A4E

I thought they were just trying to make google censor its own name, because I did not see any usefulness in hijacking the name to use for some universal catch all thing. Or whatever complicated goal they have. So in that case I spoke in haste, and maybe this is some kind of genius thing that I don't understand. Sorry. They probably have exceptions for 'white', 'conservative' and perhaps even 'family' so that everyone can slander those as much as they want.

augh. how could I forget the word remixed!? Thank you for feedback! I recognize that I will have to try harder if I want to do something like this again... Live and learn. changed to 'REMIX'

The text in bold is not true. If a gambler was offered a million dollars to stop gambling for a day, sure he would probably have enough control to stop for that day. But emotions and illusions will make a person chase loses and continue without them feeling in control. Just read stories from former gamblers. They will all say that they did not have much control or any at all. In a perfect information world where everyone can get detailed information about anything on the spot, I would agree 100%. But lets say I am 18 years old and somehow avoided getting any information about alcohol. And I am in front of a big crowd and a person brings a bottle of hard liquor to me and tells me that I am a nobody if I do not drink everything in the bottle, and if I finish it I will be one of the cool guys, and its perfectly ok and safe to do so. The crowd starts cheering me on, I give in to the overwhelming social pressure. And get very sick and harm myself badly. Where can we put the blame? (Did not happen, just an example) I did not understand the last phrase -'and yourself far too much'. I dont know if I have any argument yet. I do support advocating personal liability on the whole, because it mostly works in the same way as agreeing to have a peaceful society. I just started thinking a little different after Algernon's first post here. I got triggered that he could brush aside alcohol as not dangerous by itself I guess.

If anyone set up anything lethal on their property without a clear warning, that is definitely a tense situation. And you are probably right. I get your point at a basic level of course, but I focus on the implicit agreement that we all want a peaceful society, so I might have to go with even if you put up any amount of warnings, that it is too much repercussion for trespassing as Dsayers noted. And I would think any court would side with the trespassers family, as any decent lawyer would be able to point out the injustice. Lets imagine you are building a test area for a ray gun with sensors that will destroy anything which triggers the sensors. And this is your livelihood and contract to make this ray gun. My opinion is that you should make damn sure to fence off the area, and with as many warnings as possible, so much so that it is virtually impossible to get inside there without some serious tools. And then if someone wants to cut through the fences to get inside, to be destroyed, the landowner should not get in trouble. Do you mean people driving cars into wrecks killing themselves? That the makers of the cars could be blamed according to what I said? My answer is no, because like a gun, you have 100% control over it. Same with hammer, knife. I did not understand the last question.

Muslims as a whole do not tolerate atheists, or anyone else, even other muslims with a different opinion. In a muslim ruled country, atheists (and anarcho capitalists) are going to be suppressed, killed, banished, or whatever. In a part muslim country, much of the same will go on, just not on the same scale. Which as already mentioned above, does not allow any big opportunities to make the world a better place. The controlled or brainwashed powers of the western world is letting muslims enter their countries and allowing them to continue to not tolerate people with other opinions nor the country's culture, while at the same time demanding that everyone tolerate the muslims. Trump understands this and have made it clear what he thinks about it. People fleeing from socialist states into the USA are also not likely going to have an open mind to anarcho capitalism. Therefore protecting the country's history of freedom of thought, and not letting just anyone into the country is paramount to making USA and the world a better and more freedom focused place. Remember that muslim country's are never going to invite atheists (or non muslims) and be nice to them, giving them money and accommodations. If Hillary is POTUS, then there will be more government control, more muslim immigrants, and other anti freedom oriented groups will be let in because they will support the left and more government control. Also more wars will be started. More destruction of the family. More local/small businesses will be eliminated. The debt will go higher. People will have less money. Less jobs because no one dares starting a business when there are so many rules. Less quality healthcare because it will be more controlled by government. Less quality anything that the government will impose itself on. It would of course be nice if we could snap our fingers to start our perfect society, but I agree that we have to accept and deal with how things are becoming at the moment. Trying to wish reality away is not productive. What I find insane, is that a large portion of LGBT people seem to be supporting the left. The left do not care how many muslims are getting into the west. And if enough muslims are in a country, they are going to start killing LGBT people.

