Rventurelli

Not trying to shoot you guys down in anyway -- I do find those ideas good, but Mr. Molyneux already makes a bunch of jokes in his show. I remember one for example, where he had a guest on and he mentioned that men's bell curve of intelligence looks more like a tit while women's is shaped more like a penis and both me and the guest laughed hysterically.

Take into consideration as well, that most of the people with degrees in economics do not work as economists. Most of them become managers, sometimes in banks, sometimes in the local McDonald's. It is an area that to really work in the field you need at least a Master's degree.

Massive starvation, wars...

Whenever you are ready. Nonetheless I must say that you will probably find no challenge on me, since I am a decent player at best.

Joined Mr. President!

"If you know yourself and your enemy, you don't need to fear the result of a thousand battles" - Sun Tzu.

If automation continues (assuming we do not come back to the Dark Ages, which for me is more likely), there will be a situation where more than half of all humans will have no employment whatsoever they can take. Automation will not come only for manual labour, but will come for news feeds as well and others. Writing news articles will probably be done by AIs and the same goes for costumer service phone lines.

I had a teacher in high school one time make me notice that if I read it out loud a text I could not remember at all what I was reading. It was very strange, I never, ever read it out loud, only did that in school, and for some reason, when I did it, I simply could remember no word at all about what I read. Tried my best to solve that, but still, I can only vaguely remember a word or two, so what I do if I have to read someone something, is that either I read it to myself first and paraphrase it, or read it first for myself and them loud to the person, that way still being able to remember what I read to myself. I am a total visual learner.

What about his positive comments about his sexual molester when he was a teenager or the way he said that the best thing that can help to homosexual boys (presumably he meant 16-17 year old males) is to have relationships with older homosexuals? I know you posted it before all the controversy, so I will not assume that you agree with him on those.

Online dating has all sorts of problems due to its pre-selected crowd. What I would recommend is to try to use proxy interests as a form to meet people, even if it is online. For example, there is this social media website about music called Tastebuds that help you find people with a similar music taste to yours. Was able to get two dates out of it. One was a self-described Fascist and the other one a social conservative. Also chatted for a while with another one who was Alternative Right. Most people do not realize it, but you can very accurately judge someone's ideology by their time killers.

Be mindful that if you have a car, your possibilities expand dramatically.

More background information about you and your house please.

To be honest, you should just be more careful, but there is nothing really to feel guilty about. I had myself a negligent discharge only once, since I was handling the firearm safely in every other regard, nothing happened. So I learned from the experience. What happened was that I was in the range with a rifle and my Smith & Wesson Model 686 revolver. I always shoot revolvers in single action. I had one bullet misfire, but my automatic reaction is already to cock the hammer regardless, unless it is supposed to be the last round in the cylinder. With the barrel downrange I tried to push the cylinder out to put more bullets in but ended up touching the trigger. Since the hammer was already cocked, the next round chambered and fired. I felt very stupid and guilty, but nothing really happened. Lesson learned: never try to remove the cylinder with the hammer cocked. (Otherwise revolvers have really heavy trigger pulls, so this kind of thing does not happen)

Well, an act of force in self-defense is a violent act, even though it is justified and therefore not immoral. But since the original question is what is the difference between physical force and violence... I would say that if you are for example at the gymnasium using physical force to lift weights or to punch a punching bag, that is not violent, although you are still using force.

So please call. Even if he does hang up on you and/or makes a false dichotomy, that would at least lunch the seeds in the air and get other people thinking about it. You also could be surprised in a positive way and could actually get him to concede to some of your points -- you never know unless you try.

God existing does not validate any religion. Religion and God are two separate things entirely. That being the case, I would not take the worshiping commandment literally.

I would say that Nietzsche was right in the sense that nothing is truly erased if it is not substituted. There are no true, one hundred percent atheists. There is always the vestige or the reference of the majority religion or the one you have been raised into. When someone is atheist, my belief that they are actually "post-Christian" or whatever the religion they stopped following or never really got into.

As a manner of self-preservation. The logic goes like this: the only guaranteed way of having something done is doing it yourself. The only guaranteed way of having food for your country/people is producing it yourself. So, if a country has an extremely high population density, like 300+ persons per square kilometer, it would be justified from their point of view to acquire land. And there you have a big part of the reason why tribes originally expanded.

Agreed.

it is not only that someone who fears God is less inclined to do evil -- you might be inspired to do good deeds by Jesus or whatever. Not everything that humans do is in self-interest or motivated out of fear.

In all of us, even good men, there is an unruly beast waiting to take over if the circumstances are right. Quoting Plato here, but cannot remember which page of The Republic or if that is the exact quote.

In my definition, racism is when someone wants to rule over other races, not seeing them as people.

There is not only right and left. There is also Nationalism/Fascism/reactionarism/traditionalism (those are not exactly the same thing) which is called Third position. What people there see as leftism is the new left mostly, so for example, homosexual marriage. It is not that uncommon for someone to break a lamp in the face of a man who is acting in a very effeminate way there. The image of friendliness and "everything is allowed" in Latin America is a media creation. The idea is that they believe a military coup or a Third Position one will come again. Getúlio Vargas, a fascist dictator is well loved in Brazil. He happens to be an ancestor of mine. When I still lived there, every time someone heard about it they would start saying "wow, what is someone important as you doing here?" or "Too bad we don't have Vargas anymore".

Someone hands you a packet with 100 M&M's, you know three of them to be poisoned... How many will you eat?

I am not sure if that has changed over time, but the Netherlands had this image, at least until recently, that absolutely everything is/was permitted, even sex in the middle of the streets after 2200 or something like that. I am sure that this vision is and was exaggerated, but how is the general sentiment of the populous in so far as what they are/are not allowed to do?