AncapFTW

So, if they don't hate it, it's not bad to do it? A crack whore will like the fact that I'm giving her some blow for a blowjob, so I'm not exploiting her addiction to get some head. Exploiting peoples psychological problems to get sex out of them sounds like coercion to me, which makes it akin to rape. For that matter, it doesn't matter what psychological problems you're exploiting, and what you're getting out of it. If I throw fire crackers on the ground near a vet with PTSD until he gives me money, it's the same thing.

Ok. Your video talks about emergency situations, but the filtration system shown is practically worthless in such a situation, as there is not city water in most emergencies. We've got a well, so we have a good water supply as long as we have power, but if you don't have a well, you're going to have problems getting a source of water in an emergency.

Can you give me an example? Do you mean trying to claim the offspring that results from breeding GMO plants with non-GMO plants? That would be theirs, I guess, in the same way I own the puppies that result from a stray dog getting to my female dog.

So beating something to death with a blunt object isn't cruel in your opinion? I guess it doesn't matter if the government gives convicted murderers lethal injection or has a group of cops billy-club them to death, then.

I'm wondering how good this would be in an emergency. What do you have to do to make this work with rain water and other emergency sources (runoff, muddy water, unsafe streams, pool water, ocean water, etc.)? How long would it last at the full 90 gallons per day rate?

This makes as much sense as him saying "does it make sense to keep dogs in Kennels? Tune in next weak when we go and visit one I locked in a box barely big enough for it a week ago." If you want to create "a dialog about why we see some animals, mainly the ones we tend to eat, differently than others", then talk about how pets are treated, then food animals are treated.

How are one night stands with women you pick up in bars, possibly by exploiting their emotional issues, the same as "friends with benefits"? Everyone has went way off topic here. "Friends" implies that you have an emotional relationship with them already, possible a deep one. All this topic was originally about was "is it ok to add sex to an emotional relationship, or will it change the relationship into something else?" None of the recent posts have anything to do with that topic, though.

At the risk of having this comment censored, you haven't paid for the privileged.

Isn't that the definition of homesteading? After all, I didn't make land. I don't make animals that I hunt. I don't make the ore I pull out of the ground. If it's GMO, then they put work into making it something different, the same as if I gathered sticks and catgut and made a bow. If it isn't GMO, or they released it into the wild then discovered a useful crossbreed, then I'd say they can't own it outright, just what they can gather of it.

Doesn't this preclude the possibility that their "self-knowledge" lead then to disconnect emotions and sex? What if sex isn't necessarily the emotional rollercoaster people tend to think it is? What if the connection isn't "instinct", but a learned behavior caused by cultural training from a young age? I think that's likely, considering animals are rarely monogamous, and there are many "primitive" societies in which sex isn't taboo.

I didn't get that from watching the commercial. You don't have to watch kids 100% of the time at the playground, and "even on days with the kids" could mean that you are letting your kids watch it, or that you're watching it while your kids do something else. I don't think you need to smother your kids with attention to be a good parent. In fact, too much attention is actually a bad thing, as they'll never learn to be independent.

Most people associate clothing with being closed off, and nudity with being open. This, of course, is from being told it's wrong as a child. Wouldn't that mean that people tend to be more open with people they feel they can get naked around?

1) The hypothetical landowner reminds me of a government, especially with the "all land is owned" part added in. The main difference is that the hypothetical land owner probably didn't get the land through violence. 2) This reminds me of the "can you sell your rights" argument I was once in when I mentioned Indentured Servitude. Basically, all interaction is a limitation on your rights, and you choose to limit those rights when you choose to interact. In this case, you get to choose if the rules on one owners land are worth the benefits of being on the land. If not, find a better place where it is. If no place exists, find the one that is best. As for whether such rules are immoral, I would ask if they require violence to force them on people. Whether or not they use violence when being enforced doesn't matter. If I freely agree that you can shoot me if I step off of a walkway, then step off, I wouldn't consider it immoral to shoot me, as I agreed to the punishment as a condition of being there. I would, however, consider it immoral to make that a condition of the contract if it doesn't at least put someone else's life at risk if I leave the path.

