Will Torbald

1- It's not a supposition that Hillary is "worse" than Trump, it is a factual assesment of their platforms. One diminishes freedom, the other increases it. It's not about whether your individual vote can stop Hillary, is that if you don't vote, you didn't do anything to stop it. Like being a bystander to a crime, you never said anything nor called anyone. Enabler. 2- The left increases that force, the right decreases it, the libertarian minimizes it, the anarchist removes the institution. You see no gradients. Only a Sith deals with absolutes. 3- There is no other change through gradation but with voting. The state won't stop, the philosophical revolution is wishful thinking. Migration of third world hordes will perpetuate the left.

I can sympathize with the humilation and the murderous thoughts. What do you do with yours? In my practice I have found that having a strong division between the mind and reality helps in the exercise of letting emotions play out. In my mind they become a sword, and I use it against those that provoked the anger in the first place. After I see myself in my mind actually killing them, I can then ask myself "was it worth it?" or "are you happy now?" and "is this what you wanted?" - but if you don't even allow yourself to think, they will think for you.

I meant it as energy that doesn't take any cost to produce. Any form of naturally available energy like solar requires the cost of extracting it.

I think you're right. The judge didn't deny them the right to marry, he just declined to be to one to do so. Now, if there is a law that says that judges can't decline, that's another issue.

Blacks don't have equal rights in America, they have affirmative action. If she truly wanted equality she'd opposite it.

Not necessarily since you also have the inertia of the direction and speed by travelling on Earth as it moves. Also not necessarily since anti-gravity would have gradients of force that you could control, it wouldn't be just an on/off switch.

Depends on how you define principles. Are the principles you agree with the only valid principles? Did the Bolsheviks have no principles of their own? Did the Nazis? The Inquisition? Where they devoid of convictions they didn't back down from?

I'll just summarise my views here since I've said them before in other threads. 1: Abstaining from voting is enabling the projected winner through non effective opposition. 1.1- This means that not voting is to say "I am perfectly fine with Hillary Clinton becoming the President of the USA since I did nothing to stop her". 2: The enemy of the anarchist is the left, not the right. The right is a necessary half step towards libertarianism, and then anarchism. 2.1- This means that not supporting the right, in this case Trump, is to say "I do not wish to contribute to the gradual turning of policy towards capitalism and liberty". 3: The sudden and non gradual elimination of the state creates chaos, violence, and death. 3.1- Which means that opposing all gradient change, and wishing only a sudden end is to say "I am ok with real violence in the world as long as I don't engage in what perceive and assume as political violence through voting". End: If you agree with all 1, 2, and 3 - my opinion of you is that you are delusional, dangerous, and divorced from any end towards liberty in the real world. May your principles embrace you warmly in your grave.

Certain unpleasant people in history can be cast under that light. Is it enough to be stubborn?

Other people were saying it was a war against the government, and you replied to them. It's not a strawman, as everything I said in that post is actually occurring.

There's no such thing as free energy, or anti gravity. I'm not even going to bother looking at it.

I'm not talking about the government. I'm talking about Mexico, Islam, and global interests. The first war is at the border, where the barbarians are already sieging the castle, and looting the place with no repercusion. You have a made up refugree crisis where war-age males are being imported from every corner of Africa and the Middle East, with all intentions of taking over once they get in. The third war is an economic war with every intention to destrou American's home economy through the cover of free trade agreements where the only result is the impoverishment of cities everywhere since all the jobs are gone, and all the workers are either replaced with robots, outsourced, or replaced with third world immigrants invaders. All the corporations like Google and Facebook are behind it, Disney, everyone, and all the international banks. Only Trump opposes all three warfronts, and Hillary Clinton wants to make them even worse.

The pain of gullibility.

I mean it literally.

Your friends won't be deconverted, sorry to break it to you like that. I don't think it was a mistake to bring it up, you have to be sure and try it at least once. The pleasure of absolute certainty through fantasy is something they will have to learn to give up themselves. The world is uncertain and chaotic, which is frightening to them. They need a make belief of perfectly perfect order through a god to even function without fear. The brain didn't evolve for truth, it evolved to evade pain.

Peace time mindset. You're at war, and you haven't noticed.

Well, I meant the current position. Remember Stef's "I no longer believe in egalitarianism" speech? That would have been way out of place in '06. I didn't try to imply FDR didn't use stats before. Having a guest like Jared Taylor and talking about the color of crime would have been unthinkable perhaps even two years ago in the show just my opinion.

Stef has shifted his views quite a bit in the last year that you admitted you stopped listening to the material. Nonetheless I don't know if a Trump presidency will save the world - my wording was about a delay and third world-ification by which I mean the mass immigration practices and the banana republic the usa has become. Delay because just by birthrates alone the population will become minority-majority and people from those cultures simply don't vote for freedom. The cataclysm is Turkey joining the EU, which will swarm western Europe with Muslim's. The cataclysm is the militarization and federalization of the EU super state. The cataclysm is Hillary Clinton.

Principled behavior is the luxury of the people who overcome the woes of survival. When you are at the brink of cataclysm, whoever is actually alive after the fire is extinguished gets to decide what principles he can live on. Are you going to lecture a dying man on the principles of UPB when he does something immoral to live one more day? Because that's what America and Europe are going through. A battle for the survival of the only civilization in history that has ever believed in freedom at least for a day long enough to write it down and fight for it. If voting for Trump delays the seemingly inevitable third world-ification of the so called first world, so be it. Stef said it, too. He's gone into survival mode, not the time for moralisms. That comes after you manage to outlive.

The stats, the stats, the stats will tell The past, the present and the future as well It's from that song. Though what I can tell from his comment is that the facts and the statistics have been leading the conversation into the current direction of FDR's message of media skepticism and race inquiry.

Rape is not mainstream, and I never said that the state is not violence. You're using stupid strawman arguments. You accuse me of poisoning the well by saying "die hard" yet accuse me of not having integrity in the next sentence, which is also poisoning the well. Have or not have all the friends you want for political reasons if that's what you want - but the assumption that ostracizing will end the state is one I do not share, even if Stef taught you that, and I believe being nice to people and being a good influence to those who do not share the idea of liberty is the way to go - in effect, the opposite direction. No one likes an arrogant know it all who ostracizes people for their opinions. You change minds through persistence, not resistance. If that's so controversial, so be it.

The amount of assumptions in this argument is distasteful to me. I do not grossly assume why people believe what they do, I ask them, and don't judge them for politics that are, quite frankly mainstream. Anyone who isn't a die hard a ancap would fit the definition of violence for everybody, too. Which leads back to how my interpretation of 'anyone who disagrees with me can't be my friend' is accurate.

I don't have many friendships' to begin with in real life, but it's nearly impossible to avoid statists in socialist's paradise Ecuador. I do have a friend I've carried since High School, and the only things that we have ever fought and distanced about were about women. I feel that having friendships with people who you disagree in a philosophical sense is nothing wrong, and helps to maintain a connection with the world. Falling into hugboxes and only-people-who-think-like-me are my friends is isolating and rather boring.

If in our everyday experience we would bump with invisible objects, or had conversations with invisible people, or saw shoes being made by invisible tiny people - then we would say that our eyes don't accurately present the world as it is. Although we know scientifically that there is more to light we can't see, there aren't objects we can't see. Well, except dark matter, but that's a cosmic effect we would never notice anyway.

Believing in something correct even if it has no value is the difference between a philosopher and a fanatic. The humility in accepting the limitations of the mind and the world should be value enough.