Worlok

I could be wrong, but that seems very poorly worded... I would say, and probably everybody else would agree that rape is in objectively true. As it requires 2 parties involved, it can be internally consistent with the rapee, but the raper can be oblivious to any morality of the actions, although understanding that it is unwanted rather than the morality of it can be used to fulfill that definition. This allows your statement to be true and remove morality as a relevant point to the rape. A ban is a legal basis or common agreement that something should not be done and punishment should ensue if it is done. This doesn't require any sort of morality. As with contracts and any other sort of agreement. If everybody votes that wearing black shoes is wrong and you should get shot if you wear black shoes, then you basically have a contract not to wear black shoes or people can shoot you. Regardless of whether or not all the members of the community and the contract they all agreed to was based on an opinion on black shoes or not is not necessary to the contract that they shan't be worn. Bottom line, a ban can simply be an agreed upon basis for which an item, act, event, etc. is not allowed within certain context. No morality or opinion is required for an agreement or contract to occur. That isn't to say that you won't have opinions or morally agree on any given contract or agreement, just that whatever your views are, you may still create a contract in either opposition or support either morally, within your opinion or both. For example, pro-contact pedophiles think that talking to and even making physical contact with children isn't bad and maybe even good. Possibly to the point of violating children. Supposing you take all morality and point of view out of it. Offer the piece of crap $5million a year to not speak to a child, but he is to be monitored at all times. There is no coercion. If he agrees, he will see no children and will even support a law against pedophiles being within 1 mile of a minor. clearly these are both detrimental to his sexuality and point of view. However, this hypothetical scum would be very inclined to take $5mil a year and never see a human child again. Maybe no pedophile will ever see a child because of him supporting that law, but he himself is inclined regardless of the other scumbags missing out.

Why do they feel the need to call things such as bigotry, prejudice, and racially profiling to be racism when none of those things are inherent to racism? Sort of why do they re-define things. I find that the problem is the tendency that people like labeling things in the most simplistic manner. Words are used improperly or excessively and end up picking up connotations. Everything is called racism, sexism, misogyny, etc whether they are or not. Racism has picked up the connotation of being negative, and generally evil. I'm not trying to say that the argument is because everything is racist because they disagree with you, therefore you are bad, and thus racist because those each denote each other. I mean that the argument is that their entire use of logic and arguments is based on using words incorrectly because of their connotations. Sort of like making an argument based on a thesaurus and not quite understanding what the words mean. you want to say something, so you look up synonyms for every word in the sentence that you are trying to speak, but if you don't know what the words mean exactly, you will sound like an utter buffoon to a person that does know exactly what those synonyms mean. These sort of illogical arguments are illogical simply because they are based on words that they don't understand because of connotations and feelings affiliated with the words that they are using. They aren't making an argument based on what 1 word means and then explaining it plainly without relying on those connotations and feelings. You don't say racism is because racism. You should use different words, but when people don't have the understanding argue, they end up in a loop. You are a racist because you are a bigot because you are prejudiced, because you are a racist because those words sound bad and I don't like the way that they make me feel. What they know is that they don't like it and logical arguments cannot break the cycle unless you take those words away from them. I think that this is true and it doesn't sound like the guy in the video is aware. anybody lemme know if you understand what i just said. lol

