Worlok

I think it has more to do with rationalizations or lack thereof. After all, reasoning and emotion are handled quite differently in completely different areas of the brain. Certainly there will be an onset of emotions based on a subconscious level. You will experience fear in the immediate face of something and your either capability to rationalize the situation, or more specifically the fear itself or rather a separate subconscious understanding will determine how or even if that fear will persist. Like, you may experience and "oh, shit" situation that elicits fear, and you might be able to stop and think/ rationalize the situation or may possibly have an immediate and subconscious understanding that the fear doesn't even make sense. If you see a wolf, you might be in a situation that justifies an overt sense of fear, but how can you handle that? You might run screaming like women seem prone to doing. You might figure that there is one wolf and it's a pack hunter. You may also stare it down while reaching for some sort of weapon. If you can rationalize that there is nothing to fear or how you should handle the situation, like shooting it in the face, you may still feel a much lesser fear, but the control keeps you from running away like a girl. An abuser isn't an abuser because they are necessarily a danger to your life. They are simply a danger of causing some form of abuse. Yes, you could rationalize that that abuse is irrelevant, such as your feelings of physical/psychological pain or if you would actually be killed, concluding no value to your life. You could also rationalize, and many people do, that you deserve it or that it's not that bad. Most people would do one or both of the latter two. People often joke about getting beat by their parents or facing other violence, but it doesn't change the fact that they felt fear in the face of it or that it was wrong. There are both rational and irrational fears. The greater your understanding and ability to reason with those fears, the more control you have. Ultimately, the most rational mind will feel fear onset, but will rationalize all fear down the only rational levels of fear and the personal actions required to handle the situation. This may show that there is nothing to fear or that you have a control and there is enough random chance that the fear itself isn't that important. I would say that any emotion can be turned off by simply applying enough rationality to overcome the subconscious control. You can rationalize, but unless you actually believe that your emotional response is wrong on that same subconscious level, then the emotion can only be forgotten if you can focus on something else. Emotional disorders like panic attacks can often be overcome by removing your focus from the cause of the reactions. You won't be conscious of what causes it or you probably wouldn't have that disorder. From what I can tell of talk therapy, it is based on getting the patient to themselves find and understand what is causing their problem so that they can rationalize and overcome it. Many psychological disorders occur because of an inability to rationalize or believe either that something is true or to complete an incomplete set of information.

Being a pedophile does not mean being a child molester. It's like saying a straight male is a rapist because he wants to have certain sexual relations. Republicans and pedophiles? Most people ignore morality for personal gain. Your use of those two seems inflammatory as they are effectively not related in any way other than being labels for groups of people. I don't know any other reason you would suggest that only people of one sexual preference or one political party are a way instead of pointing out groups in general. If God is real and all that bible/quran stuff is real, then your idea of morality is only your perception. Like having a favorite color. It doesn't make it a better color, you just like it. That's how morality works. It's not subjective, however, because God defines morality because he defines everything. You don't know what is moral. Only god knows. You only know what you THINK is moral and you are wrong. Basically, if God does it, it's okay. God didn't say that murder was wrong, he said that you committing murder was wrong. Like, a 15 year old can have sex with a 15 year old, but if you are 40, you cannot have sex with a 15 year old. Dems tha rules. Morality of God is like morality of your parents. Your parents can swear, but they will ground you to your room if you do it. It has less to do with what is moral or immoral and what is correct and incorrect in a system of rules. If you want heaven/allowance, you do what you are told. If God isn't real and it's all BS, then morality is subjective and mostly just based on the golden rule of "do unto others..." As far as I can tell, religion, statism, whatever is simply based on humans requiring some sort of greater purpose, hope, order etc. I mean, there is a reason that most atheists tend to be leftists that worship the state. The Government knows best. They can tell you how to live. They have all the answers. Intelligent enough people can be atheist or more likely agnostic and have a respect for the rights of others and not want a giant central government to oppress people. It's not common, but it happens often enough.

