AncapFTW

To be fair, we have terrible internet speeds in the US because they took tax money that the government gave them for extending the fiber network and used it to build 4g towers. But yeah, the phones might be more because of the extreme difference in network size and coverage.

Isn't it a false dichotomy to say "either you want modern society or you want to be a prehistoric hunter-gatherer"? What if I prefer the bronze age, or the Renascence? What if someone wants an altered version of the modern society? You're also assuming that "civilization" means the modern form, as if you couldn't have modern tech and standard of living without monogamy. I'd love to hear how you came to that conclusion logically.

That didn't even address my argument, but while we're at it, explain why giraffes have a several foot long nerve that runs up and back down the neck when a two inch long one would work there. Of course, I don't expect a troll to actually try to answer, so, whatever.

Monogamy seems a bit possessive to me, as you are restricting the other person's activities based on your own preference. Sure, both of you generally agree to this, but with so many people cheating, are you sure that both people are happy with the agreement? Also, it's usually very hard to get out of the agreement, and even suggesting a change to the agreement is emotionally hurtful to some people. The same goes for children. Many people say "it's my kid. How dare you tell me how to raise them!". In both of these situations, I wonder if people are considering the other person an equal, or as a possession. True, the child's knowledge and mental development most likely aren't equal or greater than yours, but does that really matter?

God's a civil engineer because no one else one run sewage through a recreation area. Ok, so it's the punchline to a joke.

Your definition of socialism requires capitalism, as they are doing the trading, setting prices, etc. So, no, it isn't capitalism. In both your complaint and his, the problem is the state. If there wasn't the state to bar entry, the workers won't have any problem coming together to start a business. A person owning a factory by investing their time and money into building it and administering it isn't the problem. It just appears like they "serve nobody but just take most of the profit their workers generate" because they have invested the money to start the factory, and are taking most of the risk (or their investors are, with them acting as an agent). Plus, they own the building, machines, etc, pay all of the bills, decide what to make, when, and how much, and when, buy the materials to make it, etc, so yes, they SHOULD take most of the money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudohermaphroditism I'm just wondering how the people on this thread will respond to a real medical case of people not being 10% biologically male or female.

movie theaters, walmart, fast food joints. Also, are their any skate parks or other youth-oriented areas in your city?

Assuming that the difference in time doesn't change background radiation, the ammount of heat the sun is producing, the chemical makeup of the area, etc. Also assuming that "abiogenesis started at the same time" you mean relative to modern times, not relative to the beginning of the universe. If both of those assumptions are correct then yes, the age doesn't really matter.

Not "nothing", a singularity. Also, not faith-based, unless you count all scientific views as "faith based". "Life" in it's simplest form is just a self-replicating chemical or set of chemicals. So you are saying that it's not possible for a catalyst to create more of a certain chemical? Not a different kind, the same kind, but with extra traits that not all of the larger group has. Humans still have the "ape" traits, they just also have special "human" traits.

All of you are only computer programs, NPCs that the matrix is feeding me responses from to keep me from figuring out the truth.

I didn't realize you considered pingins moral agents. Tell me, what lead you to such a belief? You are arguing based on the success at producing the desired result, why we are arguing ethics, or at the very least that sex is meaningless as an end goal. Let me put it this way. I want pot. I go up to a dealer and start complaining about my cancer and how much pain I'm in so that he feels sorry for me and gives it to me for free. Now, I don't have cancer, but I didn't use violence or the threat of violence to get it, so no NAP violation. Was it ok for me to do that? Of course, the difference is that dealers for your desired object, sex, are far more numerous, so it's hard to deplete the free supply.

I specifically said that what they did was evil. If you can't accept that by calling something evil I sympathize with the victim, then I'm not sure what you'll accept. I guess if we don't use the exact words you want us to, then it isn't obvious. Also, did you ask yourself why she dumped you? Yes, I feel sorry for you, but I'm more of a solution person or a person that looks for a reason than a "show my feelings" type.

And how is lieing to women to get them to sleep with you NOT being possessive? How does it empathize with her? So, because she's been told that men will say anything to get in her pants, and will do whatever it takes, you want to confirm this by lying to her and saying anything to get in her pants? How are you going to show that the stereotype is wrong by being the stereotype?

I would argue that the fact that the US government is so different from European governments, in many ways more freedom based, proves that libertarian politics does help. Sure, it doesn't stop the government from growing, but then again it's very small.

So, when someone asks "So are you advocating for something akin to a Masculine King (analogous to Plato's Philosopher King) , who can save women from themselves? OR are you just advocating men protect themselves while still being able to get sex?" and you respond "Both. Those two practices aren't mutually exclusive." you aren't saying that at least some women need to be "saved from themselves"? Are you just saying that SOMEONE needs to do that or are you practicing your doublespeak for when you run for political office?

Once again, you are telling me what I think. Stop it. Also, you specifically said that that is what you thought, so I wasn't implying anything, just repeating your statement.

Your post from "Friends with Benefits": Both. Those two practices aren't mutually exclusive. ---- So, if you want men to "save women from themselves" how is that not framing "women as irrational, stupid creatures who need dispassionate masculine asexual guidance to lead them into more intelligent decisions."?

I call it evil but I have no empathy. Ok, whatever you say.

I'm not sure how I see it. Yes, the drought is being exacerbated by the government's restrictions, but they are still in one. In a free market (although there's nothing approaching that in this situation), new sources would be brought in and the price would increase to drive down water usage. Eventually the drought would be dealt with by a combination of the two. Behavior that the society had a problem with would result in the same type of shaming you have here, but the "police" would only get involved if their actions were actually hurting people. So, ultimately, the state is causing the problem, but the society is enforcing the shaming punishment.

Now that you've actually explained yourself rather that just made statements and said "if you don't agree with me then you're (insert bad person here), I can actually address your concern. Your entire argument is "your group is evil because one person did something evil because of it." That doesn't make any sense though. You are blaming the entire group for the actions of one person. If you want to do it that was then I might as well do the same thing. Some anti-trans people beat them to death, therefore you want to kill all trans people. Of course it's bad, but it had nothing to do with the topic.

I'm sorry, but I don't have the privilege of up-voting, so I can't up-vote you.

Sorry, but for some reason, this seems the most appropriate response to you at this point.

Once again putting words in other people's mouths. [insert straw man symbol here] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies : Because I don't want to bother responding to your "one person was harmed in a way that is slightly similar to the group, therefore every member of group deserves no respect." Let's use your method to deal with anarchy. "Several psychotic people have called themselves anarchists, therefore, I'll never support an anarchist or pro-anarchist individual, no matter how noble he presents himself."

I'm sorry, but this is like talking with a fanatic. Multiple people have pointed out multiple times how you're wrong, and, instead of actually looking at what they say, you choose to attack them, put words in their mouth, accuse them of being things they aren't, and then act like your point is self evident, even though it isn't. You've suggested that I call into the show, and I would recommend the same for you, but you would likely just end up calling Stefan anti-NAP and/or accusing him of doing or thinking things he didn't do or think, like you've done with everyone else who has disagreed with you. You suggest that I've got a lack of "self-knowledge." immediately after I suggest the same thing about you. I suggest you look up "Logical falacies" on wikipedia and read the page. Maybe, after you've done that, it will acually be worth talking to you. Until then, though, I'll just have to assume you have no interest in a real discussion because it might limit your ability to think with your "lower brains" instead of the one in your head. I certainly hope that you are right that you haven't violated NAP in any of your many, many, cases of acting as someone you aren't to get laid, but I seriously doubt it.