I don't have facts and evidence immediately in front of me. However, is it perfectly plausible that it has happened? Yes. Have police gone to jail for it? Also yes. Doesn't mean that they did it, just that they were convicted. The single and only standard for "proving" anything in a court of law is that either the jury or the judge believe to be what they themselves consider to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" or at least a good enough display of evidence, that it is proof. If the jury said it happened, then it happened. So far as written law, you must have "reasonable belief" that a person is going to, right now, cause you "severe bodily harm or death." Convince the judge or jury of said reasonable belief. This isn't a case law thing. This is every assault, battery, etc, law in the United States. If somebody comes at you with a knife and all you have is an rpg-7 and you shoot him, all you have to do is argue that he was in fact going to fuck you up with his knife. The fact that you blew somebody in half with a rocket propelled grenade is a separate matter of being in possession of a destructive device per federal regulation. You can look up your own state's assault laws, firearms and discharging laws, and self-defense laws. That's what they are going to come down to ( except they likely say nothing about rocket launchers, that's federal and to my knowledge, citizens may not own any destructive device ever) The thing that bother's Steph about your thread and discussions on the news is how 1 sided they are. You didn't notice, but that is almost entirely the point of him making those videos. You are beating a dead horse and we have heard your points on every news channel are web site. What is very rare is every fact that doesn't support the poor helpless black man and evil cops narrative. I'm not trying to say you are being a dick or anything, I'm just saying that you missed the point and this is what it is. A civilian wouldn't be in a shooting in which he/she is trying to arrest an allegedly armed man committing what is legally defined in most places in the US as "assault with a deadly weapon." Yeah, you pull out a gun and threaten anybody and that's what it is. Regarding Sterling, a cop had to be there. A cop had to talk to a guy that somebody said had a gun and committed a violent felony immediately prior to that cop showing up. A cop had to show up and protect everybody from a guy thought to be committing a very serious and potentially deadly crime. The guy was legally detained and for damn good reason at this point. Everything a cop tells you to do while detained is a legal order until a court later decides that it wasn't. He disobeyed orders. He was tazed, reasonably because he would not obey lawful orders. He then resisted arrest and was perceived by the arresting officer to be reaching and touching both his pockets and the police's own gear. He was reasonably believed to possess a firearm. He was reasonably believed to have been trying to reach for a firearm after 1. committing assault with a deadly weapon against the person that called 911, 2. disobeyed lawful orders, 3. had to be tazed, 4. resisted arrest, 5. was reaching for his gun. You don't blink. You don't hesitate. You shoot that mother fucker so that you can go home to your family instead of going home to see god and another officer on the scene has to put him down like a rabid dog anyway. The cop had to be there. That was his job. He had to protect everybody else and for plenty of good reasons he was of the belief that he had to also protect himself right there, right then. At best, Alton Sterling was a complete fucking moron and died for it. At worst, a cop got a little too anxious and accidentally killed a man that was just too scared and was taught from too young an age that police are the enemy always. The fact that this guy has a union doesn't matter. Everything Sterling did was 100% wrong. I would have given him orders. I would have tazed him. maybe I would have kept tazing him 'til he put the cuffs on himself and apologized. If I felt he was reaching for a gun to shoot me, I would have shot him before he got a chance to draw. We don't have video of the whole philando stop, if I'm convinced enough, just as a jury might be that he was reasonably believed to be a suspect of a previous crime, as was specifically stated prior to the shooting, then they had all the reason to stop and detain him. Reasonable suspicion, that's all and it becomes a completely legitimate detention. In fact, police are told that they can make up shit to stop people and question them. It's their job. Apparently, the "suspect" then claimed to have a gun in a specific location. He also claimed to have his identification in an immediately adjacent position. STOP. You don't reach for a damn thing. You don't even twitch funny. You will be told what to do and you will obey slowly and to the letter. You are not going to reach for or grab anything. You will be told to exit your vehicle slowly and you will do so. You will be told to keep your hands where they can be seen and you will do so. You will then be told that you will be disarmed and searched and you will allow it. You now pose no threat and you will continue to do exactly as you are told. If no crime is found to have been committed, you will be given your firearm and other articles. Your firearm will have been unloaded and you will be allowed to load it after the encounter has ended completely. Obviously if you are found to have committed a crime, you may be charged based on your politeness and severity of the crime. STOP. I both open and conceal carry. I know this dance and I have been through it. You might want to take my word for it. All that said, if you are reasonably thought to have committed a prior felony, for which you WILL go to prison, then it is fair to assume that you don't want to go and may be likely to resist. If a cop believe you committed a violent felony, you will be considered a threat and the likelihood that you will resist to deadly effect is considered to be very high. You put your hand near your gun and you will be shot. At this point, you only have to ask yourself one question. "Do I feel lucky?" The facts you want to know are "did the cop actually have reasonable suspicion?" and "did he reach for or immediately near where he was thought to have a gun?" If yes to both, the cop should 100% have shot him. If just yes to the latter, then the cop probably should have shot him. If the cop knew he had a gun and told him not to reach for it or his ID, but he did so anyway, once again, the cop should have shot him 100%. The only times in which the cop would not have been completely justified in shooting him is if he had no reason to believe he was the suspect and had no reason to believe that he had a gun that he was reaching for OR he knew he had the gun, but actually for some insane fucking reason told him to reach for his wallet that he told the cop was literally right next to his gun. Fact his, he said he had a gun and he reached toward it. Unless you have it on video, I don't believe for a second that a cop told a guy with a gun that wasn't a super white likely rich guy with an ultra friendly attitude to reach for his wallet. A cop might talk like that to Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. A cop will not say that to baggy clothes thug johnson. As far as the type or severity of the crime, if you are guilty you want to get away, and you certainly might try. If you then have a gun and for any reason also reach toward it, you're going to get shot.

