Will Torbald

I don't think Vox considers himself a libertarian. He's much more in tune with the good old days of monarchy and union of church and state. It worries me when someone considered to be so intellectual quotes the Bible and Ye Old Laws as his authority in this argument. In his view, what is being argued is totally ok because the Bible says it is ok. The Bible also condones a lot of other things like slavery. Whether it is called rape or not isn't as important as relegating it as a morally condemnable action in the area of sexual assault. The "nothing wrong with it" attitude is the criteria of contempt. Before this I had never thought of asking a fiancé of mine if she's cool with asleep sex. I do think it's difficult since, if she's against it, and I just bring it out then she will think I was thinking about doing it, and now she thinks I'm a pervert. Tch tch.

Plausible, but not beyond reasonable doubt. I wouldn't add it to the pile of things to worry about.

Because policy is made based on these views, because religions teach this to children (possibly yours hypothetically through media and propaganda) and because you might find your spouse disagreeing with you on this. With you on the first three paragraphs. On the last one is where I digress. Noting the fact that Vox is also saying that it applies to men as well, I would also put myself in that position where my (hypothetical) spouse would initiate contact during my sleep or illness. If I were to find out that she had been doing things to me while unconscious I would be pissed. Being awake, and being asleep are very different. I am trusting my unconscious and vulnerable body to the custody of this person, and she uses that position to gratify herself selfishly with me. If she were to tell me "I will violate you while you sleep, is that ok with you?" I could have the chance to reject her before getting married. The issue is that, if you say that by being married you are positively consenting all the time by default, I would contest that it doesn't apply to an unconscious person. He says that imposing himself on a woman that is defensive would be assault, but that imposing himself on a woman incapable of defending herself is ok. I think that is even worse because the person can't even decide to say no. Personally, I don't agree that marriage is a presumption of consent at all times. If your spouse is sick or upset at you, just wait it off (or jerk it off). It's creepy to have sex with unconsious people, sick people, and if you're so horny you have to get inside somebody even when they're in that state, you have way bigger issues.

"In fact, the concept of marital rape is created by the cultural Marxists in an attempt to destroy the family and to destroy the institution of marriage." - According to our friend the Supreme Dark Lord, Vox Day. Source: http://heatst.com/world/feminism-debates-vox-day-vs-louise-mensch-on-marital-rape/ But if this sounds worrisome to you, don't fret. He doesn't mean that you can physically assault her, just that you can get her drunk or drugged, or rape her while she sleeps. That's totally ok. "Well, I think if you’re talking about a woman being inebriated or asleep you could imagine those situations where you would view it as rape and I would not." What do you think? Is Vox right that a woman has an obligation to have sex with her husband even if she's ill or incapacitated, but not to the point of bruises, but ok with intoxicants or if she's unconscious?

There were rumors too before the police chief confirmed it.

Monkeys eating shark eggs! I can't believe I never thought of that before. I'm a believer now.

You need to find a sense of humor somewhere before you call sarcasm abusive and destructive. So you do think cops are racist. Well, your propaganda and emotional response levels are going off the charts, so I'm just going to let you do your little defense of the BLM movement while Milwaukee burns while it is being looted by the people who didn't do nothing.

Are you incapable of detecting sarcasm? Also, after reading your other posts, why do you think black people are being targetted by the police? Is it raaayziiism?

This is only true with General Relativity. However, other cosmological models like Inflation don't have singularities. There are models where the universe bounces before reaching a singularity as well. Cosmology is very open and varied.

This is diametrically opposite to the current trend of music I listen to - which only means I wouldn't buy it. It is however very talented, I can recognize that. The guitar is really clean and the singer is underrated.

Well, I guess this does fall in the category of some faith in feminism. You felt there was a chance. In my conception of feminism, all feminism is cancer (as Milo Yianopolous says) even the moderate versions. Just the very act of publically defining yourself as feminist is, to me, enough red flags. Anyone who currently believes in "equality" is highly propagandized.

You can't know the taste of the 30th digit of phi, but it doesn't mean anything. Can numbers have taste? Is it possible for numbers to taste like turkey? You can't disprove that phi doesn't taste like turkey. This is the level of your argumentation.

Last caller: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/3368/are-ghosts-real-call-in-show-july-27th-2016They have a debate about Trump and Stefan tries to be patient with a rather cliche opposition.

And those genes are not wrong. Women, real women, are a good idea. But women aren't women anymore. They don't know how to be feminine, nor do they see value in men. Feminist or not, the modern culture has destroyed women.

People have concerns, and they defer those concerns to whomever they think can address them well. Libertarians defer towards the free market, and anarchists defer all to it. Increase the faith and trust in a person towards negotiation solutions and you'll get libertarians.

Yet, in order to give weight or credibility to this idea, you would have to give weight or credibility to the possible existence of the supernatural. You have to presume a supernatural is possible, or true. Why would you do that?

Not to berate on you or anything, but why wasn't the fact that she considered herself a feminist not an immediate "no go" before the date? Do you still have hope or faith in today's feminism?

Agnosticism is believing the impossible to be possible if you believe that the impossible can be possible somewhere, somehow, somewhat, by somewho. Now why would anyone believe that?

If it isn't happening, it isn't ready. You'd have to completely replace all police forces from the entirety of the US with private efforts, and that's simply not going to happen. Nobody is ready for that.

My thoughts are that the idea that past success is an indicator of future success is what the dinosaurs were thinking, too.

Still not thinking ahead.

The police don't make the laws. I was talking about the actual concept of a police at all, in the absolute. Whether the force becomes corrupted or not is another deal. However, the idea that police doesn't prevent crime just because it reacts is miscalculated. You can't see all the crimes that were prevented because of fear from the police. Proactive policing involves patrolling and profiling, but accusations of racism have made it very hard to do, and crime is going up because the policemen are scared of being labelled as racists, hence the Ferguson effect. You can see the spike in crime ever since in the statistics.

It is robot armaggedon for the low IQ people who would have done those jobs. I mean, how do you get away with saying that robot replacement won't leave millions out of work when it is the very definition of job scarcity? Some jobs will never go away, but optimism isn't comforting.

Considering how she seizures from much less than that, I think they will find any excuse for her not to debate at all. Did you watch the Paul Watson vid on her brain problems?

That's in the past, but the future of industry is full automation. Where are those people with nailguns going to go when a robot nails it for them?