I said "moronic," not "moron." Everybody is moronic, and I was just explaining why trans people making this argument are. Not all trans people make the argument. Some make the argument that they "feel" like the opposite gender and identify with it, so they dress and act the way that they believe that gender. Just as a trans person can be trans without thinking that they literally are a different sex, a trans person can be extremely moronic with the opposite argument. I pointed out basic logic. There is nothing wrong about that. Has a penis or doesn't have a penis. Is/kind of is/is not. The current science that you like to pay attention to is different than other science that says otherwise. you pick and choose to suit yourself. You also like to make up bullcrap to suit your illusion. Sex is not complex and can be easily categorized. It is entirely an issue regarding how a species reproduces. In humans, and basically every other advanced species known to exist, there is the egg and the fertilizer. Humans are basically designed that a female has eggs and a male must fertilize said eggs. Some species are male and female and do both. Other species simply duplicate themselves in one of a bagillion different ways. Human reproduction is designed to function in one specific way. Male/female. Anything else is not a magical special gender. It is a screw up. Nature shat the bed. Tell me, what percentage of trans gender people are actually not within those two categories? What trans male or trans female doesn't have 99% of the design and functions of that sex? Is it 1%? 10%? Sex is entirely defined as a set of systems for the purpose of reproduction. Your brain does not fucking matter. It never has. You are trying to change the definitions to suit how you would like things to be. There is sex and there is gender. You are trying to suggest that there is no word to define what the sexes classically are defined as. Let's say that you are right about the definition of sex. Well, the only part that matters is the sex organs part. So, What is a person that has male sex organs. He isn't a man or male or whatever, What magical new bullshit word would you like to apply to define that person? This is literally newspeak. Like calling a leftist "liberal" or "progressive." Sex suddenly doesn't refer to sex, but to gender roles. Sex is not gender. If you want to argue gender roles, you can go tell all women to get back into the kitchen. Clearly, we are beyond gender roles. Women can do 10% of anything men can do (it's a partially a joke.) A female can want to shoot guns, and race monster trucks and all that, but she is still designed to have eggs and carry a baby. Sex is not WHO you are. Sex will never be who you are. Gender is who you are and who you perceive yourself to be. Instead of redefining sex and gender as two sides of the same coin, we can just stick with two coins because they have literally no dependence on one another. Women - have female sex organs 99.9999% of the time. Female sex organs and eggs function 99.999% of the time. Your brain does not affect you having female sex organs or if they function as designed. Men - Have male sex organs 99.9999% of the time. Male sex organs and sperm function 99.999% of the time. If you can't get an erection, you are still a man. If your sperm don't work, you are still a man. If your balls got chopped off because of testicular cancer, you are still a man. Your brain does not affect you having male sex organs or if they function as designed. Hermaphrodite - Has both or some sort of amalgamation of male and female sex organs that may or may not function properly and make up a retardedly low percentage of the population. Your brain does not affect your having whatever sex organs or if they function as designed. I used the words "hermaphrodite" and "retard." They are both offensive, but both have a clear definition and aren't magically untrue just because they offend you. I haven't found any explanations that might suggest they are wrong. Only newspeak and people's feelings. "Nobody cares" Anybody that isn't a moron or trying to pretend they don't know exactly what a person means when they say it... Virtually nobody cares. If a guy wants to wear a dress, virtually nobody cares. If you want to get a sex change, virtually nobody cares. The only people that really care are a small minority of bigots and people that entirely define their existence by superficial crap like genitalia or sexuality. "We're here, we're queer" - "Nobody cares, get out of the road." Trans people have a hard time because.... Wait for it.... They don't accept themselves for who they are. They are self hating and project that onto other people. Other people don't care. We aren't judging you. So long as you have the bits and pieces that we want to diddle, we don't care. People purposely change things about themselves that they don't like and thus find inferior to other options or things that they simply find inferior to other options. black girls wear weaves, women wear heels, people lose weight, people get education, people develop skills. All because they found that they can be better than they were. The issue is that some of this is constructive and healthy, while some of it is plain self-hate. We don't hate you. We don't think that you need to change. Trans people, gay people, minorities, etc. They project their own problems onto everybody else when the only people that have a problem with who they are are themselves. Get over yourself. Everybody else has. I pity people that do that stuff and I truly wish they would stop. What genitals do you have? Male, female or parts of both. I mean penis/testicles/sperm and vagina/uterus/ovaries/eggs. Which of those do you have? If you have an amalgamation of those 7, then you are a hermaphrodite because that's the definition. If you have parts, but not whole or all of one of those sets, you are still that sex. None of that has to do with who you are. It just has to do with which of the two only sexes are you.

Trans people are moronic because... Men and women are scientifically defined by the purpose of their separate parts. This 'not all' nonsense is based on the idea that if one of your parts is broken or not working as designed, then you are't defined as having that part. Like saying a car isn't a care because you slashed the tires or shot a hole in the engine. There are only two sexes in science. You can be one or both. Male, female, hermaphrodite. If you don't know which you are, you can refer to all the scientific aspects that define that and you WILL come to a conclusion of one of them. Transgenderism has to do with identity. As anybody making a complete joke out of trans people has shown, nobody at all cares how you identify and identifying as an attack helicopter doesn't mean you can fly... Not all attack helicopters? Anyway... Free speech. I can call a woman "bro," "dude," or "sir." If I know she dislikes it, that makes me a jerk, but I still have that right. If you prefer a certain pronoun, let people know. They will call you that pronoun out of respect for you. OR they have no respect for what they consider absurd and it has nothing to do with respect. Then you have the option to respect their opinion of trans pronouns. Communication is key to communication. You shouldn't be offended by somebody using the wrong pronoun unless they explicitly express that they are disrespecting you and not your absurd ideas. But then, people tend to get offended when you dislike something that they like as if it were a personal attack. If you want to... You can cut off your junk and get surgery. Get some fake boobs. Your money, your doctor, your body, your life. It doesn't change you sex. You just identify with stuff that isn't real.

You're wrong about the rich needing to "stop." The rich don't need the stop. The government needs to stop taxing them and using those taxes to pay poor people to be poor. Other than that, you are completely right.

Germans have always thought that they were better than everybody else. They are pro immigration because they believe that the immigrants are their inferiors and need to be saved. Just like the believed they were better than the jews and better than Romans and so on and so forth. It's basically a culture of racism. Germany seeks to dominate a united Europe today and they sought to dominate a united Europe in the 30s and 40s. They haven't changed.

I find this premise rather amusing. All you have to do is admit that you can only accomplish what a person with your IQ can accomplish. There should be resources showing what an IQ 87 person can do for work. Then there is plenty of information about fluid IQ, so you really just have too look at what a person with a 93 or slightly better IQ can do. Then you decide if you want to work really hard or really really hard. Find a career that suits your capabilities, then work really hard at it. Success is pretty goddamn simple, especially if you live in America. (Not Mexico) Aside from your "limitations," you should just do what other people do. Copy successful people.