Aaarrrghghh! I hate long posts requiring long responses. Can't we just make some sort of psychic interface a la blue cat people? Do we braid our hair together? Assuming you mean a general armed force with some sort of sanctioned power to use force and not a government military, you will have contracts with which all parties signed into agreement must follow. If said military force and action is agreed to exist in said contract, then said military may perform any actions to which were agreed in said contract. This is also assuming that you signed said contract not under any sort of duress. In this scenario, if you sign a contract that says that I can stab you in the face with a machete if you don't pay me by noon the next day and if you also fail to pay me by that designated time, I can stab you in the face with a machete. DRO as in behavior reinforcement? I had to google it, suck with acronyms, and this would make sense from context. This occurrence would be capitalism, free trade, basic economics, cost/benefit analysis, etc. It requires no government to occur meaning that while it can be a part of a government, government can not be a part of it. Sort of like if you have a square and a circle with equal distance vertices, the square can fit inside of the circle but not vice versa. People are and will forever continue to be stupid cunts. As per my previous response. The population would realistically have to maintain an average IQ of over 100. Not necessarily overall, but among any specific groups like races or any other type of genetic group. e.g., 90% population of over 100 IQ. You have to be smart enough to control yourself to control yourself, or you will be generally inclined to be controlled and have others controlled for the world to meet your own limited comprehension of reality. (not you you, just any hypothetical person.) You posited a definitive position and I suggested that your position is not definitive, and it isn't. I said, "sans" physical evidence, meaning that in the case of there being no evidence. Evidence neither has to exist or be known to exist even if it does. I.e., If god exists I don't have to have proof for him to exist. Whether there is proof or not and whether I have it or not does not detract from this hypothetical that he does exist. Absence of evidence, evidence of absence, known unknowns, unknown unknowns. You get the gist. Sans evidence, meaning you don't have a legitimate reason to take me serious, to condemn me on the basis of knowing my intent when you can neither know my intent nor prove any reasonable likelihood is parallel to determining a thought crime. (the difference being that a thought crime is specifically identified as anti-state thoughts as opposed to non-specific anti-law thoughts.) In a common court, your argument would be thrown out on "lack of evidence." Intent and capability of carrying out a threat must be determined. Intent requires evidence (I put forth that there was not evidence in my hypothetical, which all of this is. Hypothetical.) and capability of carrying out a threat must be to some degree reasonable. "I'm going to throw the sun at you so you die" is complete and utter bullshit that could not to any degree of "reason" be considered something that I am capable of regardless of my intent. At best, you'd have me on spouting nonsense on the basis of insanity. At worst, everybody would look at you like you are a moron for actually complaining about such absurdities. You might even get a restraining order against a retarded homeless man that wears tinfoil hats and picks up government frequencies in a chip in his tooth. The poor guy can't really understand that he needed to go to court, so he was detained in a holding cell for a few weeks until your court date. He didn't mind, he got three square meals and a warm bed. Unfortunately, after the restraining order was served, because he was found to not be dangerous, but capable to feed and clothe himself, he was let out back onto the streets. It's not like he had any place else to go. His father had run out on him and his mother when the doctors found he was retarded and his mom, the only person he had to take care of him died in a car accident when she was hit by a drunk driver when he was only 16. But you got him good on that "credible threat." I hope you feel good about yourself. Anyway, recognizing that the state is a from of government, I'll say this. Government is spontaneous and inevitable. You'll govern your kids, you might govern your wife, but government is going to happen. However, the state is not spontaneous. The state is intelligent by design and equally, by design, may cease to or simply never exist. As previously expressed, I argue that Pretty much everybody would have to have an IQ around and generally greater than 100 for such a thing to occur...

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? People understand this is immoral and don't want it in their neighborhoods. I know a tall Chinese man (exception), but that doesn't mean that the Chinese aren't short on average (rule)." You weren't paying attention. As to your absurd notion of me "weaseling out" of your question, no outward recognition of a "state" or "government" is required for there to be a state or government. For example, Nothing has to be outside of the universe to justify the inside of the universe. No hypothetical intergalactic alien presence is required to accept a world government for there to be a world government. No less, if every "slave" were to be sufficiently dumb, deaf, blind, and lame, no amount of "allowing" a government or state to exist would be required as no opposition could be made in the first place. Power and control must simply be exerted and maintained. Nothing has to be allowed and no outward presence must accept anything for a state or government to exist. If "the slaves" fight and lose, it does nothing for the fact that they are still slaves and the state or government to endure. What was Spartacus but a dead slave? There is also this paragraph which while making another point acquiesces my own.

The political correct comic scene is partially bullcrap and partially logical. I recently had to be corrected on the demographics of comic book readers. Around half of all readers are female. Pandering to women is perfectly logical and what I would say is clearly economically sound. The Green Lantern from the 40s was turned into a gay man just because. He has a daughter. He's like 100 years old in the continuity. He just came out of the closet and never boned a dude. Just because. Not Awesome. Captain America, Steve Rogers is being written as always having been hydra. In an interview with the writer it can be viewed that the American way, of English common law, basically the American way is fascist. Captain America is a nazi and people that agree with him are nazis because trump is a nazi and trump is a "republican." and republicans are for the American way that Cap represents. That's what I got out of it. The writer is a leftist, so it won't be an impartial commentary of government corruption. Spider-man had to be a black kid... but also a hispanic kid. This is despite the fact that the very popular spider-man 2099, miguel o'harra is hispanic and super popular. Then there is pretty much spider-everybody. But we need a black one. Not Awesome. Spider-Gwen (good comic) a 19 year old is going to have some sort of romantic involvement with black kid spider-man, a 15 year old. Just because. Not awesome. Amadeus Cho, super genius, buddy of Hercules is now the incredible Hulk. Just because. You may have guessed, the korean super genius is being written by a Korean American. Coincidence? Not awesome. Ms. Marvel. Later known as Captain Marvel (said to honor the actual Captain Mar-vel) and now some middle eastern girl that is basically a Reed Richards reject is now Captain Marvel. Brand recognition, I guess, but bullshit nonetheless. Wiccan and Changeling, a mutant and a kree/skrull mix are gay together. They were made that way. Awesome. Mystique, the shapeshifting mutant. Was always bisexual. Awesome. Black Panther. Always a powerful, intelligent, highly respected black man. Sure, racially ignorant writers offended plenty of blacks, but the intent was always good and T'challa was always a bamf. New black iron man. Tony Stark is still iron man. A young super genius black girl happened to design a super suit and catch his eye. Stupid idea, but awesome. My main problem is trying to change anybody. They are what they are and we like it that way or we would not buy the issues. Making new characters gay, black, or whatever is great. I'm all for inclusiveness. However, when you replace heroes with gay ones or black ones or whatever, it's offensive to my comic sensibilities and the fact that you think these groups need special treatment. Also, when it comes to sexuality, nobody should care. I don't care about a wedding. I don't care about two characters banging (jessica jones, anybody?) The fact that you are gay has nothing to do with anything except what you do in your bedroom. Comics should spend almost 0 time in the bedroom. Nobody cares. We don't judge you on your sexuality.

