M.2

I'm sorry. Could you point out where I said something like that? I would be happy to modify my point, were it so misunderstandable. if it helps, I'll try clarifying something. When I look for a male friend, I only look for those whom I can go to war with, those who will not "shoot me in the back" either because of stupidity, incompetence, mental problems, physical weekness, dubious moral fibre, or the ​unwillingness to punch someone in the nose. ​In order to become able to punch somone inthe nose, you have to have been punched in the nose before, and also to have punched a number of others in the nose. Whether it happened because you were a jerk, or a hero, I really don't care.

I would like to open a thread regarding masculinity, and also the lack thereof. (I really hope this gets past moderation despite some of the unorthodox claims I may make, because I consider this topic very very important.) I'm sure we have all seen the meme comparing a Young male model, essentially indistinguishable from a 9yo girl, to a grim medieval Templar knight ready to behead some heathens. Seeing all the memes comparing the wussy men of today and the badass men of the past, there seems to be a certain awareness arising among young men in particular that something is headed in a terribly wrong direction pertaining to masculinity. I myself am a young man, but I have only noticed this problem when I moved to the West. In my case, at age 11, when I had a conflict with another western boy, I was shocked to find that it was strictly prohibited to engage in... aggressive physical dialogue. I was completely baffled, since until then all I ever got for fighting was the slight wagging of a finger. In my mind, the mutual agreement to fight a duel was a completely legitimate way to solve a problem. It did not traverse the non-aggression principle, since both of us took part willingly. Getting to the point... What I witnessed was that prohibition of fighting never solved any underlying problems between boys. Instead, the boys began learning what the girls were doing. Boys no longer sorted out conflicts between themselves as men, but they gossiped about each other, ruined each others property, or worse, ran to the teacher (government) to resolve the conflict. This never in my experience resulted in reslution, rather it simply deepened the distrust between boys, added more injustice upon injustice, and in the end boys never truly learned how to behave like a man would have to in the real world that lies beyond the walls of Hadrian. Contrastly, in Eastern and Northern Asia, men still fight. (You may want to look up how members of the South Korean Parliament behave on special occasions, because it is pretty funny.) There are several reasons why fighting is still culturally acceptable in Japan, Korea, Russia, Mongolia and Taiwan in particular. Conflicts will happen. These countries live in an eternal awareness that an invasion from... China lets say is always a possibility. And the sheer man-power of the PLR suggests that every single man will have to take his part. In more everyday situations, individual people, just like nations, have, always will have insoluable conflicts of interest. Therefore, some conflicts will have to decided though brute force (see WW1 and WW2). Contrary to what the Victorians said, a duel is not a barbaric act of violence, but in fact it is mere communication. If a man is willing to fight me for his interests, that indicates a lot of good qualities: perseverance, backbone, courage, stamina, and provided that he keeps the unwritten rules of war, he is also a gentleman. Therefore, I no longer would want him as my enemy, but as my ally, and no matter who wins the battle, my respect for him is undying. Most fights in East-Asia are basically duels, and they hardly ever get legal authorities envolved. Even when one party is severely injured, if the fight was fair, nobody takes it to court, and in such cases, the prevailant takes the victim to the hospital. It teaches a few vital of life lessons such as: life isnt fair, there is no mommy nor a government, humility, independence, the value of male friendship, alertness, the fragility of Human Life. This is my opinion on what is wrong with the men of today.

I don't know... All this sounds complicated. Apparently, we in Hungary just beat the living crap out of them at the border, then ask them if they would still like to stay. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-crisis-hungary-border-police-guards-fence-beating-asylum-seekers-migrants-serbia-push-back-a7610411.html What we really do, is of course not so simple. If you are interested in what we do that Works for us so well, I have written a very detailed summary under the title: The Truth about the Migrant Criris and Hungary

I second that. I too think that more weapons like humour and theatricality would expand the reach of FDR considerably. After all, that it what attracts people. I personally very much appreciate his British humour, whenever he uses it, thus I pay more attention to those speeches in which I can expect to hear some. However, I am quite sure that Mr.Molyneux refrains from this path deliberately. It is not like he doesn't know how to do this stuff. Perhaps someone could explain why he doesn't take that route more often.