wtf are you talking about? Let's pretend government does not exist and "money" refers to a currency that the local bank prints and will trade silver for. The bank says x amount of money is worth x amount of silver. People invest silver in the bank since it's heavy as all hell and the bank gives them money. When doing so, the bank and the customer both receive receipts and documentation as well as require mutual signing of a document stating that the bank can loan out said silver or money worth that silver to other people on the basis that the bank will be paid back including interest and the person storing the silver will receive a portion of that interest. So, lets say 100 people put in all of their heavy silver for paper money and they all buy everything with paper money that could be bought with silver and thus the silver is no longer inherently necessary to the value of the money because it now has value to trade for anything else as well. The amount that the bank will loan out may very well exceed the amount of silver in it's possession. However, the amount it loans will be what they project that they can safely loan out and still have enough silver to give to people that want the silver instead. Once the money is in circulation and commonly used, only a small amount of silver has to be held because the money at that point has value to other items and basically nobody will want the silver. Money exists as a medium for trade. Once it is defined as a medium for trade, it holds value as such until something replaces it. Current USD is based on this sort of value. We used to have a gold standard. The gold standard technically isn't required because the money has its own value. The issue with money with no standard, is that you can print more money and people can't just trade your worthless money for the standard, such as gold or silver, which would make you not print money because you would go broke as a bank. In this scenario, which is how banks DO work, you have banks lending actual money to actual borrowers at the behest and to the benefit of people storing money in said bank and there are receipts. Your actual argument is that banks don't lend out their own money, which is also false. If a bank takes interest from loans exceeding interest paid to those holding money in the bank, the bank then has made its own money. Once a bank accumulates enough, it can itself loan its own money. Banks lend out the money of other people. The other people sign contracts allowing the bank to do this and people taking out loans signing contracts that they will pay back a loan with interest. Banks can and do loan other people's money as well as loaning the bank's money. Let's pretend that there is an unconstitutional central bank and money is subject to absurd laws and the government does a great many things that aren't capitalist. Wait, you're just bitching about how the government sucks and ruins everything and that that means that the economic facts that I just presented aren't capitalism because that isn't what the government is doing. Yeah, the US government is not capitalist and stifles capitalism at seemingly every point. Government definitions are BS and your entire argument about how banks actually work and what they actually do is completely false. The issue isn't that I don't know wtf you are talking about. The issue is that you don't know wtf you are talking about.

I completely disagree and I disagree because you are mostly right. The Constitution is exceedingly efficient and so is lawmaking. Unless basically everybody agrees that a new law needs passed, then it probably isn't a very good idea and it shouldn't be passed. The president can veto because just over half of congress might agree with a dumb fucking idea. Congress can override POTUS' veto because almost all of congress might be a bunch of dumb shits, but more likely the president was wrong. The idea that it is hard to remove laws is absurd. We managed to amend the Constitution itself on 18 different occasions. Some bills sunset, tax law has been massively overhauled half a dozen times. Obama WAS a tyrant. Just like that jerk, Lincoln. The ACA is thoroughly abominable and was only passed because they snuck it in under an evil leftist political agenda. I voted for Trump. I can see that most "republicans" are working against him and for people that didn't elect them. However, every time anybody in government clashes against that status quo or going with your team or doing what you are supposed to do, I LOVE IT. The US Constitution is based on three things. First, what the most brilliant men of the time could agree was the best form of government (republic) ergo what minimal law should be required, ergo that laws should only pass if they are good, thus the difficulty of them passing. 2nd, Americans should be educated enough to call bullshit on lawmakers and elect people to fix the problems. 3rd that we can all go to their houses, lynch them, kill any personal army they might have, and replace them all with new politicians and a new government should we deem it necessary. Well, the have the first part down. The issue is that most people are idiots and keep electing the wrong people, and we haven't murdered and deposed anybody yet.

Free speech is absolute. Crime requires harm and intent to do whatever caused that harm. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not illegal in the US and hasn't been for 50 years. It's a lie and you should look it up. If you think that you are being funny, than you can legally do so. If somebody gets hurt because of morons running in terror, then you had intent to do it when there wasn't a fire and you caused harm. You didn't have to trample anybody yourself, but it is ultimately your fault. If nobody gets hurt, then people just think that you are a jerk and you might get thrown out. Threats are perfectly legal. There is the separation of threats and "legitimate" threats. "if I see that guy again I'll kick his ass" is not a legitimate threat because people say it and very obviously don't mean it. If somebody says "I'm going to kill you" and pulls out a knife in a clearly threatening manner, then you can shoot them in the face in self defense. If your mom says, "I'm going to kill you" after you break her lamp on accident, then we all know that it's not legitimately a threat, probably that you are grounded and might receive a slap upside the head (legal parental punishment) Saying something that somebody else decides to act on is perfectly fine. If the media says that Trump is the next Hitler and somebody tries to assassinate him, that is simply the choice of the killer and the media has no responsibility. If the media tells people to try to kill him, then they may be complicit in any acts to try and carry it out. They are complicit if it can be argued in court that by telling people to do it that they intended for them to try. If it cannot be argued that they had intent for people to try, then it is not a crime. They will just be condemned as a bunch of scumbags... which, despite not actually telling people to do that, the things that the media is doing or saying is causing people to condemn them. If James Bond makes it to the room where the villain is and the villain secretly has a computer in the room that will launch a nuke upon a particular word being spoke, If bond is then tricked into saying the word, then Bond is actually launching a nuke, but had no intent to speak any secret code word or to launch any weapon at anybody. The villain is entirely responsible. Speech is ABSOLUTELY free. However, using speech to commit a crime simply means that committing the crime was wrong and not using speech. Nothing is wrong or illegal unless the action causes harm and there was intent for the action to occur. Clinton Intended to do everything that lead up to emails being moved to private servers. So, while the law doesn't require immediate intent, there is intent down the line, which is where the illegality can be determined. At some point, some intent for some action becomes illegal or immoral. However, the speech itself is never illegal or immoral.