Comparing one ban to another are somehow equivalent relies solely on the fact that they are bans. You have to argue that bans are inherently immoral. Rape. If you ban it, enforcement of the ban can rely entirely on self-defense. If the ban is by definition and function enforced solely by defending yourself from rape, the ban cannot be immoral. At the very most, if the ban relies on a state for enforcement, you have to argue that rape was okay. Pretty cut and dry, I think.

Only got halfway through, but this is absurd. Racial profiling is when you judge a person as having likely committed a crime because of their race. Now, if they fit a description, it's not racial profiling. If you stop and question a man because you think he committed a crime because he is black, then it is profiling UNLESS it is in your interest to stop and question people. Then it is simply an excuse to do what you wanted to do. If law enforcement was not based on harassing people to get them to admit to random shit, then it would be racial profiling. Guess what. Law enforcement is about harassing anybody and everybody to try and get them to admit to any crime. regardless of what happens in the world, to state facts, regardless of what they are is hardly immoral. Steph stated many many facts about black crime and the people that were 'victims' of the shootings. This is how it would work is a court of law. Facts are not racist. Steph does not and should not have to focus on the "police lobby" or what we should all understand is a government backed union. Free unions good. Government backed unions bad. nobody, especially Steph is denying that. We just should not have to tell you a billion times by adding the word, "police" each time. We decry all government backed unions all the time. If a person has a past criminal behavior, then you can rely on them to likely act in the same criminal manner. If a person is thought to be guilty of a crime, then you can rely on the likelihood that they may act in the same criminal way especially since they may believe you know what they did. Past behavior is very relevant. When can a cop shoot you? Legally, then they honestly feel that they are in immediate danger for their life from you. By law, even if it is because you are black that you scared a cop just by being black, he only has to feel that danger and convince the jury. Also by law, the jury can decide that cop can eat a dick and convict him anyway. "I thought he was going to stab me" without evidence is just as good as "there was video surveillance of him charging you with a knife." Technically, that is. The IQ debate is really quite fair. Studies he cites and experts he has on, support the idea that low IQ people, especially in the 80s commit more crime and are more inclined toward crime because of their acuity. Evidence strongly supports it, so it is an entirely justified argument. Evidence strongly supports the IQ per demographics and that is also a justified position to hold. Let me know when the perp was not reaching for anything and was complying perfectly, but was shot anyway. It hasn't happened in the cases mentioned above, but you keep us up to date.

gangs and bandits do and have for all time performed these actions. Any person governing their own actions and that of their spouse and children or group of people governing or being governed from within could be said to be a government in the most basic sense of the word. If you have a single democratic gang, then you have a government. When government "functionally" stops being is when the whole of the people do not and do not seek to govern others. To govern only one's self and nobody else is to stop being a government in whatever group you would be governing. That negates any argument of a "state," however. It is also irrelevant. Per your second paragraph and mine just prior, there is the idea that a group of people governing themselves is a government. I would assert that the becoming of a state simply requires some majority making claim to being so. In lieu of the current US state, if the crips in a crip neighborhood establish borders and call it a crip state, If 300 million Americans say that they are not a state, then it is a matter of opinion. I shouldn't have to explain why. If the rest of the world decided that they did not recognize the US government as a government state, then they would be lying to themselves or want to start some shit and be carpet bombed out of existence. sure 6 billion people can cease to acknowledging the legitimacy of the US state, but it's functions and being legitimized by the people makes it a state so far as those people say it is, but not so far as the power of the US state compounded with the world not formally recognizing it. Whatever I could convince anybody of, it has no bearing on the ability of other person's ability to unilaterally maintain a state. A state also is not inherently reliant on taxes.

