that doesn't mean emotionality is as important. Especially in honest, valuable relations with other Homo sapiens. It might well work differently from you and I cannot imagine the horrors you must have lived through when helplessly young, but that even supports the idea even more. 10 years ago I would have said "never a religious girl". I am glad my insights changed. That already happened before knowing my girlfriend, by the way.

I both agree and disagree with this. It is true that many statists have a religious view on (and that) society needs to be "arranged". But the big difference is rationality vs irrationality. A religion or a personal belief is by definition not rational. So there's no use to put rational arguments against it. This deep inner feeling of belief is not affected by arguments. Statism is different as it is a purely human concept, existing for real. It is possible to reply with reason and rationality. That main difference to me is also the key to the success of having a relationship with a religious person (my first; my exes were all atheist, statist and leftist). I don't need to argue with my girlfriend about what she sees as "fate" or "coincidence". If she labels it as a sign from god and I label it "fate" or "coincidence" there's no love lost. She accepts evolution, geological history, all that. If she would be orthodox/fundamentalistic/utterly convinced that those scientific points are bogus, no, we wouldn't be in a relation. I wonder if there is something as "your average non-secular religious type". So many individuals, so many world views. It's already hard to group 2 christian individuals with different views, how impossible does that become when we're talking billions of people?

A deeply rooted belief and also wish that there's a deity "up there"? I know quite some atheist people who are not only irrational but defend irrationality and (statist) immorality much harder than religious people their religion. Isn't that even worse? They are not suffering from religious indoctrination themselves, yet choose irrational and immoral standpoints where a religious person might not.

You're talking about "the religious" as if it were to be a homogeneous group of people with the same views of life. Most religious people in my experience just have a very lightly religious view, don't go to church but still believe in a god. They are apart from their views on the world/existence mostly rational. Why excluding a complete group of people so strongly from your life?

A model is a tool which is intended to help to explain the "how comes". "Why?" is a wrong question to ask in a natural-scientific discussion; "why" points to a reason, which is human, by definition. But if neither evolution nor creationism explains satisfactorily the dynamic diversity of life on this planet, then what does for you? And how come these little fellows look so much alike? http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/3922811/640/3922811.jpg

I cannot speak for others, but fail to see how a good (=)/real libertarian can support full state slavery? I would call it more; complete dependence on the state for your survival. Essentially one loses his natural ability for survival. Isn't income tax "negative" by definition? Really? No strings attached (only pragmatically, morally it's demonic enough)?? And what if that government suddenly would cut this BIG? What do you do? No strings attached? Maybe use the clause in the TTIP and sue the state? How successful do you think that will be? No strings attached? To a government program? Of this size? It is. And in a global economy and especially in Europe where it's gaining ground in the public debates it's impossible. Prices will be affected drastically, taxes will rise sky high to pay for all that and how would that work with hundreds of thousands of immigrants coming to use this BIG? I'd call it "BIGS"; Blatantly Immoral Government Slavery.

I wouldn't call statistics "useless". That you can do with them what you want doesn't make them implicitly useless. Colours, symbols and language are like magic too. Very useful. It only becomes problematic if statistics are used against individuals. Immigrant A cannot help it that immigrant B is profiting and it would be unfair to hold the behaviour of immigrant B against immigrant A. But what the media "call" people is far from rational debate. So this whole racist/xenophobic naming, shaming and blaming tactic is not worth spending a reasonable response, as the "call" is irrational in the first place. I wouldn't care at all what "the media" are writing about me or my views of life. Do you?? Really?

Yes, my girlfriend is Catholic. No problems at all. I see much more danger in statism than in religion. Most religious people are relaxed and not the abortion doctor murdering creeps the pro-statist media portray them... Level of moral thinking is also usually higher with religious people than with atheists. Raised antitheist, atheist myself.