Anarchy is no state or no dominant form of government. You family is a government, typically a monarchy or dictatorship. Local communities can form governments that have rules that you must follow or leave. These types can be gangs, clubs, or simple communal organizations. These can and will occur in anarchy. Then, the issue with anarchy is that these forms of government will grow into massive military dictatorships that will kill you and take your stuff. Thus government will form on some level (such as with the founding of the US) as a means of mutual defense. The likelihood of individuals all owning tanks, advanced fighter jets, aircraft carriers and destroyers in an anarchy is something you would have to make an argument for, otherwise an anarchy is just the littlest guy in the neighborhood that can't really defend himself. Smallest government that works is the next logical conclusion and that just means less and less laws until it stops working. Taxation is legal under the US constitution. However, the founders understood that it is theft, and that people should be able to vote for what they want to pay taxes on. The idea was for voluntary taxation. Then as it is understood that not everybody will vote for the particular tax, it was a very real concern on what taxes at all that could be passed. You can read up on the whiskey rebellion. There was a whiskey tax in which you could pay a tax by volume or a flat rate for everything. Like $1 per gallon or $50 for all of it is how it worked, though the real rates don't matter. This meant that large distilleries could makes 100 gallons and effectively pay half the tax that a small distillery could and the little guys weren't having any of that. Washington was annoyed about the rebellion and Jefferson thought that it was great that the people were telling the government to go drink bleach. At the end, all involved were pardoned by the president. The entire idea is to get people to voluntarily pay a tax and only for what is absolutely required. If the government realistically "needs" a trillion to pay for things that are absolutely necessary Capitalism does not allow one winner. That is fascism wherein the government makes one winner by stifling competition. A monopoly can only occur in a system of free trade if somebody happens to own all of some resource which is simply illogical. You likely can't do it logistically, and competition will find a way to run things without that resource. Like Oil. If gas was $40 a gallon because of one guy being a jerk and owning it all, we would all have entirely electric cars and gas would have to come down in p rice. This is competition. If anything can be done by somebody else or in some other way for a cheaper or similar price, it will be done. It may take time, but it will occur. The more important it is, the faster it will occur. Capitalism is a function of no less than two winners. If we both trade an object to each other, we are both more wealthy. Unless one person is a complete moron, then this mutual wealth creation occurs. Further, this applies to spending cash because it is a mutual trade in which both parties become more wealthy. This occurs with employers and this occurs when you manufacture goods. It is virtually impossible to become poor in a free capitalist economy, unless you choose to. If you don't create wealth for somebody and thus yourself, then you starve and die or leave. The only loss of wealth is if you aren't trading labor or producing goods or if a crime against property rights or accident (car crash, broken window, occurs. Capitalism is a system of infinitely increasing the wealth of all participants. You only lose wealth if you don't participate. State welfare is a lack of participation in which you are not producing wealth and are simultaneously lowering wealth. This is not capitalist. This is a massive drain and in America it is a drain by tens of millions of people, many of which are children and are being invested in, making the children themselves a form of wealth, while people choosing to steal my tax dollars are just ruining the planet. Charity is capitalist because well being is paid for voluntarily. The recipient is obviously better off, and the contributor has enriched her/his own life and likely invested in a person that will soon be creating wealth. Some ignorant people argue that the rich storing money in banks is bad. The banks loan that money to people. So long as you aren't a kid with no experience or collateral and you aren't a deadbeat that only survives on state welfare (which doesn't occur in real capitalism and is antithetical) Then you would have wealth to use as collateral and could obviously get a loan. The entire point of a bank is that they give money to people that don't have it. Those people then create wealth. So much wealth, in fact, that they pay back the loan, become relatively rich, and hire any people that needs jobs. Storing money in banks IS spending it. It's allowing other people to spend it, but only to do so because of the incentive you create several times the wealth in a relatively short period. You don't personally have to have a boat load of cash to have a boat load of cash. This means that instead of buying a doughnut to make your life better for 2 minutes and creating minimal wealth, you are investing in the economy for maximum wealth for as many people as possible. Capitalism makes it so that wealth is always created. If your business goes under, then you have to sell all of your capital goods, sell or allow somebody else to rent your business location, allow your employees to move somewhere else, etc. When this occurs, other businesses get your market share and they create more wealth than you could. The are able to more efficiently use your former employees for more wealth to all involved. They can use your previous location, again, to create more wealth than you could. If you are losing wealth in this manner, somebody else is gaining even more wealth than you are losing. Even though you lost wealth, you lost it to people that are so efficient at it that all the goods and services that you pay for that the goods and services get even better and they get cheaper. If the things you need to buy are cheaper and better, you losing wealth simply means that you gained other wealth via a better economy. You're worse off, sure, but not all that much worse. Wealth creation via competition in which people win an lose based on how much wealth that they can create simply increases the amount of wealth that can be gained in each transaction. For example, everybody in the US can afford a super computer with 99.999% of known information in the universe at their fingertips. They can all have 60" 4k tvs and playstations, cars, refrigerators, AC, MEAT, and as much crap as they can shove in their fat faces. A car that cost a million dollars 50 years ago is a pile of crap compared to a used 10 year old car for two grand. This richest man on Earth 50 years ago has relatively as much wealth as a "poor" person. Every single transaction is thousands of times more valuable than they were mere decades ago because of capitalism. Kings of old could only dream about the crappiest house in the current American ghetto. Capitalism allows for individuals to fail and lose market share, but while one person loses wealth, every single other person makes collectively far more wealth. You only lost wealth because everybody else was more efficient at creating it. it's like if you lost ten dollars and ten other people found that ten dollars and they can each spend a single dollar twice as effectively as you could spend it. The wealth effectively becomes worth $20. It's like meat on sale for being near expiration. The store makes a little or loses as little as possible while the person buying it eats it immediately and is far more wealthy themselves than if it hadn't been on sale, and if it wasn't on sale, it would have gone bad. Meat in a store is not wealth for the store. Your money is. It means more to that individual than it did to the store and nobody lost. Even though the store may lose a little by choosing for a really low sale price, they are still gaining wealth and you will likely come back or buy more goods. In for a penny, in for a pound, they say.