Whole lot of non-arguments. If you want to say that I'm ignorant, you have to explain how. You say that I have absurd assertions, but you must explain why. If only a few people have to treat me different for whatever reason for it to be "privilege," then everybody has privilege for every reason anybody has ever treated them better. This would negate any semblance of relevance from the idea of "white privilege" because it would be no different than any other kind. Believing that white privilege would be worse or that white people need to man up to it or something would be a prejudiced, bigoted, and even racist belief. If some members of a racist group not being racist makes it not a racist group, then Nazis are not bad because not every member was a racist or believed in the messed up stuff that the Nazi party did. Conversely, if a few members of a group being good make the group not bad, then treating members of ISIL any different than than the pope is bad unless you have proof that that member committed overtly illegal actions. Blacks and hispanics commit crimes vastly disproportionate to their population ratio to whites and thus will inevitably be stopped in a disproportionate amount. If society doesn't care about blacks and most of society are whites, then you are saying that whites, overall don't care about blacks, so at least you admit that. If a government policy or law overwhelmingly helps one group, unless the policy or law directly targets that group or was created with the intent to target that group (war on drugs, abortion, affirmative action) then the policy/law is not racist/prejudiced/bigoted. Suppose we have the 2nd amendment and all blacks decide to kill each other with guns. It doesn't mean them having the right is racist. It simply means that what free people did themselves was not particularly beneficial to themselves. If a group sucks at free trade and has bad work ethic for whatever reason, it doesn't make free trade racist. It just means that they are probably stupid and/or lazy. Many racist government policies cannot quite be argued to be institutional racism. If a person writes a law with racist intent and the law has racist effect, if all the other people that signed it believed it was a good law for other reasons and had no knowing the the racist intent, then it is not institutional. It is 1 legislator being a racist. However, If a majority of legislators find that it is a racist law made by a racist with overtly racist effects, yet choose not to remove the law because they agree with the racist intent, that would be institutional racism, but it would only be racism of the institution of that specific chamber of legislature, not racism through the entire government. people can be unconsciously prejudiced. However, if you ask them if they are racist or intolerant of people for whatever reason and they get to thinking about it, if they can honestly come to the conclusion that they are not racist or intolerant, then they aren't racist or bigoted. That would be self evident and would be unable to be those things unconscious. However, just an unconscious prejudice is simply ignorant, but can also be based in statistics. If you avoid a black person you haven't met because they might be a criminal because 1 in 4 black men spend time in the slammer, then it is a prejudice that is based on the fact that there is an overwhelming chance of being true. I only slept for 4 hours, but you have like 30 down votes, so I think you get the idea.

Here is how I see it. You have a life form inside of your body that relies on you to survive. Whether it is inside of you or not, it relies on you to survive. A 10 year old relies on you to survive, and you can't kill it. It can't make legal decisions for itself, but you can't kill it. A fetus just happens to be in you. You have to breast feed it your milk that you own from your boob for it to survive. It can't make legal decisions for it, but... A fetus or a cluster of cells is a living being. abortion is killing a living being. Killing an ant is killing a living being. The argument isn't about the killing. Consider the cost/value. Are you killing a living being? Sure. What is the value of the nature of the being? Ant, nobody gives a shit. All ants have more mass than all humans. They also live short lives and are generally irrelevant in every possible way. 1 ant does not matter at all ever. Fact. Human being... Unless a human being has committed an unnaturally heinous crime or you absolutely have to... You may not harm one. Ever. clearly, the value of an ant is as close to nothing as possible and the value of a human is as close to absolute as possible. Abortion involves two life forms. Mother and child. Does the value of why a mother wants an abortion equal or outweigh the value of the other life form? If said life form is human, usually not. So, at what point does the child become a human? The entire thing is based on when a baby is considered a human. Papers cite a fetus's ability to feel pain at 20-24 weeks. A newborn baby isn't even self-aware. Skynet was self-aware. Your frontal lobe doesn't even finish developing until your early to mid 20's. A teenager is borderline retarded. Does a human have to have a fully developed consciousness? Does it need a consciousness at all? Does it need to be able to feel pain? If I push you down the stairs at 10 weeks and you miscarry, am I guilty of anything other than pushing you down the stairs? If a 1 month old is not self-aware and cannot be argued to have a consciousness, Am I allowed to shoot it between the eyes with 12gauge 3" 000 buck because it can't be said to have felt it or been aware of such a concept? Supposing the ability of the brain to perceive pain never occurs, can I kill the baby whenever? When is the baby human. Only prior to that occurrence can abortion be morally neutral. It certainly isn't moral to kill something just because. An ant may not matter, but killing it still isn't moral. Prior to being human, abortion is specifically morally neutral. Hurray, we solved nothing!

Don't you sleep? I'm not keen on corrections. I believed you held that position and argued it thusly. However, I already presented the argument that the "police" and "government" are social constructs that don't exist and that it is the people themselves. A government cannot be tyrannical because a government does not really exist. People are tyrannical, and that is really the point of the OP. I do understand that you mean the people that make up and are defined as the "government" and deny you this obfuscation. But I know what you are saying.