Thanks for the question, Rventurelli. I see you take my words seriously, hence I am honoured. - First, it is all a private opinion of his, and he made it very clear that he would not make it law. - Second, I am not well versed in the subject of homosexuality, but as he said, I can imagine that the catholic priest who molested him, may have in fact saved him from suicide. I would never let my children anywhere near a man like that, but it is quite clear that Milo had no such parents. It certainly was not a good thing that he was molested, although it may have just saved his life. I believe that is why he would not report that person. - In short, yes, I can bring myself to agree with everything he said. Especially when he made the remark that no, rape is not the worst thing that can happen to you.

Why does this topic have so many downvotes? Is the biting of nails not a legitimate psychological concern? Is it that Mr.Molyneux does in fact not bite his nails? I genuinely don't understand.

The question was not whether they were surrendering. It was if they were surrendering conditionally or unconditionally. For whatever reason, the US rejected the conditions and demanded unconditional surrender.

There is not completely unbiased/ethical News source. The best you can do is learn languages, so that you can read what everyone says. The truth always lies somewhere in between. My luck is that I understand Mongolian, Hungarian, English, German, Russian. And I regularly exchange information with my brother, who understands French and Dutch in addition. Also, I often converse with people who speak Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, Danish, Swedish, Romanian, Italian and Arabic. This is the only way to get the full picture You would be surprised how much of reality gets lost in translation. Even well-intentined News outlets get things wrong because of language limitations. .

I believe this summarises the arguments put forward by Mr.Molyneux. http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_weber.html In researching this topic for myself, I have found many conflicting data and sources. However, there are some things everyone agrees on: 1. Japan was losing 2. The japanese government was not in agreement over the issue of surrender. 3. The japanese pled for a conditional surrender before the bombs. (contents are not agreed upon) The plea was rejected nevertheless. 4. 2 Bombs were dropped. Motives are not agreed upon. 3. It was Emperor Hirohito who gave the final Word to surrender unconditionally. He personally broadcasted via radio to his troops and citizens. My argument: Asia! We are talking about a country in Asia. The conventional rules of war do not apply in Asia. The personal opinions of Eisenhower and others do not matter, since they did not know the mentality of the japanese people. We have as example the case of China: When Japan invaded China, they had seized all means of production, all major cities. There was no China anymore. And yet, somehow, the war was still on with the chinese. With the japanese being even more stubborn that the chinese, I would argue that the japanese people would have continued to fight if the Emperor had not ordered his people to stand down. And no, the Emperor was not the dictator of Japan, he was the god of the japanese people, and even the amiracans knew that the Emperor cannot be removed. You cannot remove a god. The one in charge of the war was Hideki-Tojo, the prime minister, who was fired by the Emperor shortly before the end. According to the Emperor himself, it was the bombs that persuaded him to take the Wheel and surrender. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hirohito.htm http://www.taiwandocuments.org/receipt.htm https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hirohito Remaining Question: Was the USA justified in seeking unconditional surrender from the Japan? Was the USSR right in rejecting a conditional surrender from Germany? We do not know. Everyone who claims to know is just speculating. The Emperor's Word ended the war, and that's that.

Hi, Marshall! We used to be affiliated with a homeschool co-op. Although homeschooling is the best thing that ever happened in my childhood, the co-op was terrible. Not because they were christians, but because they were stern catholic haters (I am cathiloc). I can only imagine how they feel about atheists. So I feel you. That being said, as you probably know as well, the evangelical protestants are darn good at this homeschooling thing, and it has much to do with them being protestant. So I suggest you learn from them what you can, then leave the sht behind.

Allow me to play devil's advocate here. The phrase in question is "religion is the cause of all wars". Religion in its contemporary sense according to Webster is: 1a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith ​War according to Webster: 1a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of warb : the art or science of warfarec (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic : soldiers armed and equipped for war 2a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonismb : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end <a class war> <a war against disease>c : variance, odds 3 Ethymology of the Word "religion": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio In short, it can be traced back to the Romans, but in its modern use, it was made prominent by St Augustine. We must remember, that atheism is not an ancient thing. In fact virtually everyone before the year 1900 was religious. Therefore, it would be untrue to claim that religion had absolutely nothing to do with war. Nearly every religion justifies war one way or another. Yes, even Buddhism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1959_Tibetan_uprisinghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_Tibetan_Rebelli Just war doctrine (no, not theory, but doctrine) of the Catholic Church: http://www.milarch.org/catholic-teaching-on-peace/ Religion may not have been the direct cause every time, but it was certainly one of the causes. If all religions had taught that absolutely no human can be killed under any circumstance, then perhaps there would have been no war ever. The sorry fact is, however, that a pacifist religion would not last long in the real World. The question now is: "Is the solution to have no religion at all then?" In my opinion, atheism is still in its incubation phase. There has not been too many testing done with atheist cultures, although every single early testing resulted in a catastrophic failiure: Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Sweden, France... (Still awaiting results from Chechia, Japan, Spain, Netherlands, Canada, Estonia, Latvia...)

