AncapFTW

This is the second time you've said that I specifically said something I didn't. Please stop doing this. Once again, I don't know which actions you are using, but some of the actions that fall under the category you are saying is a great idea to use have, in fact, been shown to cause harm. Advising that someone not risk doing something that has a very good chance of hurting someone else isn't "against NAP", it's just using your brain. If I advised you to not fire a gun off in the air in public, would that be anti-NAP? After all, you aren't necessarily hurting anyone, just risking it. I'm sorry, but if you're going to keep insisting that I'm anti-NAP because I want you to use a little wisdom in your actions and to use a tiny bit of self control to guarantee that you don't violate NAP, then there's really no point in talking to you. You obviously don't care if you hurt others, since you are willing to risk causing people harm simply so that you can fulfill your desires, and attack anyone that suggests that you be careful to not hurt anyone.

If you bought the land and aren't using it to hurt people, who cares if you chase wild game and bite them to death? Also, there are objective definitions for living objects, but because living beings, especially sapient ones, have both a mental and a physical state, you have to define both. The problem comes when you assume that because the physical part can be described with a certain word, the mental aspect must also be capable of being described with that word, and if it isn't, then they have serious mental problems. Let me give you an example: There are certain behavioral aspects that are stereotypically associated with certain races. What if we said that any black person that "acted white" was insane? What if I said an Asian guy was insane because he adopted an accent, converted to Judaism, and started using Yiddish words? Few people would agree with me if I said that, but if someone is biologically one gender and associate with and adopt another gender, it is perfectly fine to some people to say they are crazy. Can you tell me the difference?

Look up "AronRa" on youtube and watch his videos. He's actually a biologist that deals with how humans evolved, including the eye.

I'm sorry, but I can't make sense out of this comment. You are assuming that I think something, telling me that that's what I think, then asking me if I experienced something that has no bearing on the topic. If you can't use logic, then there isn't really a reason to discuss things with you. p.s. You claim to support NAP, then attack me over the assumption that I think something that is similar to it. Show that that statement is wrong, then maybe you can argue against following it. It still won't prove that that's what I think, but at least it will be a proper strawman then, and not just random comments.

The argument in a nutshell: Person 1: Here's a scientific explanation. Person 2: I don't understand science, so it's obviously not true. Person 1: Then here's some literature so you can study it. Person 2: It's a conspiracy, man. The government's got a grip on the uranium mines. They're stockpiling it or something!

Que? Can you please back up this statement? From everything I read, it arose out of the barter system which distributed things based on skill in obtaining/making things. Value came from demand for what others could produce more efficiently, and people traded things which they had little demand for for things which they had more demand for. Both people benefited and the efficiency of the system came from people producing the most value they could given their unique situation.

Wow. Terrible analogy, tough it helps us understand your view. A better analogy would be you pointing at the object, saying it's the moon, and them saying "well, no, I think that's Mars, or maybe Venus, as it doesn't fit the definition of the moon perfectly." If they identify more with Group B when you think they should identify with Group A, and want to fully become a member of that group B, why do you care? What makes a person insane for not identifying with Group A? It's not about lies being portrayed as truth, it's about them, as a shade of green, wanting to be thought of as a shade of yellow while you see them as a shade of blue. True, you can point out that they started as blue, and had yellow added, but that's not the point. Where people are concerned feelings are important. They don't deny that they are biologically a certain gender, only that they are mentally and personality-wise that gender. As long as we use words to mean such a wide range of things, there will always be fuzzy areas where the words don't fit perfectly.

"You're not making an argument here, dude. You're just asking me whether it's possible for something to be true. (Logical fallacy known as "Begging the Question".) And once you use the word "manipulate women better", you're poisoning the well by asking us to assume that PUA is corrupt. This is exactly like how anti-capitalists ask us to assume that all Rich Businessmen are corrupt, and all Al Sharpton followers ask us to assume that all White people are corrupt." You made an assumption, I offered an alternative to show that your assumption was fallacious. What's the problem with that? And I'm also not "assuming it's corrupt." If you'd actually bothered reading my comment, you'd see that I had a problem with it because it was essentially walking the line between hurting people and not hurting them. I would advise you to not fire a gun off in a crowd and not put nuts in everything at your restaurant too, because both could very easily hurt people. Or, to put it more accurately, you are selling alcohol for pawn-shop goods. Could they just want to not go to the bar or liquor store, or have extra junk laying around? Sure. The more likely case, though, is that they have a drinking problem and are getting rid of their stuff, or stealing stuff, to get it. How do you tell the difference between the two? Do you even try to tell the difference, or just sell to everyone? Do you go looking for more customers? This conversation is a bit futile, though, because we are looking at this from two different angles. I'm saying "it's risky, and dangerous to use, so you should either not use it or be very careful how you use it." You are saying "you can't prove I'm hurting anyone, therefore stop saying I am." We both know, however, that if you did do something that supported my view you wouldn't tell me about it, and there is no way, with such vague details, I can say for certain that you are hurting someone. And, though I'm sure you'll feel the need to shout "begging the question" about this too, ask yourself why you are willing to do such risky behavior, and are willing to use it so much, without even thinking about it. Why do you feel the need to have so many one night stands? It seems to me that a bit of introspection is needed on your part.

