Will Torbald

Killing a man in self defense would violate his right to life if there were such a thing, thus making the exercise of defense immoral just by conceiving such a thing. You can either defend yourself and admit that nothing that lives does so on a right, or abandon all concept of righteous self protection. In other words, you live because you can, not because you must - and especially not because you have a right to do so. It's a tautology as well. I'm alive therefore right to live. That's like saying that I have brown hair therefore a right to brown hair.

There is no such thing as the right to life.

But sir, what you call the garbage dump is what used to be the high quality market. The decadence is everywhere. Telling the men that they have to pay more will work for a few who can afford it. What's left for the rest? The minority of high quality women will find the minority of men able to afford - and then the quality drops like a chasm.

Stef's book "Against The Gods?" is full of rational arguments like this one, it really helped me. An empirical case that sealed it for me was the split brain people who overwent surgery for epilepsy that separated the two left and right brain hemispheres. This essentially creates two different and independent minds in one body. Some patients had one side believing in god, with the other side being atheist, and the doctor wondered if one side would go to heaven and the other to hell. It doesn't get more ridiculous than that for theists, so I just had to end the question there at that moment. There are many youtube videos on this, and I recommend looking them up just for how interesting they are.

Nobody owes you happiness. You have no case to mandate it from others.

A man complains that the fruit in the market is rotten and that he just gave up trying to find good picks. He cites examples of how his friends and people he knows got sick from eating the fruit and have severe problems with the produce. It's not an isolated problem either, everywhere there are people making the same case. Ah, but nay, says one man at the downtrodden. The problem is that you're not looking hard enough. You're being negative. It's all in your bad attitude! I found a great banana bunch for myself and I am very happy. Look, says the man of the beggining of the tale, that's all wonderful for you. The problem is not that you can't find good every once in a while. It's the we shouldn't have to dig through piles of rotten produce, fear illness, worms and parasites and hope we might just get a good one in the first place at all. It shouldn't be this way, it wasn't this way just a few decades ago, and something definitely changed the quality of the market. Yes, I became pessimistic, but no one should blame those who couldn't find a banana bunch like yours on the customers. Who's driving this place to hell? Who is making it so hard that people simply go on strike and eat artificial food with no substance en masse? This isn't right.

If Trump wins, and he succeeds on his promises, the next guy will just have to continue his policies. The spectacle and the meme magic will take care of the race. But if Trump loses, I'm not sure there will be any other election where winning with a right leaning position will be even possible democratically given the demographic shift in 4 or 8 years that will occur. Winning right now is just barely possible. After that, I wonder if there will even be federal elections as there are now if the country doesn't fracture in an effort to escape the perpetually leftist government.

I don't care about cats. Make a case regarding people, as I have.

He probably blames himself good the death of his wife and the resulting alcoholism and abuse is a way of punishing himself. Not an excuse, not ever, but it's *how* things get out of control.

I wrote a response after reading this, but it might take a while to get approved or it could have gotten lost and broken in the process since I wrote it on mobile and sometimes it doesn't work. If it doesn't show up I'll rewrite it.

Sorry for ignoring this, it may have been delayed for review and I missed it. Ok, while I understand you are making an analogy in order to make a case, all analogies are flawed to a degree, but the degree to which this is different does make a difference. Children are not picked from the street. A couple first chooses to mate, then chooses to follow through pregnancy and birth, then to raise it. The amount of inertia, psychological and emotional inertia, that goes through the entire process makes the case that for parents to stop and abandon the entire process in a whim, for no reason, highly improbable. It would take a catastrophic trauma for that to happen. Irresponsible parents do forget, or neglect, but that level of idiocy is perhaps beyond the aspect of describing a proposed ideal situation. I'm coming from the position hat life is not an obligation to experience for the living individual - that life isn't owed to anyone - that offspring are the product of choices, not obligations - and that offspring are receiving life as a gift, not taking life from the parents as if it was owed to them for merely existing. With all those premises, which everyone who argued with me ignored and started yelling falacies like parrots, it then follows that the ideal parenting is one born from love and voluntary gifting of care. Parenting from obligation is possible, not evil, but not ideal. That is my argument.