This was just an idea I had. I'm glad I got a bit of a discussion and thank you all for your input.

We are kind of ignoring jews here because they are kind of tricky and don't agree, so we're going with the Jesus thing. God is a real jerk and he causes lots of people to suffer. He kills a lot of people. He lets a lot of people get raped and tortured. But he's actually really nice and none of those things are bad. He loves you and all that terrible stuff is good for you. No laws necessarily apply to god outside of logical consistency, i.e., God cannot move anything and simultaneously create things that he cannot move.He can only move what he can move and he can only create what he can create. If he can create anything, then he can create an immovable object, at which point, god cannot "do" absolutely anything, but that doesn't become relevant. I'm pointing out that anything that god can do, he can do and unless clearly stated otherwise, he can do anything. Got it? Anything means, "pretty much anything." God created everything. God created morality. All laws, rules, and morality are whatever god says they are. Your perceived universe has the physics and all laws that you perceive it to have because god chose for that to be that way. All you know, think, and perceive, god allows you to. The ten commandments were laws bestowed upon men and only men. They do not apply to god. Murder is only wrong because god said that it is wrong for you to do it. Not for monkeys, not for god, for humans. Humans may not murder other humans. You do not own yourself and you do not own your soul. God owns all of everything that you are. All property rights are those of god. You do not own your labor and you do not own even your own thoughts. Property of god, all rights reserved. If a person kills you or rapes you, it is not a sin against you, it is a sin against god, because it was a sin against his property. Just like if you cripple my human slave. You repay me and the slave can suck a big one. Where we apply personhood and property rights, it bypasses yourself and goes to god. All of you is an extension of him and he consents to it all. Different Christian sects have varying ideas on how to get into heaven, hell, and anything in between. Basically, the only path to heaven is through Christ. Rapists... go to heaven and get there by sucking up to the boss man. So do murderers, pedophiles, and all other types of crap. Their sins, meaning all the immoral things that they did were simply immoral to them because god said it was immoral to them. They didn't necessarily do anything wrong, they simply did what they were told was wrong. The government can tell you that it is wrong to be a jew, but that doesn't make it true. The soul is supposedly separate from the physical form. Any physical, mental, psychological damage is physical and does not go with the soul. In other words, all damage is temporary. Despite your feels, you will get over everything. if you don't like it, too bad because god does and your feelings are his property too. Raped? Beaten as a child? Mutilated? Oh, you'll be completely fine - better than fine. Time. You are here for like 80 years. You spend eternity in heaven. Can you count to infinity? Can you comprehend it? I didn't think so. If your friend punches you in the shoulder, it hurts. Momentarily. You consented and you are fine. You forget it happened. it still hurt when it happened. it took a fraction of a second. Over the course of that 80 years, you can say that it meant nothing, had not effect on you, and was completely irrelevant. In 16 billion years, do you think that you will remember this 80? Supposing god and heaven are real, no, you won't remember it. Now, please pick it apart.

"child" labor is not ridiculous. A 16 year old in the US is a minor, but may get a job with parental consent. Is that ridiculous for a highschool kid to have a part time job? How about a 15 year old? 14? 12? 10? Why can't a minor have a job if both the minor and guardian wish it to be so? Guardians still have to take care of their minors and there are numerous regulations on how they can go about it. A child typically can't consent, so a guardian may verify whatever vestige a minor can summon. Not that it needs stated, but if a child cannot consent, but can clearly express that they do not consent, a parent cannot argue that a child wants a job, should get one, or has to get one by any measure. The libertarian position isn't that child labor is wanted. The position is that a child with parental consent may have gainful employment if she so chooses because not only are your kids none of my business, but they are none of the governments business either outside of protecting them from actual harm. Supposing there is no government, your entire community would be involved with correcting any violent or harmful relationship a parent would have with their child. There is this thing called "forced" child labor. It is bad only because it is forced. Little do most Americans know, but "sweatshops" that pay "slave wages" to children are actually really good work opportunities that pay really good wages compared to a local economy. Child labor typically consists of children that have to work to take care of themselves and their families and would probably not have a job at said sweatshop if their only other options weren't literally being sold into slavery, including sex slavery or having to work as prostitutes or simply foraging through dangerous heaps of garbage for something of use or value. They can always decide to starve to death. For all the money we spend on wars, taking care of working age men calling themselves "refugees," and spending half the budget on paying lazy people, we could make sure that child labor was not a necessity anywhere on Earth. Sadly, we have worse things to do with our time and money, so child workers, slave wages, and sweatshops will continue to be to great for dirt poor people in crappy countries, but they will also be absolutely necessary for survival of those same people.

The "agnostic atheism" schtick is funny. People like to argue that atheism isn't making a claim and I disagree. Consider this, how can you lack a belief that god does not exist unless you do believe that god does exist? I say that atheism is a belief that god does not exist. To "not believe" that god exists, you would have to lack an opinion or simply be unaware of the concept. Supposing that you lack an opinion on the existence of god, would you simply not be agnostic? Then wouldn't your belief be that you do not know? Concurrently, wouldn't that mean that atheism and atheism are two different things? (yes, the same thing being two different things.) Sounds like bullshit to me. Seems to me that Atheism is a positive belief that god does not exist, which is making a claim as to the nature of the universe. Agnosticism is a belief that god is either exists or does not exist. A belief is simply an acceptance as something as fact without proof or evidence. To say that having an "objective relationship with god" is somehow different that saying that god either does or does not exist is disingenuous. Either you do have a relationship or you do not. Either it is objective or it is not. Either the thing you have a relationship with is god or it is not. Do you believe that there is a thing you have a relationship with and do you believe that that thing is god? undefined or undefinable in what context? Meaning that you personally cannot define something? That your whole species cannot define something? Do you simply mean that if all information in the universe were compiled that the universe itself would not be able to define it, thus meaning that it literally would not exist because only things defined by the universe exist within the universe?