Very well, neeeel. For sake of argument, I shall concede on the volunteering example. Even though I take offence to your words. What would you do with the example of kamikaze pilots? - Remember, the japanese had no notion of eternal life, which means they did not have the satisfaction that jihadis have after death. - They themselves would clearly not enjoy the fruit of their actions, since they would die. - They were very young men with no wives or children, which means their family would not enjoy the fruit of their actions. - When they crashed into the American ships, they yelled loud and clear: "Long live the Emperor.". Do you doubt their claim? So what did they do it for? The rush?

- Homes for the disabled are not businesses. They are supported by us, who are not necessarily disabled. And we support them financially willingly even when they are state sponsored. - Sureley,with due respect, Neeeel is mistaken. I have done volunteer work, and I can assure him that often times getting up at 6 for someone else and for no profit for me is very much selflessness defined. - Otherwise, there have been so many examples of selfless action in history that I do not believe I need to refer to a single one. Yet I will: Now that I have already brought up the spartans as an example of Utilitarianists, let's talk about the 300 Spartans (yes, I know there were more like 700-1500 greeks there), who were aware that they would die holding off the Persians until the Greeks mobilise. If you don't call that selfless action, I'm happy to hear a good opposing argument. - I'm not sure where, but Mr.Molyneux has talked about selflessness as well, as an evolutionary trait of humans and animals. It is necessary for the survival of the species.

I think this a flawed survey. Morality is subject to religion and belief. Asking people in a fundamentally christian country about who is moral does not prove much. Only that apparently America is still relatively Christian, which includes American Atheists. A Chinese or a Cambodian atheist probably would not agree with a Western atheist on any morals.

Hi, Da Vinci! Love your topics! What you speak of is called Utilitarianism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism Despite how using people appears to be the default way people interact with each other, there is a case to be made that it is not how people instinctively look at each other. The argument is that yes, there were societies in history like the Spartans, who viewed each other only as soldiers (tools of war), but it is notable that they were never the norm. The majority of societies instinctively know that man is not merely a tool, rather something greater, even divine. So although utilitarianism passes as a legitimate theory in the intellectual realm, in the real World, it does not. All you have to do to know how garbage of a theory it really is, is to visit a home for children with down-syndrome. Those children will never be of any "use" to Society, but we still instinctively take care of them, regarding them not as tools, but as fellow divine creatures. Supposing you are healthy that is. In short, yes, it is evil, since it is against our nature. Chinese and Japanese cultures (as two extremes), despite how differently they fare, are both plagued by Utilitarianism, and they are not nice places to be individuals in.

Of all the political figures in the Anglo-Saxon World, Milo is my favourite. Not only because I agree with him on everything, but also because he is a real-life troll. The purpose of a troll is to get people to show their true colours without letting the them know what is really going on. It is fun do do on the internet, but it takes guts in real life. Most respectable.

"Economics is the scientific study of the ownership, use, and exchange of scarce resources - often shortened to the science of scarcity. Economics is regarded as a social science because it uses scientific methods to build theories that can help explain the behaviour of individuals, groups and organisations. Economics attempts to explain economic behaviour, which arises when scarce resources are exchanged." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Competitive_markets/What_is_economics.html(another 2 seconds of my life) I shall not respond to your other points, since you have not read my words correctly. And you have been intellectually lazy.