Like it or not, Stefan Molyneux has shifted his discourse to a more nationalist discourse lately, and he's routinely discussed in /pol/ when he posts new videos or he's listed in the diagrams of the Alt Right as a libertarian nationalist. So this topic is a way of opening a discussion on nationalism, the alt right, how it relates to Freedomain Radio, and how memes and propaganda are winning people over on the internet. In particular I'm posting videos that exemplify in broad terms what it happening with the movement. Walt Bismarck posts videos of Disney songs with altered lyrics. This one fits really well with the characters and how moving to the right is basically joining the dark side. This is the definitive Trump propaganda rock opera. The song wasn't meant to be about him, it's actually inspired by a videogame, but it doesn't matter now. NAZI! ANTISEMITE! WHITE SUPREEEEMIST! - ramzpaul is someone I've been listening for a while, and in this video he talks about how the cliche notion of white nationalism is for edgelords. In broad terms he advocates national identity for all people while making fun of neonazis. And while the unicorn ideal of a free society is still the final goal, what is ultimately going to take people there must first pass throught the ring of fire called "defeat the left" and "abandon democracy" and the only movement currently gaining any traction in this road is not the libertarians, but the alt right. I don't see it as the end game, but it can't hurt to realize nothing else has a chance of making a dent in the globalist's agenda so far.

I don't take orders from you. You can read back my arguments and your posts if you're so inclined.

When I say that parents should love their children instead of looking at them as obligations you claim that leads to abuse. The one making strawmen is you. I said I was done in the sense of expecting any reason from you as you always made statments, not arguments.

Love is abuse. Choices are obligations. The double think is astounding.

I say I want parents to do it out of love, not pretend it is an obligation. You say that perpetuates violence. Yeah, I'm done with you. If it isn't true that obligations exist, the negative connotation is one you have against that fact. Facts are neither negative nor positive. Obligations are by definition enforceable. You can't force parents to parent, and children do not force parents to parent them. It's not hard to understand.

"Out of obligation" is the worst, if not near the worst way of raising children. The ideal is to do it out of love, compassion, and philantropy. None of those are forces upon adults which only create resentment, nihilism, and material adherence - but no spiritual bonds between parents and children. In no way can it ever been called virtuous to instill in children the guilt of enslaving their parents to them. Mothers who leave careers for the family, fathers who work to bring home money and food, families who struggle - these are choices, not obligations. For a child to grow thinking that he or she was a burden to their family is highly morbid to their happiness.

I am not obligated to follow the forum's rules, the forum is obligated to enforce them. If they don't enforce the rules, they are suggestions, not rules. I can break them any time I want. On the other hand, no such contract exists with children. It isn't written anywhere in the universe that parents must tend to their offspring. As an analogy, you see children as customers of parents who demand a service to them with their mere existence since they haven't voluntarily signed any contract - which is why I said that under that parameter what you advocate is equal to enslavement from a child to a parent. On the other hand, my argument is that children are the products of the company called parents, not the customers. Parents produce children while children are subject to their rule. Nobody has the right to claim an obligation to others for merely existing - which is a rather Marxist/communist thing to believe.

Children are not in voluntary contracts with parents. Voluntary obligation is an oxymoron.

It is the same thing in practice. The child didn't ask to be conceived, born, or raised. Life is entirely given out of choice, not obligation. You say parents are obligated towards a child, and then say it's voluntary - a clear contradiction. Choose one and only one. Parenting is a choice in every step of the way as no one is owed life at any point of existence.

When you say that an obligation exists between a parent and a child.

Nothing has the obligation to live. In effect, you are saying that the child is enslaving their parents by existing. No, this doesn't follow. Children are indefense and cannot provide for themselves - but the obligation to take care of them doesn't exist neither rationally nor empirically - because living is not necessary, nor obligatory, nor enslaving.

You're still very blue pilled when it comes to race, IQ, culture, and present-time-tactics. I know that's not an argument, only a statement, but I think it is you who should understand your friend more because I'm sure he already undersands libertarianism since it's dead simple. Also, """"""fascism"""""" as you call it has been dilluted to mean "liberal welfare state with controlled borders" which is not like my great grandparents fascism.

Matter to whom? I think, and this is just hypothesis, but that general and abstract feelings of wanting to matter are a mask on personal feelings of wanting to matter to someone or something specific - a father, a mother, a loved one, a society, etc. "Matter to the universe" is too impersonal to be a root cause of an emotion. It's the excuse on which a deeper longing rests.

Not at all what I meant.