Fellow Freedom Fighters, My avatar (not meant as support for the state Colombia, just the land and especially people) gives it away already, but I happily live in the 5th biggest (wow, I am surprised myself, I thought 11th...definitely below Lima, which is true as well...) city of the Americas. City 7.8, Met Area 13.8, I say 9 million just like they do here. Some Impressions Topographical Map of Colombia, Bogota is right in the centre in the Eastern Cordillera, East towards Venezuela is the vast Llanos plains (no roads), Southeast towards Brazil is the Amazone basin with some 70 indigenous tribes happily living there.. The Caribbean islands of Colombia: Rosario, Bernardo; San Andrés & Providencia Hypsiboas rufitelus Cabo San Juan, Tayrona Park, N Colombia, North of the triangular mountain range where the highest mountains of Colombia are, so not in the Andes chain... Typical nice paisa girl-next-door (that's not me on this photo) Interesting Features - Bogotá is situated in between 2 of the three mountain chains of the Andes at 2600 m in a valley. The Cordillera Oriental borders the city on the East after which the vast plains of the Llanos Orientales start. The economic source of Colombia in terms of hydrocarbons. Above that all the Cordilleras hold enormous amounts of ores and minerals - Colombia is number 1 in emeralds - the 10th biggest coal mine is located in the NE of the country, in the Northern South American desert stretching over northern Venezuela and the Dutch Antilles - Colombia is safe. When you're used to traveling outside of the "safety" of the West, there's no problem in Colombia. The shame and fame of before is waning while still in the heads of people not wanting to experience the world first hand but thinking they know it all from TV. Or internet, or horror stories or whatever. - Yet, 6 Colombian cities were in the top 50 of most dangerous cities in terms of murder rate. But, looking at the US (kills with guns only...), it's pretty scary in places over there as well. - I guess what most North Americans do and Dutch, Belgian and German don't understand (the French with their banlieues hopefully do) is that crime is concentrated in areas where you don't need to go. The south of this city is indeed dangerous, but with so many people and a huge area geographically defined in a triangle by the amazing Cordillera Oriental, there's not a single need to go there. - I can confidently say that the area I live and move around is safe and great. For just anyone who loves to see beautiful women all around, Bogota, lunch time in a good business district beats every city except Medellín, Saturday night. Moscow and Kiev come at a respectable distance from this smile-producing experience... - Colombia is the country for nature lovers. After Brazil there's no country with more biodiversity in the world. The variability in climate, vegetation, scenery, topography and nature is unique in the world. The only country in South America bordering both the Caribbean and the Pacific, El Niño is knocking on the door while El Dorado is located just in a lake north of the city (I flew over it today...) - The food is ok, but nothing compared to Peru (best in the world) or Mexico. It's a bit simple everything. There's good stuff to get, but really haute cuisine is more in the superb service than in the plastic chairs and campesino food. Funnily enough Bogota and especially Cartagena are full of very good to top class restaurants, A big spread, again. Politics & Libertarianism The ruling party at the moment in the Congress, parliament and president is unfortunately the left-wing Polo "Democratico". Still, the country has never suffered from socialism, something all other important countries in South America cannot say. It's left, but far off from Argentinian arrogant archaism, Ecuadorian ego 'egalitarianism', Bolivian Boer bitterness and a canyon away from neighbour Venezuelan venomous vampirism... Cañon de Chicamocha, Cordillera Oriental Yesterday here in the country (~30 million voters) was election day. All municipalities (some 1100) in Colombia chose mayors, council members and governors (departments, 32). For Bogotá it means we're freed of the socialist terror of loser Petro and get Enrique Peñalosa (the favourite of my girlfriend (9) (no, that's not her age...)) back. He's quite a smart guy of what I understood and at least modernised this cranky city a bit with bringing the vastly overcrowded and pickpocket-swarmed Transmilenio (the city would need a metro but the geology is not helping in this intermontane valley with soft sediments and lots of rain ...)... His party is called "Cambio Radical", so I thought Stefan was running, but unfortunately still a statist.... I was surprised however to see in a flash the participation of Partido Libertario.... whut? But only 20.537 voters thought of that. Good enough to fill a nice village, but vain in a megacity filled with easily-deceivable people... But it may be that Daniel Raisbeck (very Colombian name ) was not sexy enough... The Manifest (El Manifiesto): I'll translate 1, 2 and the last one, 19: 1: El individuo El individuo es libre por naturaleza. Por ende puede escoger cómo vive su vida, desde las sustancias que consume hasta con quién establece asociaciones. Esa libertad no puede ser limitada por ente alguno ni coartada por decisiones de una mayoría. The Individual is free by nature. Por ende? Por eso, creo debe ser... That's why he can choose how to live his live, from the substances he takes to with whom he establishes relationships. That liberty cannot be limited por ente? por ninguno - by nobody nor coerced by decisions of a majority. Yeah, right, all agreed. 2: Estado limitado El Estado existe porque un conjunto de individuos lo crea voluntariamente y le otorga un poder limitado para que este proteja- a través del cumplimiento de la ley- los derechos naturales a la libertad, a la vida y a la propiedad privada. El Estado es responsable ante los individuos que le ceden un poder restringido y lo financian. No es legítimo que sus funcionarios extralimiten sus responsabilidades ni que se inventen nuevas competencias. Limited State The State exists because of a group of individuals creates it voluntarily and awards it a limited power to protect -by compliance of the law- the natural rights of liberty, life and private property. The State is responsible towards the individuals that grant it a restricted power and finance it. It is not legitimate that their employees exceed their responsibilities nor that they create new competencies for themselves. 19: Libertario Se tiene en cuenta que la libertad es un objetivo por el que se trabaja cada día, no una situación estática. En ese trabajo diario se pueden cometer errores que habrá que enmendar, o hacer desvíos que habrá corregir. Las políticas públicas se deben juzgar por sus resultados y no por sus intenciones. El pragmatismo debe primar sobre el dogmatismo. It's noticed that liberty is an objective [a choice of life I would call it] for which people work every day [stefan, you're not mentioned, what is this?], it is not a static situation. In this daily job people may commit mistakes that they will have to put right or drifts, detours (?) that one has to correct. The public policies should be judged by their results and not by their intentions. Pragmatism should have priority over dogmatism. Hmm, I don't know about Daniels message. Empty, hollow and strange sentences. Peaceful Parenting Colombia is very divided, unlike Western countries. So a lot of spanking among the lower classes, playground to win in the middle class and convincing of social responsibilities among the higher classes. Single Moms If 84 % single moms *The Truth about Single Moms - Stefan Molyneux really would be true for Colombia (sharply divided between classes) and all of these mothers were terrible terrible terrible (armed robberies are the main problem for other citizens, drug addictions, spanking, murders, lowest classes are crap. Low class is pleasant living), the state of the country would be on the floor and the opposite is true. The culture is very family-oriented and warm and I've seen enough first hand experiences with the lower, middle and a bit upper classes to tell those children are raised better than in Europe. Vandalism, useless violent drunken crimes like in the UK is not what you see here. Free Market What statist-corrupt countries bind is that it can be hard to do business. I don't think it scores high at the business scale. Yet if you have local contacts and speak at least reasonable Spanish there's a lot of market to gain. The work ethic in all year April-fresh-to-May-warm-to-October-rainy (not seldom in 1 day) Bogota is good, people work harder and longer than in Europe. US would be more, I guess. There's a lot of black market, great to see: There's potential here, with peaceful parenting. Children are raised well what I see around. PS: Mike, the topic is a bit more spread out than initially planned , feel free to move it to where you see fit please. Err, none of my images work. It says "You're not allowed to use this image extension [jpg??] on this forum", Mike do you know what's that about? I had quite some images in my OP...