This argument doesn't make sense. You are essentially saying "the forest doesn't exist, only trees.", "Companies don't exist, only employees and owners", "Objects don't exist, only atoms." The government is defined as a group of individuals which get to make the rules and enforce their rules on a specific area or on a specific group of people through violence. It makes as much sense to say "the government doesn't own anything" as saying "Microsoft doesn't own anything." The fact that they got all of their stuff via violence doesn't change that fact. Neither does the fact that their member get changed periodically.

Emma Watson: Plays a strong female character that it at least the equal of the men around her, then demands that men "white knight" the women in their lives. Here's an idea, treat people as equals, not as something you need to help because it can't make it on its own. #equality

While I'm sure she hit him in the past and that lead him to think that violence was an acceptable way to solve problems, couldn't this be seen as a punishment for harming others? If a shop owner beat him after he threw something through their window or attacked them, it would be a simple case of self defense. Can't violence be used to punish someone who has already committed violence and is likely to commit more violent acts? The problem I see with it is that we have no idea what he actually did and therefore we have no idea if this is a proportional response.

Reminds me of my dad. With my younger siblings he would say "do you think you should be punished?" and if they say no, he'd make them explain why they shouldn't be. Of course, it's not as bad as when he spanks you until you agree with him, even when what he thinks happened didn't happen. At one point I literally looked at him and asked me if he wanted me to lie. He responded with "No, that's why you're in trouble." The same thing's happened with other siblings. How do you deal with someone who won't accept that they can be wrong?

As I'm writing this on April 15, 2015, I was wondering: Did your muggers "owe" you anything this year or did you have to fork over even more money? Personally, they're giving be back a lot, though the groveling for it isn't very good.

Part of the OP that I don't think anyone has addressed, if people don't have children to make themselves happier, why do they do it? Every action a person takes benefits them in some way, even if it is forced on them, otherwise they wouldn't do it. So, knowing how much it will cost them in health, money, etc, why do people choose to have children? They "just want one"? That's happiness. "Biological drive"? That's stress relief, which is linked to happiness. "Feel obligated" or "Accidental pregnancy and won't terminate?" That's a moral choice, which is also linked to happiness. Now, I'm not saying that it is immoral to do something to increase your own happiness, but when creating another person to do that, you have an obligation to that person which most people fail at in some way. I wouldn't say it is immoral to have a child, but it isn't exactly moral either.

True, the girl should have said, "But didn't your country help him out when he got in that big fight a few years back?" Also, she has to cover the rent this month because Britain has to make a credit card payment and can't afford it.

The coma test comes to mind in this situation.

Just found it on Youtube. Any comments?

Animals also can't understand employment contracts. Does that mean that circuses still have to go through the employment process whenever they get a new elephant? You are assigning human motives and behaviors to animals. That's called personification, not logic. The animals generally don't suffer, because people wouldn't buy the meat if they did. When they are killed, it is generally done in a fairly humane manor. They don't suffer when shot in the head. If you believe they suffer, then prove it. And no, propaganda put together by a group that says killing animals is wrong, then euthanizes many animals per year doesn't count.

In a billion years algae may have a descendant that can understand UPB. Does that mean that we can't even eat algaes? Animals don't even have the genetic potential for it. Yes, at some point in the future mutation and natural selection, or even genetic engineering may create a descendant of modern animals that can understand it, but that is irrelevant. They cannot now, nor do they even have the potential to be able to at some point in their lifetime, so it can't apply to them. I would argue that there is a middle ground where a being is capable of understanding some reason, but not on the scale necessary for UPB. Chimpanzees may be at an area like this, as they can understand some logic, and even develop and use tools.

This is why I don't buy a lot of pc games. Many of the best most popular ones are just online/multiplayer or have a very small single player side. At least consoles aren't doing that as much.