Wow. Persecution complex? And you haven't made an argument, you made ad-hom attacks against people who disagree with you. No one is "moving the goalposts." I just don't think it's wise to do things which could very easily result in problems. Do I think it's evil to drive over the speed limit? No, but I'm not going to go 100+MPH because it's difficult to control the car at those speeds. Is it wrong to hire a hooker? No, but in today's society, they are likely in it against their will, so it's risky. And as for "these men just understand women's needs far better than they do", you are making an assumption too. Couldn't it be that they just understand how to simply manipulate women better? Some people play video games for enjoyment, some manipulate the rules of the game to beat it (look up speed runs). In this case it doesn't matter, but when you are dealing with people, manipulating thing to get the reward with a minimum of effort isn't necessarily the best thing to do. In fact, I would argue that your inability to have a serious, long-term relationship means that you understand women far less. It's the difference between knowing a backdoor into a computer system and being a computer expert.

So, because people have degrees of many things, you shouldn't acknowledge the degrees of this? For examples, you give people who want pity for self-inflicted injuries (an actual problem), people who feel more attached to another culture, and people who feel different in concert with other members of a subculture, and create some sort of lore about it. Interesting that in other threads you call people anti-libertarian for having a problem with possibly harmful behaviors, yet you have a problem with behaviors that don't hurt anyone but the people who do them.

I think the problem is that in society, perhaps with a bit of biology behind it, associates what we call "feminine" traits with the female body and "masculine" traits with the male body. Both body types, however, have degrees of both groups of traits. People who are more "feminine" therefore, feel like they should be a woman, and people who feel more "masculine" feel like they should be a man. I would argue that it's more a matter of society associating traits with biological gender and not simply realizing that there are shades of both traits in everyone.

So, it's anti-Libertarian to think that you shouldn't use risky practices which may or may not violate NAP?

This argument is reminding me way too much of any argument with a fanatic. Person 1: "Your political/religious/social group is bad because you do Z." Person 2: "We also did Y. Are you saying we are evil because we did that?" Person 1: "No, but you do Z, of which X is an evil subset, and suggest that others do Z." Person 2: "Then Y is evil?" Person 1: "No, Y is neutral, but it's close to X, which is evil." Person 2: "Well, then (insert logical fallacies), so obviously I'm not evil." Person 2 will never admit to doing X, as they know that admitting it will lose them the argument, and person 1 doesn't know if they are doing X or just its cousin, Y. I'm not sure this can be resolved

Why did you agree to essentially live in a company town if you weren't certain you could make a profit? I've heard people make the argument that without government people would essentially end up being slaves as they had to work for the boss and buy stuff from the boss, so they made no real money. My first question is always "so why did they agree to it?"

1) Nuclear power technology is derived from nuclear bomb tech. Comparing nuclear bombs to nuclear reactors is like comparing fireworks to guns. (although fireworks came first) The tech that isn't a threat to people and doesn't kill people isn't bad just because it's related to a tech used to do that. Also, nuclear power could have been developed without developing nuclear bombs, but it wasn't because all of the government funding went into bombs. 2) That depends on what you consider "abusing technology" to be. 3) The hypothetical Perpetual Energy device from the OP, though it could apply to any product. And I guess it would be more accurate to say war is caused by scarcity of resources coupled with state power, as without state power it isn't generally a viable option. Even without the state, though, it's possible some people would try it, but in this example, where there still is a State, the "scarce resources" excuse would merely be put on hold by the technology.