Definitions; Racism: Belief that one race is inherently superior/inferior to another, yet not reliant on scientific fact of basic differences between various races/groups. (This only requires that you hold a belief and does not require any actions by you to occur. Actions are not racist, but actions may be based on racism) Bigotry: Intolerance of people who hold different/opposing opinions/views (Intolerance is internal until you come into contact with that which you do not tolerate; you must act intolerant, otherwise you are definitionally tolerant, thus not bigoted.) Prejudice: A preconceived idea or point of view about a person(s) that is not based in logic,reason, or direct experience. (This is internal and requires no actions to occur. You simply have to feel it. An act is not prejudiced, but may be based on prejudice.) You cannot definitively say or even logically argue that a person's actions are racist or prejudiced because these are internal. However, you can say that a person is bigoted if they act in a bigoted way. Whatever their actions, you can only guess that a person is racist or prejudiced UNLESS they specifically express that they are or express ideas that require prejudice or racism to be sincere expressions. For example, when Trump talks about building a wall, neither the action of building a wall nor the intent to keep out foreigners is racist/bigoted/prejudiced. You cannot legitimately argue that he is racist/bigoted/prejudiced based on those two things. He never said that hispanics are inferior or that they should be treated any different. Just that if they aren't Americans that they can go home. His words and actions could be based on racism/bigotry/prejudice, but he would pretty much have to tell you so. I recently saw a post on Facebook suggesting that there was communication breakdown. That BLM wasn't bad because blacks are oppressed and that white privilege wasn't about what you did, but that you don't acknowledge that you have it. The leftist position is that we're bad because we don't accept their truths. Now, after having been repeatedly torn into by a previously very close black friend about how I'm inherently bad and evil because I'm white, straight, and male, I believe all those people can go fuck themselves because I know first hand what the positions are. Here's why. White privilege or any privilege for that matter is based on the idea that things are easier for you because you are white. It's not that you did anything, it's just that society treats you better because you are white/heterosexual/cis/male/whatever. The problem with this is that it requires that other people treat you better because you are white. Society is people. Government is people. These are social constructs made up entirely of human beings. For you to have white privilege, other people have to treat you better for being white. Now, for it to be "privilege," over half of all people in all walks of life must treat you better because you are white. Over 70% of Americans are white Europeans. Half of all whites and 100% of all non-whites add up to about 60% of the total population. That would suffice for said privilege to occur. If half of all whites and all non-whites treat you better for being white, then I suppose you have privilege. It is not likely that anything close to 100% of a group would agree on much of anything, thus the argument requires that over half of all whites must treat other whites better. So, the argument is that the majority of whites treat other white people better. This argument is basically that the majority of whites are bigoted, prejudiced, and even racist. To say that you are privileged because most whites are bigoted, prejudiced, or racist is again, by definition "bigoted," "prejudiced," or "racist." Without polling all white Americans, you cannot tell to any reasonable degree how many if many at all are racist, prejudiced, or bigoted. There. Believing in "white privilege" is believing that the majority of white people are themselves racist, prejudiced, or bigoted without having any proof or self experience to suggest that it is true. BLM is based primarily on two ideas. A, that whites are racist (commonly that holding majority share of power is a requirement, otherwise it is simply prejudice and bigotry) especially that the government and all of its facets are racist and B, that blacks are directly targeted by said racists, especially police and judges. Not to sell short the premise that for "all lives matter" to be an offensive thing and for "black lives matter" to actually be spoken, one must be in the belief that others think that black lives don't matter. I've never heard anybody say that black lives don't matter, just some white supremacists that say they don't matter as much. Nobody listens to white supremacists though and we mostly all hate them. As previously explained, it cannot be legitimately argued that a majority or large amount of whites (or any other large group) are racist/prejudiced/bigoted. Again, the government is simply people representing a social construct. For the government to be racist, once more, it requires that a majority of people in the government to be racist, which you cannot argue because you cannot support with evidence. As previously explained, for the government to be racist, the majority of people must be racist. The majority of eligible candidates for government positions are overwhelmingly white, so it can logically and fairly be assumed that most public servants are white, likely around the 70 something % that they represent in the population. We say for sake of argument about 70% of the government is white, so again, the argument is that government is racist because whites are racist. Cops and judges target blacks because those cops and judges are white, and whites are blah blah blah. It comes entirely down to white people treating black people worse than white people and doing so because they are racist/bigoted/prejudiced. I assert that believing a race is generally or inherently racist because of their race is racist Because racism as an inherent trait is what I would call a defining factor in racial inferiority/superiority. Believing that whites are prejudiced/bigoted is a prejudice or bigotry, because again, it is a thoroughly a negative trait. Therefore the BLM argument is racist/bigoted/prejudiced. If whites are bigoted/racist/prejudiced because they are taught to be, then the teachers and parents must then be one/more of those things themselves and again, this argument and the person making the argument are bigoted/prejudiced/racist. You can apply this to any sort of "privilege" or assertion that some other group holds any sort of belief that one does not have very strong evidence to support. Not to mention that for "male privilege" or a "patriarchy" to occur and you have a population that is majority female... http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-gender/ well, majority men and women must be a bunch of mysoginists. I doubt anybody on my side of the debate believes that there is any sort of miscommunication other than the "newspeak" that the other side is using. BLM is functionally a violent hate group, the idea and holders of the belief of "white privilege" are intolerant and hold excessive amounts of preconceived notions. Nobody (okay, not enough people to matter) ever said that racism doesn't exist or that there aren't thousands or possibly millions or racists in America. It's just that we understand the definitions and we know that we and our friends are not racists so it doesn't apply to us. If everybody and everybody's friends aren't racist, then racism isn't a problem and you need to stop suggesting that we are. You couldn't argue which individual people are racist, let alone that there is "institutional racism." If you did, it would be all about how affirmative action, gun control, the drug war, and welfare are racist, probably because the people that put them into effect did so to oppress people, specifically blacks. Then again, you aren't talking about that, so you have no argument for "institutional racism." I hold firm that no race is generally or inherently inferior or superior to another, but that they are different based on evidence, that all people are different and that I can't say much of anything about a person that I haven't actually met, that neither me nor anybody I keep company with has any intention of treating non-whites any better or worse than whites, and that we don't and haven't treated non-whites any differently. To make the argument that "white privilege" exists or for some reason to make the argument that black lives matter (nobody said they don't) without expressing to me that you believe that I treat all races equally, then you are directly attacking me and you should drink lead acetate. If you do point out how I'm not a racist, you're still arguing that basically everybody else is and you should drink lead acetate. As you can tell, I cannot express all the crap going through my head very well for others to understand. Forgive me if this crap is all over the place. Also, I didn't intend for anything to be based on definitive facts aside for roughly how many Americans are white. Roughly.