There is not fucking way I'm reading all of that. I skimmed like 10 paragraphs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the issue is that government has passed laws on what people are allowed to agree to on contracts. This creates the issue where every new law after the fact tries to correct any wrongs with the original law with more rules instead of outright repealing the initial law. Typically, leftists want more and more rules because it didn't work the first 10 times. That appears to the the actual issue, as it tends to be. Obviously, any contract that you voluntarily sign is solely on your shoulders for signing it. Regardless of whether the government passed laws or made rulings to support workers rights (which they have no business doing in the first place) and then turn around and add more bullshit because it wasn't working in the first place. The only labor rights you have are to your own property and labor. If you voluntarily sign a contract, it overwrites your labor rights. You can sign your rights away. It's your right to sign them away. You should know, if everybody doesn't already that US government is a system of corruption and buying votes, whether those votes are those of the people with tax money or if they are the votes of congress bought through donations or valuable information. Laws regarding people and corporations will always go to the highest bidder, and the highest bidder tends to be the corporations. You only have two options and you have to pick one or the other. Does government have no say in what kind of voluntary agreement you can come to or can the government do whatever the hell it damn well pleases? Unless you plan to lead a revolution and depose of government officials or government overall, those are your only two choices. If you can't understand a contract, then you can't consent to it and it is void. If the contract is properly understood on all sides, but one side breaks the contract, you have power to either sue for breech or negotiate for a different, better contract under threat of suit. If you don't like your contract that you chose to sign and you can't get out, then you are a moron and must try to negotiate your way out. No part of a contract requires government and can be handled in civil courts. I'd say the point is very short and the discussion irrelevant. Government reigns or it is not involved and you are liable for any contract you voluntarily sign.

You can't have children with another man. You can only adopt a child with another man. lol Anyway... I think you've found out what it's like to be a straight man in recent years. The women are all leftist whores that hate freedom and guns and want massive government, while all the others are mormons or something crazy that you can't deal with. You should probably get to know a lot of "straight" guys and make sure that they all know you are gay. Set a bigger net and try and catch some bisexuals or closeted individuals. I'm sure any straight guy can tell you what it's like to try and hunt any woman, let alone catch a good one. In my experience, you have to be really really really really lucky to find a person that is right for you. You can go through dozens of people to find one. I've been single for a decade and i'm 27. So far as anarchy goes, It's extreme right wing, so you might want to look into non-religious republicans and right leaning centrists. I'd say just people that aren't from the city. You've tried match.com and all that jazz, right? grindr definitely won't work. As far as the whole gay thing, the trick is going to be a gay trick that gay people are familiar with. Straight guys aren't going to know where all the free thinking gay dudes with traditional values are hanging out. Ogden, UT has a yellow pages called the "gay pages" that is literally a thing. If you had some sort of resource or general knowledge of where your type of people go to that also happens to be a place primarily occupied by gays. Where do the gay conservatives hang out? I don't think that I said anything offensive, but... no offense?

Risk and reward. Cost and benefit. If you consider them out of your league, then you consider that there is a very high cost and a very high risk, but a very high chance of failure. You can bet all your money on 12 the hard way, or you can place bets on 6 and 8. Look, you can either definitely, totally breed with 6s or you can try to breed with a 10, but if you fail, and you most likely will, you will have wasted lots of time and resources.

From what I can tell, it is competitive and is not an intelligent action/reaction, but is instinctual; a survival tactic. Another man's ability to take a hit and hit back just as hard, either physically or verbally tests them while also garnering respect for their capabilities. More specifically, you will surround yourself with the superior aspect of the herd to raise your own chance of survival. You also test each other like rivals. Alphas will obviously do this more than betas, while betas back down. Dogs and big cats do this in their litters. Rough play among various species of cubs establishes a hierarchy of authority very early as well as in competition for the mother's tit. Pack animals all go through this, even the females compete for the alpha and you end up with alpha females as well. Perjoratives such as, "fag," "faggot," "homo," etc. are primarily used to attack another man's masculinity. For people that actually hate gay people, it's about being gay. For everybody else, it's manliness. Gays typically are dominated by other men. There is the aspect that we tend to refuse to acknowledge... being dominated by another man is never manly let alone sexually dominated, but sexually dominating another man is very masculine. Greeks didn't see people as gay or straight. They looked at the position one was in. The man's position and the woman's position. The woman's position is not masculine and is for betas. Alphas obviously take the man's position of doing the penetrating, whether it's with another man, boy, or woman. It's all about the masculinity and status of the person. If you can't take insults and fire back, then it's because you are weak. We can see it and we don't respect your ability. If we have to leave somebody alone to die, it's going to be you. We are going to kick you around and you will probably never raise very high in your career because every steps on you. Considering that humans and some other animals are capable of empathy, this tendency to compete does not simply push us to pick on meek individuals. Most of us can understand you are a little bitch, that you aren't competition, but you are also a person with feelings and possibly value to society, so we keep it to ourselves. It all stems from survival, power, and ultimately breeding tactics. It doesn't always culminate in name calling, but that's what you are inquiring aboot.