With all the talk of free speech these days, with Milo's crusade finally exposing the limits to free expression in USA, I was wondering how far one can go in other countries without getting shut down. According to the UN: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers "In adopting the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Monaco, Australia and the Netherlands insisted on reservations to Article 19 insofar as it might be held to affect their systems of regulating and licensing broadcasting" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country It is quite clear that every country in the World has a dofferent approach to the subject, and nobody really takes the decrees of the UN seriously. Germany, in my opinion has the toughest laws in the Western World. Their set of laws even has a name: Volksverhetzung (incitement of the people). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung I had to share this one just for laughs. Malta has only 1 single law limiting speech: Blasphemy against the Roman Catholic church is illegal in Malta Chechia has a peculiar one: Censorship is not permitted. I might add more to this topic as I continue my Research. As a general rule to where countries draw the line: - All countries: advocacy for violence, blasphemy, racist speech... - North America: Racist Speech seems to be the only thing they are really sensitive to - South America: Advocating for the toppling of the state or disrespecting the rulers are frowned upon, but loosely enforced. - Western Europe: They can virtually jail you for anything. - Southern Europe: Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are off limits, but anything else is in practice fair game. - Eastern Europe: Hate speech against foreign heads of state, religion or an ethnic group are illegal, but hardly ever enforced. - North Africa: Anything can get you killed, but speech against Allah especially - Sub-Sahara: Impossible to generalise - Middle East: Allah. Nothing else is enforced in practice - Israel: Criticism of the state of Israel is, although not exactly illegal, strongly frowned upon. - Central Asia: Speech against religion, the stability of the State, and Allah are no go - East Asia: With the exception of China, nobody really cares, since nobody really breaks any of those laws. - South Asia: Heads of State, Religion are off limits, but hardly ever enforced. - Oceania: Nobody cares.

I love how Poland is so anti-muslim. Even though literally no incidents happened there yet. Seems like there will come a time again when Jan Sobieski has to storm down with his Winged Hussars upon the heathens at gates of Vienna, while the most distinguished West arrives only to watch the blood paint the Danube red, signaling the Turks down at the Black Sea, that there are still some in Europe still true to the Faith.

Yes, you need a ton of science to pick blueberries. You need to figure out what container they can be transported in without spoiling them, at what temperature they should be stored, at what level of humidity they can be kept in, whether they need air or not, how to repell insects and pests from them, or where you can find a blueberry bush in the first place. All science I bet nobody on this forum knows about. https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/edible/fruits/blueberries/tips-on-harvesting-blueberries.htm http://berrygrape.org/post-harvest-handling-of-blueberries/ (literally took 2 seconds to look up) That is quite a bit of a logical leap there. Free market = absence of violence? I am reminded of the event when a certain American Commodore Perry blew open the gates of Japan, forcing the free market upon them. Well, he didn't fire a shot, but I find it hard to believe that one needs 8 warships for free-market negotiations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_C._Perry#Opening_of_Key_West https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93United_States_relations Also, the free market is a result of science as well. A branch of science called economics. And it is only theoretical. There never was, and never will be a true "free market".

I can see your point, Teabagger, but clearly your premise is that the market came before science. Could the argument be made that it was science that enabled the free market? Hear me out: Free market is trade, a trading of goods. But how did those goods come to be? Clearly through innovation, research and work...Science. A stone-age spear does not grow in the wild. Somebody had to put in the time and effort to research which stone is the most suitable for use, which Wood, and eventually, how to put those two together. And then had he made a piece of good that nobody else around him had, laying down the foundations for trade. Without goods to trade, or the science to create them, there was no need for the free market, or any market for that matter, to exist. What do you think?

So naive, such a shame. Freedom, within that freedom of expression is like a Bugatti. You pay for it in blood and sweat, you risk losing everything once you drive, and you should not pick up fishy hitchhikers who may crash your car with you in it. Eastern Europeans have no Bugatti, just a Lada (partial freedoms), but they cherish it and protect it and share a ride only with those they know value their Lada as much as they do.

Nigel Farage on Globalism Trent Horn on Abortion Tim Staples or Jimmy akin on Christianity Bashar Al-Assad or his wife on the side we never hear about in the West Benjamin Netanyahu on how to be a badboy Barack Obama on his legacy

I think this thread begs the definitions of Good and Evil. Otherwise there is no point in arguing. Some people may even deny the existence of objective Evil. As Albert Einstein said: "Evil is the absence of Good". So what is Good then? It is being discussed here: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/49077-what-is-goodness/

Hi, themortalgod! (love the name) There is definitely a lot to unpack there, I think Wuzzums has covered the Dr.Manhattan part very well. Approaching God and religion in an intellectual way is a very exciting but long journey, still much more appealing to thinkers than the emotional path. What we know is that many very smart people have already made that journey, and they have written about it. By my experience, I know that I will never be able to convince you of anything, since I am only 20. However, I don't have to, because there is an ocean of resources provided by the Catholic Church. I hope your curiousity will lead you to Research: Directly for your question: https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/god For bite-sized answers: https://www.youtube.com/user/catholiccom For detailed answers: https://www.catholic.com/ For very deep philosophical answers: http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/