DaviesMa

I would say that R and K or socialism and capitalism also have another paradigm - childhood verses adulthood. Childhood is about trying to manipulate people to get resources whereas adulthood is about manipulating the world. When you run out of money as a socialist government it is a bit like your parents kicking you out of the house to make it on your own - you hate it at first but then you adjust and it becomes very satisfying. People with the capacity for being K can, when the chips are down, become Ks and ultimately be more happy about it. The stress of this puberty comes from the mental changes that must occur and the risk that some people might not be able to adapt. Look at social justice warriors for perfect examples of tall children.

The chances are that to get protection or to participate in any kind of society you would have to sign a contract which laid out the rules with whcih your behaviour would be judged. It is unlikely anyone would want you on their property unless you consented to an agreement like this so to go anywhere or use any amenities including roads would require a contract. In a free society different contracts providers and enforcers would compete for your business and if they convinced you that prison was the best way to control criminality, then this is what the contracts would specify - if they could provide something better, this would displace prison. I don't see it as breaking the NAP because you will have signed a contract with actions and consequences. .

Eclectic Idealist, Thanks for the summary, that was a perfect summary of the information I was looking for. I suppose I like to bury my head in the sand somewhat about the cultural brainwashing that goes on in society so I tend to avoid most things that lean left, (which pretty much restricts me to Clint Eastwood movies nowadays.) I am tempted by it however so I think I will give it a few episodes and see if I can switch off my propoganda alarm for the sake of my enjoyment.

I would be interested to know what people's opinions of this are as I have access to it on UK Amazon Prime. I have resisted so far because I suspect that it is a 'corporations are evil and greedy' trope. Any clarification without me wasting about 20 hours of my life woudl be appreciated.

I agree with RoseCodex that women are more likely to use a pejorative that means that you are heartless, such as asshole. If women know someone quite well they are usually quite good at knowing what the person is self-conscious about such as their performance in bed, their employment status or something personal to them. I remember failing my driving test a few times when I was young and when I got in an argument with a girl I knew she said I was shit at driving and would never pass my test - although I did eventually pass it hurt at the time. Whenever I have been called crazy by a woman it is when I have broken some social rules or been quite adventurous and it is usually a response to them both being uncomfortable and impressed by my courage (athough it doesn't happen that often.)

Unless I am missing something he really hasn't said anything too controversial. After being attacked by Khan at the DNC this is what I have managed to find: In an interview he questioned why the mother didn't speak saying : “If you look at his wife, she was standing there, she had nothing to say, she probably — maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say, you tell me.” Responding to the accusation from Khan that he had not made any sacrifices for American: "Who wrote that? Did Hillary's script writers write it?" He also responded to Khan acccusing him of not having read the constitutioin by saying: "while I feel deeply for the loss of his son, Mr. Khan who has never met me, has no right to stand in front of millions of people and claim I have never read the Constitution, (which is false) and say many other inaccurate things." He also tweeted: "Mr. Khan, who does not know me, viciously attacked me from the stage of the DNC and is now all over T.V. doing the same - Nice!" Considering Mr Khan put himself into the political fray by attacking Trump personally rather than just stating his case for what he believed, I don't think this is unreasonable. Mr Khan did say that Trump had a Black Soul which is considerably worse than anything Trump said to him. Reading online I found it very difficult to find direct quotes from Trump and every one I saw used language saying that Trump belittled or attacked Khan. I think the DNC have used Mr Khan as some kind of impregnable class of victim to attack Trump with which is making the media go ape about it. Whether anyone outside of the Muslim community in America actually cares is another matter. It does however reiterate to the Trump supporters that he isn't afraid to speak his mind after a few months of being relatively boring by Trump standards.

Thanks for the replies guys. Eclectic Idealist - I agree that taking on a permanent job when I will only stay for a short while would most likely cost the company money; part of the problem I have is that I want jobs advertised as temporary so there is a limited selection. avie64, I might have to speak to friends to get me a job although a dodgy knee might prevent me from doing too much manual labour. Shirgall - I have considered that hiring managers would check into my background but for the roles that I would be very basic, they would not invest a great deal in background checks. Even if I were caught then I don't see too many deliterious consequences for myself other than a slap on the wrist as I am not looking for a permanent role. I would expect them to discover my lies before I were employed if at all so I don't think it would be detrimental to them. I was more interested in your idea of informed consent and I agree, I was quite frustrated when I wrote this post but looking at it, there is no escaping that it is the same category as fraud and does break the NAP. Even if I were to say that they would benefit from it, I am not the one who should decide what their motivations should or should not be. As with all CVs I don't think it unreasonable to have a little room to exaggerate (or in my case, underplay) some details as employers will make allowances for this in their judgement. I think I will downplay my achievements in order to make my CV a bit more realistic for lower paid jobs but I won't lie. - Thanks again for all your responses guys, I appreciate the time you put in to help me out on this.