Read the Constitution. The Constitution was written with the intent (you can read the discussions held at the constitutional convention) that it is easy to understand and should be read exactly as it is written. There was to be no maybes or ifs. It was for the common man to comprehend clearly. The Constitution lists specifically what the federal government has the power to do and only as it is listed. Anything else is unconsitutional. Rights are inherent and existed before any government. Rights cannot be regulated by either the Federal or State governments. The Bill of Rights lists some of our rights. Other rights are explained in 9. 9 states that just because something isn't listed in the Constitution as a right does not mean that it isn't a right. I have a right to have sex with another dude in my own home. Nobody can regulate that. Things that are obviously rights are obviously rights. I don't have a right to not be offended because that makes no damn sense. It's all pretty damn obvious and rights can really be broken down into property rights, including self property. Just for perspective, I'll bring up gay marriage. Marriage in the US is not something that is listed as being under the authority of the federal government. Thus, marriage licenses are not constitutional and the government cannot pass laws on marriage. Scotus ruled that gay marriage is constitutional and banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. What they actually ruled is that gays have a right to get a government marriage license. Ruling that gays have a right to a government license is unconstitutional and obviously not right. Gays could always go to a church and get married. Nobody argued that. They do have a right to have a peaceful ceremony and call themselves married.

As per my response below, we don't know if god does or does not exist. We also don't know if it is possible or impossible for a god to exist regardless of whether a god does or does not exist. Obviously the argument IS NOT that god might exist. That would assume that something can happen. The argument is that you can't prove either way, so the only definitive statement that you can make is that you do not know. Your argument is faulty. The "contradictions" in the definition of god are simply logical inconsistencies. God can do anything that can be done. You can't do a thing that isn't a thing. You can't purple because it isn't a verb. An immovable object isn't a thing because the premise is not logical. To say that god can do anything is to say that god can do anything that can be done. To be able to do something that cannot be done is a logical inconsistency. Logically, one would and should use this information to define what God is and can do. People like to say that "anything is possible." The thing is, only that which is possible is possible, you simply don't know what is and is not ultimately possible. If you have to explain to your teenager that when you say, "you can be anything that you want to be" that it only means that she can do anything that is possible for her to do, then your child is a moron. Ex, ("you can be anything you want to be." "I can be a t-rex with laser eyes?!" "no, you fucking idiot. Just the stuff that is actually scientifically possible.") You don't have to know a thing is possible for it to be possible or to know that something is impossible for it to be impossible. Regardless of your knownledge, all things that are possible are possible and all things that are impossible are impossible. However, things that are currently possible may later become impossible and vice versa. As I pointed out the logical inconsistency with the godly contradictions, you are left only with the idea that god is possible or impossible. On this premise, you cannot prove and cannot know and thus only agnosticism is logically consistent. Theists cannot prove a god exists. Atheists cannot prove that god does not exist. Agnostics can prove that they have no proof. Theism is a positive belief that something that they cannot prove does exist. Atheism is a positive belief that something that they cannot disprove does not exist. Agnosticism is a positive belief that you can only know what you can prove. Some people like to say that atheism is not having a belief, but that would be agnosticism because you cannot know whether a god does or does not exist, making it a belief to say that god does not.

Not that you need a reason, but did you walk out because she couldn't stfu about politics, because she was obviously of the opposite opinions to you, or a mix of both? As far as I'm concerned, if you keep your stupid ass opinions to yourself, we can get along. Some people can't change the topic.