Intrinsic value is not a contradiction, it's the essence of our lives; energy and thus resources and unprocessed foods. But not if you define "value" purely as an economic thing. Value is much broader than that. To use the Corvette example; the materials, time, energy and labour to get that Corvette represent the intrinsic value I would say. That one could buy that Corvette for just 1 dollar doesn't mean the (intrinsic) value is just 1 dollar. It is the established price. But if there's anything wrong with the fake crony-crook-"capitalist" world we live in, it's that economic value and intrinsic value do not align. Logical; money isn't worth anything, so the way to represent value is rigged. It's very easy to observe in the oil price. 159 liters/some 35 gallons? of the most valuable product in the world (literally the whole world turns around and on it) costs 1/7 the price of beer. Ridiculous. Yet it costs millions of years to form this irreplaceble substance of great intrinsic (= caloric) value. @TT: the social "contract" is a flawed concept as it would mean that simply being born somewherr means signing a contract. NAP and Property Rights are not concepts but stem from ethics. They cannot be equated to a concept that is flawed in the first place. NAP and Property Rights are not rigged; they are valid for all situations. Except for 1 party at the moment. That party is again a concept; the state.

Happy Thanksgiving to you too, man. Is this a threat or a relief?

Magnum, if my memory is right, you were the one who had something to say, namely: Why are they "idiots", Magnum? Because they do not automate million dollar equipment (you surely didn't count on that gold vein, did you?)? So if "automating million dollar equipment" is the ultimate sign of non-idiocy most people in the world and on FDR included would be idiots. Is that truly your standard for (non-)idiocy?