ValueOfBrevity

I think people often feel that something is wrong, but haven't put time into the argumentation. Instead of presenting a rational argument, they go with their gut feeling (often driven by cognitive dissonance) and say things are "disgusting", "evil", or "problematic". What they mean is that they are personally disgusted and that it causes problems in their world view. Your time would be better spent explaining why their feelings are not convincing you to change your perspective. A catty T-shirt will only dilute the meaning of "Not an Argument".

'Racism' is both overused and misused. The majority of people who use the word 'racist' aren't even describing racial prejudice, but facts abouts race they don't like.

You are claiming that a person cannot be adversely affected by minimum wage laws? If there is only one paying job per 100 people, are the other 99 not willing to work?

Well I can improve myself and enjoy my life more, or I can decide that I'm better off getting the shit beat out of me every night, living in filth, and letting my teeth rot out of my skull. What exactly appealed to you in the life of Tyler Durden?

When one cannot find a legal means of acquiring income. For example, minimum wages laws prevent one from finding a job when the production value of their labor skills is under the minimum wage.

The people paying all those taxes would stop producing wealth for the society. What happens in the US if you, for example, owe property taxes but cannot get a job? I am guessing unemployment insurance isn't enough to cover property taxes for most people.

If he, for example, supported safe spaces in college universities. If he allowed massive unvetted immigration into the United States. If he supported the buying of government power by special interests. I don't think it's possible for Trump to keep all of his campaign promises, but we'll have wait and see. Have you seen this video yet?

Really? You only care about one issue?

I think you're correct about the change in the show. Steph's philosophy has been anti-voting for most of the shows history. He has stated, however, that the importance of the current election was tantamount to the continuation of western philosophy. We have empirical data about Syrian refugees in Europe, as well as the trending political correctness (control of language, ideas). This was a vote against those. So, even if we are taking part in something we know will not be part of a voluntary society, we are protecting the future of the the ideas we truly believe in. If a voluntary society is the chick, then the US is the egg. Steph wants to protect the egg while he inseminates it with sweet, sticky knowledge. It's a pragmatic view, but I have to agree with him on these grounds. I would love it if Steph would slow down and explore philosophy again, rather than just politics. His older content is exceptional. We all know you're smarter than this. Why not add your intelligence to the conversation?

If I can vote to reduce government intervention, it is better for liberty. You are arguing that we do not have absolute freedom, therefore there is no difference between violence and not violence. Not violence is still better, Dsayers. How is it a false dichotomy when there are only two potential outcomes in the election? Voting barely affects the election anyway, what effect does not voting have?

It is not illogical to accept reality. The reality is that Trump is better for individual liberties in the United States. He's better for the internet, better for eroding the political system, and has faced the private (voluntary) market for decades. He is better for national security (ISIS, refugees). Why imply that voting to reduce the negative effects of government is...bad? You seem to reject pragmatism; you are being dogmatic. My SO thinks every utterance is an argument and can be fallacious.

Sampling more democrats in a poll than republicans will provide a false conclusion. What does voter registration have to do with polls where people are not required to register???

Why do you assume that people misunderstand your poll? Post your poll and accept the results like a gentleman. Actually, labeling voter fraud and oversampling accusations as "cute" is not an argument.

Trump is a step in the right direction. What does this mean?

Only OP said that it reveals one's heart. Shirgall claimed it as empirical data, which I agree with. Reaching conclusions in this way, however, will be inaccurate for reasons I stated above (not being comfortable around kids, etc). I'm not at all comfortable around children, but I treat them with respect and try to be honest with them. Your point about someone faking being nice to kids is interesting. You're describing a sociopath, right? I guess this is the crux of our disagreement. Yes, how people interact with others is empirical data about their true nature (morality, heart, w/e). I also agree that this data is not a full determinant.

How are resources not attractive to men? Female resources are better for offspring as well. How is beauty not attractive to women? Attractive (good looking) men get more women. I don't find it very appreciative of any individual to lie to them. Makeup is not a function of hygiene. A man who dresses in nice suits but is dirt poor is lying, too.

Lyrics are often ambiguous in order to appeal to universal themes. In other words, they reach a wider audience if they are cryptic.

When I see women with even moderate makeup, my penis emits an audible "nope". Then why don't most men wear makeup if it's such an indication of self-worth?

Together-Whenever-Wherever (and now you as well, shirgall) are claiming that we can determine someones morality from their interactions with children. Many people are not comfortable with children, are not socially comfortable, or do not outwardly express "their heart". To judge someone solely on their interactions with children is to dismiss what they actually think of , for example, personal liberties. Unless you are setting up control groups of people for your date to interact with, it is still unscientific.

Yours is a very vague, unscientific, claim. Many people are uneasy around children, don't like children, or are simply awkward because they don't have children. This doesn't make them bad people.

As we live our lives, we develop individual perspectives about reality. When we talk to other people, we compare our version to theirs. If we are honest with ourselves, we listen to others and respect our own ignorance.

Hire public sector workers? How does this add wealth to the society? Surely, if Nima didn't steal money from the private sector to employ government bureaucrats, the money would have been better allocated in the private sector which faces the market.

Can you please expand on this?

Are claiming that governments with fiat currency (trust-backed, rather than by a scarce commodity) create a disincentive for saving money because of inflation? In a fiat money system, what is the disincentive to taxing more and spending less? Can fiat currency exist in a voluntary society? I am sincerely curious.

Why does it matter whether they usually had anal sex? I doubt any real-time relationships were built on forcing your partner to have sex.