You use snark to accuse someone of being snarky. Good job. I am using logic. Up to a point, more O2 can be beneficial to animals, but too much can also be harmful. Same with CO2 and plants. You are attempting a Reducto ad absurdum argument, by saying that if I breath pure oxygen at increased pressures I'll get health problems from it, but it fails because I'm not saying you need to increase levels that much, just a bit to re-balance things to a better level from the plant's point of view. Look at it this way. I say "you should drink more water, you're dehydrated." You say "but you can die from drinking too much water, so that can't be true." The fact that you can die from drinking too much water doesn't preclude the fact that a bit more water could have benefits.

Tip #1: Relax. All of the Ums and Uhs, the air gasps and the tense way you're talking just distract from your presentation. Also, relative and objective are antonyms. Yes, by your definition of objective they aren't, but I think that's more of a result of you using a word wrong or in a weird way. Maybe "real" or "concrete" would work better than objective, as they don't have conflicting definitions with what you mean the word to mean. Ex: I could use the word "light" to refer to subatomic particles, as they have little or know mass, but "light" in context generally is used to define electromagnetic radiation, ie. things made of photons. Mass-less or low-mass would work better in some cases.

1) How is nuclear power a product that destroys the free market? 2) People abuse technology, as that's what the State is, just a collection of people with special privileges. People could abuse the technology outside of the State, though much of the incentive wouldn't be there. 3) Even if the Free Market is more adaptive than the State, there isn't really a free market for the product, just various shades of State-run markets. As for the original question, much war is caused by scarcity of resources, like energy. If the technology were available, it would cause less war, at least in the short term, until the market adjusts to need new resources it can't help with.

No, but storing water is a short-term solution. Being able to clean water is more long-term. Of course, this is cheaper than buying jugs of water at the store, but since it's about prepping, I was thinking it would be a more long-term solution.

"and whatever his scientific girth is, he's speaking in populism." Taking the least popular position in an argument is populism? Got it. "Did you know that too much oxygen is toxic for you?" And this has what to do with CO2 levels being able to increase an order of magnitude before they are even at proper levels for plants? Also, the link doesn't work. Can you show actual scientific evidence that he's wrong? So far all we've got is a chart which backs up one of his claims.

Translation: I know more about it than the guy in the video who has made a career out of it. Translation: You and people like you are dismissing it out of hand because you don't want to see it my way. Translation: But then, I could just make assumptions about the way nature works, and assume its all bad. And actually, ecosystems can adapt pretty quickly, and have many times in history. In fact, they are always adapting to small changes. Whether they have to adapt or not isn't an issue, whether it will lead to serious problems for the ecosystem as a whole or humanity is the issue. He is merely pointing out that it will have huge benefits if it does happen the way they think it will, and that there are holes in their arguments.

1) Argumentum ad Populum. Also, that's not implied by what I quoted. 2) I didn't say "every woman who responds positively to any PUA tactic is "psychologically damaged"". I asserted that any woman who responds to you being a jerk to them is likely damaged due to the fact that their fathers/male role models were also jerks. I also didn't "assert that every man who uses PUA is, in fact, exploiting psychologically damaged women?", just that, again, anyone who acts like a jerk to get women are. Lying to people to get them to do things your way is inherently immoral. When you do it to specifically get them to make a decision opposite what they would if you told them the truth, it's even worse. "Do you understand the seriousness of declaring a large portion of people to be "psychologically damaged" - that you can't "just throw it out there, because you feel it's true"?" When a large portion of people are psychologically damaged, no, it's not serious. In fact, almost all people are psychologically damaged in some way. Also, I'm sure you'll have a problem with me saying this, but I doubt you have any respect for these women, as you treat them as something to conquer or possess, not as equals.

Ok, so it was much lower before, during periods when there was mass extinction, possibly due to lack of CO2. How does that invalidate what he's saying? It's also been higher than it is now, during glacial periods, so the period wasn't necessarily due to low CO2 levels. And what is removing the CO2 from the atmosphere without plants? A decrease in the rate of input doesn't cause a decrease in level unless there is something removing it faster than it is being added. Take Mars for example. The atmosphere is 95% CO2, and that doesn't decrease because there is nothing to make it decrease. Ok, so most of the ecosystem is starving, but not all of it. That's not that big of a deal. Also, wouldn't the added nutrients from the CO2 starved plant's eventual decay increase the nutrient level over time, as they convert nutrients into forms usable by the plankton? The 18 year average is 0.0 degree C increase. It increases a bit some years, and decreases others, with no net shift. Many climate change models do try to make predictions based on such short time periods, like the ones that are being used to push climate change laws, so it is also relevant.

Wouldn't that be "Why government fails in under 10 seconds?"