Easier for deaf people to follow now, with lots of text, I would think.

Just saw this neat video referencing the Trump tape, and don't know where to best share it.

I watched two speeches in florida, and its really awesome and mind boggling at the same time that he is actually standing up to the mafia controlling the US. The bible story David and Goliath comes to mind. Think of the risk he is taking. But he is no stranger to risk I guess.

I understand your position, which I assume is based on for example that guns are not dangerous, just certain people using them, which I agree. Would you also say that casino's and gambling is not dangerous, nor the people offering it, just people going into the casino with (all) their money? I am not sure what stance to have. Just curious about your thoughts. How about people making landmines, and spreading them around in an area? Sick example, but Is it dangerous to make the landmines, or apply the landmines, or just dangerous for people who know that there are landmines in the area to walk around there? In my mind I can compare the alcohol to the landmines, and also to the casino. All 3 can end your life or harm you in various ways. But I am not so sure where to put the blame if someone dies. One reason is that in all of them there is a factor of many people not knowing about the dangers. I guess I agree that if people have been thoroughly instructed in the dangers of something, then it is they themselves who put themselves in danger. But I would say a lot of people are not instructed in the complete dangers of these examples, and therefore perhaps there is some eligibility in calling these things dangerous, not just people who are in contact with them. The difference for me between guns, and the 3 examples of alcohol, landmines, and a casino, is that with a gun you usually have 100% control over what you are doing. That is not the case with the 3 examples.

My mental garbage bag filled up pretty quickly after scrolling down 15 times. So couldn't take anymore.

What about the people using alcohol in front of others, and/or talking about it, advertising it. Are they dangerous? What about the people selling alcohol or making alcohol, are they dangerous?

I would never advice someone to use the most dangerous drug (alcohol).

I couldn't think of a better word than 'sweetened' at this time. Maybe you can help me.

Awesome.

It seems like a nice idea on the surface, but having experience with programming, I'd say this project would be in vain, because they can just add a list of exceptions to the AI, so I'd imagine it would not hold much more value than a novelty. I doubt that they would release such an AI that was not chained to google/its creators.

Interesting. One important thing is that colors do not exist in reality, only frequencies. But I guess this presentation aims to go even deeper than that.

Stuff that works on cancer is also banned. Like apricot seeds. Hemp oil. The world would be quite different without governments banning everything. Did you know Alcohol is the most dangerous drug?

Yeah, but I thought it would make for a good example to present for most men. "As a counter, does your sexy wonderful wife have consent to pressure you into passionate sex with her at any time?" does not feel as a very complicated premise. Even if it works both ways in that the man may not want to.

I would pay money to see a stern muslim police woman in burka apprehend and arrest a muslim man trying to rape a western lady.

I don't know for sure if the Zika virus scare is unfounded, but now they are using it as an excuse to spray a chemical that actually shrinks the brains of babies, and kills bees. Bees are essential for growing food for people. I am sharing this so that it can be shared/talked about further.

What is "misleading youtube minature"?

I am somewhat hoping its a fake. But there is nothing surprising in here really... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzEm4xuBhqg

I think I understand what you mean. But could you try to elaborate on this point from him? As a counter test, does a wife have the 'consent' to take as much money from her husband as she wants, and use it on whatever she likes? (assuming she has 100% ability to do so, or can just force the husband to give her)

It was not interesting for me today. But similar experiments of group pressure was before. I was pretty shocked of some before. Now I have accepted that this is how cultures, religions, clubs, cuIts, sports fans, ideologies, propaganda, social justice, feminism, etc, form. Or at least have a big effect in forming. I have not been free of such group pressure either in my life. It is a powerful force that many seek to abuse offline and online. But perhaps more surprising as demonstrated here, is that many are unbeknownst spreading the behaviours. For example, this is why it is effective to start propaganda about Trump on a TV channel.