AncapFTW

Not long ago, Neon Nettle reported on the epidemic of doctors being murdered, most of which were in Florida, U.S. The scientists all shared a common trait, they had all discovered that nagalase enzyme protein was being added to vaccines which were then administrated to humans.(SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO) Nagalese is what prevents vitamin D from being produced in the body, which is the body’s main defence to naturally kill cancer cells. According to Thebigriddle.com: Nagalase is a protein that’s also created by all cancer cells. This protein is also found in very high concentrations in autistic children. And they’re PUTTING it in our vaccines!! This prevents the body from utilizing the Vitamin D necessary to fight cancer and prevent autism. Nagalese disables the immune system. It’s also known to cause Type 2 Diabetes. So basically…they weren’t killing these doctors because they had found the cure to cancer or were successfully treating autism… they’re killing them because these Dr’s had been researching and had the evidence that the vaccines they’re injecting our precious children with are CAUSING our current cancer and autism crisis!! And that it’s obviously being done knowingly and on purpose! The Dr’s they killed in FL had been collaborating and were getting ready to go public with the information. Depopulation 101..add poison to vaccines…make it law that all children must be injected to attend school. Slow kill methods. They think they’re being fair w/ their “survival of the fittest” type mentality. Only the best genes survive? These people have no souls. So, basically, vaccines cause cancer and autism, and people are being killed to cover it up. Now, please prevent evidence for: 1) Multiple Doctors were murdered. 2) They all were tied to this discovery. 3) Vitamin D does either of those things. Nowhere in the article is any evidence presented, just accusations. I'm not going to bother clicking on links in the article either, because I doubt they'll present evidence either. It's worse than a political article. At least those are usually interpretations of facts, not accusations in lieu of facts.

Getting drunk was an act of intent. Driving was also an act of intent. Neither of those negate the fact that he harmed another person and is therefore responsible for the injury to that person. If I decided to fire a gun into a crowd, would I not be responsible for the deaths it caused? After all, hitting people without aiming is a random effect, aka an accident.

It was a minor point on a minor topic. Explain what you mean by "corporal punishment". Hitting kids? No, I don't agree with it unless, of course, the kid is doing far worse. If it's a psychotic eight year old shooting a gun at people, then it's a valid form of self-defense. Also, there are cases in which pain is a better option than the alternatives. Some forms of psychosis are actually tied to a lack of or significantly smaller amount of empathetic neurons/neural connections in a person's brain. Physical pain could theoretically be used as a way to train you to sympathize with your victim, and would therefore be a valid form of both rehabilitation and corporal punishment.

The drunk driver is responsible for the child's situation, so it's more of a self defense thing than not, so I'd say yes, you can take his blood without his permission. He's responsible for the injuries, so you are taking something from him to repay his victim, and to mitigate the problems caused by his actions. Still, it's a wildly outrageous scenario which I doubt would ever happen in real life. I think a more likely case would be a group of people breaking into your house, you hit one guy over the head with a baseball bat, then use his unconscious body as a human shield while using his gun to chase off his accomplices. In both cases the person aggressed against you, and you forced something on them to mitigate the results of that aggression. How does this tie into abortion, though?

So, you believe that the government should give people even less say in how the government rules them? Yes, it is. Saying it isn't doesn't make it so. The problem is that people are allowed to steal from each other via government, not that a specific group of people are less able to make choices.

Stef isn't a deity. He isn't infallible. He can, and has, made mistakes and lets he personal prejudices cloud his judgement. (No, MMD, I don't want to call in and talk about it.) I don't remember his arguments exactly, but even if I don't agree with him, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't be on his forum. If you want to explain his argument to me, then I'll discuss it, but please don't turn this into an "argument from authority" discussion.

depends on how good of a shot we both are. That's not really analogous to the government, though. At best, they are a worse shot than we are. Also, I'm going to be carrying a gun too if there are "monsters" in the area, and if she's carrying, she is probably pretty good with it.

It's pretty rare to see someone get killed over supporting a conflicting sports team, so I guess I prefer sports fans.

Either: 1) He agreed to the rule before moving into the area, in which case it's a contract violation. or 2) He didn't agree to it, so you would have to sue him and prove that he's costing you something/devaluing your property/etc.

Can you add a link to the original video in the description? It was easy enough to find, with the entire title and poster shown in the video, but it would be easier if you added it. The comments on the original are basically 50 people all saying "Oh, he's such a badass." or "That's what he should have done." or even "America, fuck yeah!" It would be good if more sensible people could go there to challenge the BS.

Anyone else get the urge to slap the mom and take the kid from her?

It's no longer charity if you HAVE to do it. This would turn it into a contractual obligation, not charity. If society is forcing you to do it, it also isn't charity, just a societal obligation. Besides, this wouldn't prevent anyone from crying "uncharitable" anyway, as the 15% will just call the 10%ers "uncharitable", and everyone will call the people not in a "charity" contract that.

Why should they have to do you a favor? They don't owe you, or anyone, anything unless you did something for it or they indebted themselves to them somehow. By creating a society in which everyone MUST give to "charity", it stops becoming a charity and just becomes an entitlement.

Pro- no more "Greece's" ruining the value of your currency.

Let me get this straight. You are so committed to the idea of income redistribution that you want to join a community with requires you to sign a contract in which you consent to an overly complex and inefficient system of wealth redistribution in order to join said community, a contract which people who would benefit from said redistribution would flock, but which would drive away those that wouldn't benefit from it? Have you considered just donating everything you earn over a certain amount to charity or, better yet, just starting your own charity? It would be way less complex, more efficient and wouldn't result in everyone who can earn a decent living in the area needing charity themselves.

The fact that they aren't free to leave or even make their own choices makes it no longer a free market.

I was just wondering if anyone out there did any kind of RPing. I don't really have the time for a table-top session, and haven't ever done one. I've been doing text-based RPs with people over the internet, but none of them seem interested in doing an anarchist themed one. I was hoping to do one that takes place in an anarchist society. My idea was that there would be one set up in northern Canada, and that we would either RP the everyday life of our characters or a trial of a US Special Forces team that attacked us, maybe because they said we were selling drugs or arms or some other illegal good.

So what about the fact that it's the parent's house, and they should be able to decide what is and isn't allowed in their home?

"buying up exporters" sounds expensive, and like they couldn't sustain it for long. It would increase their costs, as well, unless they do something with those exporters, and more will be created to meet this demand for exporters anyway.

He basically just said "I'm for liberty, which is why we have the constitution, but that constitution allows us to infringe on liberty in this case."

How many people consider themselves "evil"? Hitler probably thought he was doing what was best for his people, and most criminals think they are doing it for good reasons.

I'm considering doing a write-in for "leave it open" or "no one" or something like that. Maybe if enough people do it, at least the media will hear about it.

That's part of what I call "arguing with nature", where they use concepts which only apply to people and apply them to something in nature.

I didn't know the exact numbers, so I couldn't do the math, but I had already done it for McDonalds, and calculated that if everyone's pay was capped at 100k, their workers would only get 5 cents more per hour.

I must have misread your post, because I thought you were implying that the more talented people would exploit the less talented people.