People don't need government to want to control you or take your property because they think they or somebody else deserves it more than you. Government simply allows them to live in a society where the status quo is that such actions are good.

I was recently on Youtube (I mean always) and this video was comparing Milton Friedman and Bernie Sanders on healthcare. I replied to a comment on why, guess what? You guessed it, why Friedman was wrong. Blah blah blah, (insert statist argument here) and you get the idea. There was a little back and forth. None of it was particularly aimed at me, but it felt personally threatening. Saying things like we should be forced to buy insurance and that it was a "right" because WHO said so. For healthcare or healthcare access, you have to have doctors or access to them and their labor. I can't have a right to the labor of another person, because that would essentially be slavery. I couldn't help but see every line as him basically telling me that he should be able to force me to do what he wants because "universal healthcare was good." This was quite distinctly aside from his arguments being thoroughly economically unsound. Traditional arguments for the 2nd amendment are all well and good, but that's now what this is about. People generally fail to understand that "government" is simply individual people working to their individual benefit. People like that are just the same as anybody else. Just normal people. These people become politicians and they write the bills and sign them into law. These people lynched blacks in the 60s and earlier in the south. These people rape women in the middle east and little girls in Mexico and Africa. These are people that think doing things that harm other people is okay or even good. Normal people everywhere think harming me for either their benefit or the benefit of the tribe is a positive thing. I need an ar-15 ghost gun assault rifle that fires 30 magazine round clips per second because you and people like you want to harm and enslave me because you think it's good. It's not the government, it's not gangs, it's not the police. It's you and other individual people that may or may not be a politician, or a criminal, or a cop. If you want to force me to work or to pay taxes for what you want or to harm me, I need a gun, especially a scary looking one that shoots lots of bullets because there are a whole lot of you. You scare me. You scare absolutely everybody that feels a need for police or government, a knife, pepper spray, or a gun for defense. You are the one that goes bump in the night, but you don't know, because taking my labor, my freedom, and my property are all good ideas if they get what you want in return. Hitler did it, Stalin did it, Mao did it, and every tyrant that ever lived did it and they knew it was the right thing to do, just like you thought it was right to do. You scare me and you are why I need a gun.

I didn't know it was "educational" satire when I read the title... A collection of evidence supporting the argument that there is no such thing as "white privilege."

Have you been to Earth? The vast majority of people are uneducated, indoctrinated fools. Trying to have any discussion on anything, however trivial, is an experience in trying to educate low IQ people. I find the issue to be time, effort on behalf of the one being educated on learning, and my own access to multitudes of teaching tools to teach tools. I think a lot of us are here just to learn how to teach hairless apes better than we currently do. Per the OP and obviously democracy, are you sure that you really want to say it can't be done and let tyrants rule?

Your argument against me actually supported my argument. Action in context, intent, and responsibility. Unless you meant inaction in a single context, but action in another may still be referred to as "inaction," which is something I believe I quite clearly dismissed in my original response. You apparently acknowledged this, when you typed, "inactive towards all of them but one." in which action is being taken. Said inaction is to not take action in one context, but to take action in another. Awareness of not taking action in one context, but to take action in another is acknowledging both contexts and as an action in itself deciding to act in the second context. I.e., you are aware of "a" and "b," but decided to act on "b." This is a negative action on "a" because you are aware of it and make a decision on it to act on b instead. I thoroughly meant what I just typed, although it may be irrelevant bullshit about the definitions of, "action" and "inaction" while having nothing to do with the topic. In which possible case, I apologize.

sans physical evidence, admission and character witness, determining "credibility" is to determine a thought crime. One thing is one thing and another is another, but is there mens rea? Saying or writing words are acts. What I was referring to was not the act of making a threat but acting out said threat.