(I hope this is posted in the right place.) This might seem like a no brainer but hear me out. I previously had a highly specialised and well paying career which I don't want to go back to so I want to take some administration work which would be near minimum wage to keep me ticking over whilst I evaluate my options and wouid most likely do this for the next 6 months plus. I have put in 15 applications for jobs that I could do in my sleep yet I have not had one interview yet. I have spoken to several people with experience who have told me that I stand no chance of getting a job due to my CV being too strong. Is it moral to falsify my CV by making me appear less qualified in order to gain a position? Although it would be a win-win as they would gain an excellent overqualified worker and I would gain employment, I would also be lying and not trusting them to make a rational decision. (To preempt the question, there is nothing that pays well and I am qualified for in my area other than jobs in my old career, which I won't go back to)

As per the other commentors, withdrawing welfare whilst offering travel and resettlement in other countries could be the answer but if this were government controlled then this would be another violation of the NAP from taking from Tax Payers. Muslims in the Uk for example earn on average 68% as much as the average UK person with almost half of British Muslims residing in the bottom 10% of districts for deprivation. 35% of Muslim households have no adults working compared to 17% of the general population in the UK. Being welfare dependent would mean that an offer of a relocation package for renouncing citizenship and a transfer to another country might appeal to many Muslims. As someone who has lived across different towns and cities in the UK with significant Muslim populations, it is hard to see integration working as they are heavily ghettoised, even with small populations.

In what context did they call you crazy? Was it in response to you explaining your reasons for breaking up or just as a general comment? Did you ask for further elaboration about what they meant?

Back to the original question... I have had 2 casual relationships where I wasn't really interested in a girl and both ended up hurting the girl and on reflection were a waste of mine and her time. The problem with many women is that the less interested you are the higher they percieve your Sexual Market Value to be, so it sets up a dynamic where they are increasingly invested and needy. If it were me, I would end it because of the hassle and the bad feelings I had from contributing to the upset of the girls involved. That being said I don't see anything unethical in what you are doing as she has to take responsbility for her own actions as a consenting adult. You could say that it is asthetically undesirable, but not immoral.

I can see how the thought of non-existence would bother people and I must admit that it has bothered me for a time. A way to look at it from a physics point of view is to see time as another dimension, like length, width or height. If you stop seeing time as something that goes forward, but instead is a place or a coordinate, then you reach the conclusion that every moment of your life has and will always exist, but in a different place to where 'you' are now. In effect, there are almost infinite versions of you experiencing your life but they are further back or further along the dimension of time. I hope this makes sense. Whether it provides comfort or not is another matter.

Teaching children moral instructions is a problem because it makes moral appear to be arbitary, even if they are based in philosophy, which creates an issue when passed down from generation to generation. We see this with Christian morality where the absence of Christianity often leads to the abandonment of morality, even if some of this morality would be beneficial in the long term for the person. I may be oversimplifying but strictly in terms of morality, we only have to teach our childrent that they do not have the right to expect others to do things thorugh compulsion, as they should not be expected to do things through compulsion either. This means not hitting, stealing toys or verbally bullying other children. Instead everything that they request from someone else should be win-win, this means that if they want another child to cooperate then they must offer value in return, either through friendship or a trade. This is sometimes a difficult transition for children as not only do adults start by providing everything, they also put children into school environments without the child's consent and the child is forced for 6 hours a day to obey others. All the rest of the parenthood is not morality but instruction. We teach children to be friendly as it benefits then and their relationships, we teach children to brush their teeth to prevent tooth decay and we teach manners so as to not offend others, to the detriment of themselves. All these instructions can be seen as being designed to help the child lead a better life. Parents often cross the line when they ask children to do things that are purely for the parents benefit and dress it up as the right thing to do. For example if a child doesn't want to share their toy with a child they don't like but the parent insists to be 'polite' or if the child is chastised for making noise because it annoys the parent.

A few points about the insult: Firstly, if you have to resort to whining that someone changed his name in the hope that people will change their vote, who stupid to you take voters to be? Secondly, did anyone object to Raphael Cruz changing his name to Ted? He is just trying to appear more integrated, just like Trump a few generations ago.

I can see how it is contradictory, however with a little mental gymnastics you can give Trump the benefit of the doubt if you wish. Trump has said that America has some of the highest Corporate Tax rates in the world and has cited companies going to low tax regimes such as Ireland as a problem. In this case, when he says he is going to stop jobs going abroad, he could mean that he is gonig to make it less attractive. H