Don't forget, you said, "these tyrannical people you reference, in the absence of a State, would not knock on your door to demand a tithe to pay for their child's schooling for example." and I said, "gangs and bandits do and have for all time performed these actions." and you said, "So what?" YOU WERE WRONG. your response acknowledged that you were wrong. Your entire argument is wrong. I am the OP. I know what the thread is about. It's not about whether the social construct is called a state or a government and it certainly isn't about whether they are different. It is about the fact, that governments, such as books, buildings, and property are not a threat. Individual people having individual thoughts making individual actions in unison are the ones that want to take your guns and enslave you. The government doesn't want to steal your money. Your neighbors want to your neighbors are the cops that arrest you. your neighbors are the ones that vote to steal your shit and take your rights. Your neighbors are the ones signing your bills. People working in government aren't special or different. They are exactly the same as everybody else. You stated no rule for me to make an exception for. You were simply incorrect. Respect for property rights is not requisite for either a state or lack thereof. If no humans exist, there is no property, there are no rights, and there is no state. If you are the only person on earth, there is no state because you simply do what you want to do and everything is yours. If there are two people and they acknowledge each other's property rights, there is still no state or government unless each one chooses to make decisions together. Your statement is plain false. Maybe I don't make examples well, but you are being rather rude and I don't appreciate your unnecessary, childish prodding. I posited that for there to be a world government, what you may call a state, there does not need to be any outward entity to acknowledge said state. Since all known life is on earth, a world government would have power over all life. HYPOTHETICALLY, an alien entity would be required for there to be an outward entity or state to acknowledge said world government. That was what I meant and I certainly hope you understand it this time. Essentially, what does or does not define a world state or a world government and are they different. I say they are exactly the same. Your problem is that you choose to use special definitions of words. These particular special definitions are particular to international politics. "State" is the exact same as a "government." That's just what those two words mean. A single government is a state and requires no outward acknowledgement for this to be true. The special definition is that a "state" is generally identified as being different and separate from another "state" and the two states likely acknowledge that they are separate. These are special definitions relating to international politics. You are using special definitions that identify separate governments and confusing a state and a government as being different things. I say that for the sake of this discussion, outward acknowledgement is irrelevant. The special definitions that you are using do not refute the plain definitions, they simply seek to identify separate states/governments/groups/nations. State: 2: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government. Government:1 the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants of communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.; political administration 2 the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed Nation: a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. Community: 1 a social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality,share government, and often have a common cultural and historical heritage. 2 a locality inhabited by such a group. Clearly none of these definitions require an outside source to justify that they are a single government or state. If you think state = government is mental gymnastics, then you must have a skewed view of what justifies as "gymnastics." TL;DR, 1. SINCE ALL KNOWN LIFE RESIDES ON EARTH, FOR A WORLD GOVERNMENT TO EXIST, ALL KNOWN LIFE WOULD BE WITHIN SAID GOVERNMENT. NO OUTWARD ENTITY WOULD EXIST TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS HYPOTHETICAL WORLD GOVERNMENT IS A STATE. 2. IS A WORLD GOVERNMENT THEN NOT A STATE BECAUSE IT IS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED BY A DIFFERENT STATE? 3. IF A WORLD GOVERNMENT IS NOT A STATE BECAUSE NO OUTWARD STATE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT IS A STATE, DOES THAT THEN MAKE IT SOMEHOW DIFFERENT FROM A NON-STATE GOVERNMENT OR IS IT SEMANTICS? 4. IF A WORLD GOVERNMENT IS NOT A STATE, DOES THAT THEN MAKE A WORLD GOVERNMENT MORAL OR JUST LESS IMMORAL FOR THE EXACT SAME ACTIONS THAT A STATE WOULD COMMIT SIMPLY FOR A FACT THAT YOU DON'T CALL IT A STATE? 5. IF THERE ARE ONLY TWO "STATES" AND NEITHER ONE ACKNOWLEDGED ONE ANOTHER LIKE CHINA/TAIWAN OR N/S KOREA TYPE RELATIONSHIP, WOULD EITHER THEN BE A STATE BECAUSE THEY DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE ONE ANOTHER? 6. IF A STATE AND A GOVERNMENT ARE THE SAME THING, WHICH THEY ARE, WTF ARE YOU TRYING TO ARGUE? LASTLY, A STATE IS A GOVERNMENT IS A STATE. IT IS A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS AND INDIVIDUAL'S ACTIONS ARE THEIR OWN. GOVERNMENT IS AN ILLUSION AND IS SIMPLY INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE COMMITTING THESE CRIMES. THEY EACH MAKE THE INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS WHICH WHEN DONE IN UNISON ARE VIEWED AS A STATE ACTION. THEY ARE SIMPLY SIMULTANEOUS INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS. Don't forget "You said, "these tyrannical people you reference, in the absence of a State, would not knock on your door to demand a tithe to pay for their child's schooling for example." and I said, "gangs and bandits do and have for all time performed these actions." and you said, "So what?" YOU WERE WRONG. Your entire argument is wrong.

No, it wasn't a question. It was part of an answer. You can tell because there wasn't a question mark at the end of the sentence. What constitutes any crime is that a judge or jury says that it occurred based on evidence. The fact that you can't seem to comprehend is that I never made an argument suggesting or directly said that a threat, whether credible or not is an act. Actively thinking is an act. speaking is an act, more obvious shit, etc. In this entirely hypothetical discussion, if you do not have evidence that there was intent to make a threat credible, then there was no credibility and thus crime occurred. For you to determine that simply saying a threat makes it a credible threat is to make either saying things a crime or thinking things a crime.

The whole quote seems to question knowledge vs physical cognitive ability, so I'll just go with that. As I understand the brain, there are two types of knowledge and two types of IQ. Temporary and permanent knowledge. Temporary is purely chemical and many aspects of a memory may be forgotten prior to synapses developing. Permanent memory is basically chunks of neurons that all send electrical signals in a pattern. The pattern is the way that the synapses (connections between neurons) have developed. connected like kinex or some other toy. If the neurons aren't frequently accessed, they are forgotten in what seems to be the brain preferring other neural pathways. The more connections between neurons to any given piece of information, the easier it is to get there. Like if every room in your house had a hallway to the toilet. It's always the easiest and quickest to get to and you will always know how to get there. The connections are constantly growing in number. you keep building away from that information, so if you don't keep building hallways to the toilet, it gets harder to find your way there. however, once you have accessed that memory, you remember other things that are directly connected. You will also start developing new pathways to this memory while you are thinking of it. Your brain is one big game of connect the dots, but you keep connecting the dots until every dot is connected to every dot. Problem is is that there are so damn many dots. fluid and crystalline intelligence. Crystalline intelligence is basically your maximal level of operation. It is there. It's going to stay there. Then there is fluid intelligence. Fluid intelligence can grow. You can train it, but if you stop it will shrink. Stupid people can build their fluid intelligence through hard work and persistence. they can get all the same good grades that a genius can. They can get all the same jobs. it's just really really damn hard. smart people have high crystalline intelligence. However, if they also work really really damn hard, you will still seem like you belong on the short bus regardless of your test scores. Now, my actual point is this: the more you know, the less you have to figure out. If you were taught how to think logically from the very beginning and you know how to stop and think, it won't be difficult. If you never learned how to think logically, you will probably fail and get emotional. If you are very intelligent, you don't require as much teaching or possibly any at all to know how to think logically. The highly intelligent people have an edge at all time. You don't have to stop and let me figure out theoretical physics before continuing explaining for me to get the basic idea. I don't really know much about physics. I just follow logic well. for a person with a below average IQ, they may need to study for a few years before they can understand as well as I can, which isn't to say that it's all that well. So, a super genius can follow you, a moron can also follow you, If they already have a certain level of information on the subject. So, you can learn to listen. You can learn to think logically. It will certainly help if you also know a fair amount of information about a topic as you listen and think logically. If you never learned to think logically, learned to listen, or learned about the subject, you will not be able to compete like somebody with high intelligence and the same lack of knowledge. Not being a moron is harder for a moron, but both their knowledge and fluid intelligence can grow to be a veritable force of nature.