From what I have read, and you can decide to google it or not, fluid intelligence can grow, albeit temporarily through learning. From what I recall, a person can study and learn, and in doing so, their fluid intelligence will continue to grow so long as they study and learn. Use it or lose it sort of thing. I would liken it to weight lifting. So long as you lift, eat, and rest properly, your body will add muscle and retain it until you stop and go back to normal. That wasn't my initial argument, just a response to yours. Children, and mentally retarded people are well known to understand that hitting is bad, that theft is bad. So long as they can learn economic and mathematic systems, they can apply moral reasoning. All you have to do is educate people and they can come to the moral conclusions. Either the person is morally bankrupt for liking communism or they lack information and need to be educated. If you consider logical reasoning to occur in steps, so long as a stupid person has the steps physically listed in front of them like a "times table," then they can come to the same conclusions as a highly intelligent individual that can devise new steps on his/her own. The less intelligent they are, the more plainly each step of logic must be expressed. This is why schooling has reading and visuals. I can get the gist of sciences I've never read of or heard of by reading or hearing about it once. Some people may need to hear it twice and some people may have to start at single digit addition and subtraction using their fingers. not being able to make and test conclusions does not mean that you can't read the conclusions and tests that others may put forward. Supply the information and supply it in the order in which it is required.

I would argue that there is no such thing as "inaction." All there is is making a different action not directly relating to the context that you are referring to. I suppose inaction would require non-existence. Inaction within a context requires action in another context. Your argument denies responsibility, but this would be an entirely different discussion. That discussion being whether an action taken had intent within a general context. E.g., not voting in support of a mainstream candidate. Then you would determine that there is responsibility. Fact is, if you don't vote because you think a person will win the vote anyway, you are making an action in support of that occurring and have responsibility for that candidate winning a vote. If you don't vote because you think the system is rigged and your vote doesn't actually have an effect, then supposing you are right, you have no responsibility for the outcome. Supposing that you are wrong and your vote does count, you are both responsible and ignorant. Given the voting system in the US, can you say for absolutely certain, with supporting facts, that a vote in general has a value or not? "In general," meaning regardless of what you vote or what you register and regardless of voter fraud occurring in various places, whether static or random? Are votes in general counted and thus used to elect, for example, POTUS, or are they not? As per the OP, what kind of moron believes what politicians say? Trump has expressed that the dumb crap he says on tv is attention whoring.

The argument against government is that it coerces via force and that it is not voluntary. I can't personally say that making threats to get what you want is immoral. The act is what is immoral. A government that doesn't use force has no power. It would simply be somebody proposing an idea and everybody agreeing to go along with it. This would technically require all members of a group to be particularly intelligent to all agree to an idea and for the ideas to all be good to begin with. Either 1, everybody agrees because all "government" propositions are thoroughly correct and perfect (utopia), 2, some people agree and those that don't can do whatever they choose instead (ancap), or 3, there are plenty of stupid people that decide that you can go eat a dick and they start a government that will and does use force to control you. The first scenario is make believe. The second scenario requires that all members have a minimum level of intelligence (105+) imo, anyway. The third scenario is what seems to be every form of government ever. Your inquiry only leads to two possibilities, government using force and lack of government. Unless enforced by government, insurance contracts are voluntary. In a free society, supposing an insurance company violates a contract and uses force, you can defend yourself. Said insurance company would lose most, if not all business after being known to break contract and come after you like the mob. You cannot defend yourself against a government and if the government breaks contract and uses force, either everybody complies or everybody becomes property of the government power. government is force by definition, government is not voluntary, insurance contracts are voluntary and at no point require violence.

Technically, you can only think something is true. Cogito, ergo sum is what I would call an exception to that rule. The way you put it implies that people should agree with that you tell them is true instead of what somebody else tells them is true. We can't convince people the truth by simply telling them what we think the truth is. We have to teach them how to find the truth themselves by teaching them how to think and supplying them with evidence.

Minimum monthly charge or x% after x exceeds the minimum. Subtract the fee, then subtract the cost of materials. For example, $50 monthly charge or 10%. If profits are 100$, you simply receive the $50 monthly fee and cost of materials. The child receives the rest. If profits are $500 that month, 10% would equal $50, so it would only cost the base 50+ materials. $600 profit would equal $60, so instead of the base $50, they pay the 10%, or $60 + materials. Essentially, you aren't looking to make a profit off of the children, but you also aren't looking to do it for free. Even if the profit is $10, you still covered your own costs and the children still have the experience. Supposing you have a golden goose or two, the children benefit greatly and you are rewarded for having supplied the opportunity.

We just have to continue to educate people. They simply agree with who society told them to agree with. They need to be taught how to agree with what they actually think is right regardless of who says it.