ofd

With that definition every single president, even Washington, was bad. See the Whisky rebellion for details.

The most important discovery was that atomic subparticles are different compared to atomic particles and molecules. Before Heisenberg, it was assumed that they are similar. The analogy is that the parts of a bike are different from a bike. The parts that make a bike are not tiny bikes, but look different, like wheels, a brake, and a saddle. Put together, they make a bike but for themselves alone they look and behave differently.

The original question was "Pro Life and Pro Choice: Murder or Not Murder?". The common definition for murder is legal, you may like it or not. If you apply the NAP consistently, you will see that there is neither a killing nor a person involved in abortions. Rothbard applies the NAP here, without going into details about more specific moralistic questions. You can do immoral acts (killing a dog you buy every day) that are perfectly within the confines of the NAP. Sure buddy. At most, you have created a positive obligation with yourself because the fetus can't agree to a contract. And you can break postiive obligatoins with yourself without breaking the NAP.

The problem with the measurement 'only' occurs when quantum phenomena are not measured or if they don't interfere with other particles. Once that happens, they get an eigenstate and eigenvalue.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/technology/a-step-closer-to-skynet-ai-invents-a-language-humans-can-t-read/article/498142 Looking forward for the first AI to call in.

Which problem is that?

The majority of Americans didn't accept those ideas or ideologies, it was the Cathedral that did it. Goldbug coined the term Cathedral to identify an informal network of academia, media companies, bureaucrats, and NGOs that have de facto created the cultural hegemony in Western countries. The Marxists and Cultural Marxists in the strict sense realized that you don't have to control the economy or the military power to take over a country. Before there was the internet, you needed relatively few people on the top to do just that. Take over an institution, change the parameters of what can and cannot be said and select the people that can advance in your institution and in a few years you have converted it. The Cathedral is amorphous and decentral, there is no vast conspiracy behind. The people in there are led by false incentives that will eventually destroy Western Culture. Ironically, Chomsky realized that with his propaganda model in which he showed how media companies filter out people that don't fit it, so you have a uniform perspective in the end. In the end it didn't matter if Americans outside the Cathedral were convinced or not. It didn't matter if you agreed with it or not, before the internet. If you agreed, you could join them. If you didn't, you couldn't. In the latter case that meant that it was hard to shape public discourse the way media and academia did for a long time.

I could go on, and explain again what Rothbard wrote in great detail, but I won't. Here is the pertinent quote. If you find a mistake in that reasoning, let me know.

What about them? If you let false news, gossip, and other people's opinions dictate your everyday life and major decisions you are an idiot. Of course, and rightly so. No. They live in a filter bubble and have few to no orignal thoughts outside the confines of their reality. Laci Green didn't suddenly wake up, do some research and heavy thinking. Instead, she banged an 'alt-right' guy, defended him and was then expelled from the synagogue of SJW. For most people, facts don't matter. See cognitive dissonance for a further discussion on that. as one smart fellow wrote, several years ago: That epistemology doesn't hold true for everyday life. You can have a perfectly normal life, believing absurd things. False news don't influence the way you brush teeth, when you go go bed, what job you pick and so on. Unless you live in a cult, your everyday life will be roughly the same.

What makes you think that? Of course that's murder. Not under the NAP. Read the Rothbard article I posted.

Can you give an example where hard to find information has practical implications for everyday life?

You are confusing the physicists with the social scientists, psychologists, sociologists, and critics who belonged to the Frankfurt School or who were sympathtetic to it. Furthermore, the same ideology came into existence in the US, prior to the Frankfurt emigrating to the US. Franz Boas and Margarete Meat started the change they wanted to see in Anthropology, but they planned to infect other sciences as well (which they accomplished).

Schrödinger really had a strange way of hating it, by contributing a lot to its understanding.

Oh yeah, they recently discovered the Roman recipe for concrete. The problem are the push and pull forces. Concrete works fine with push forces, not so good with pull forces. To make up for that, you pick up a (cheap) material with the opposite set of attributes, iron.

The scientific theory happened. Look it up, it's pretty cool. No surprise there. The theory goes back to Svante Arrhenius who discovered the green house effect in 1895. Have you ever been to physics conference? The opposite is true. If you had paid attention at school, or if you had invested 2 minutes of research you might have realized that redox reactions ('rust and dust') occur in the case of iron in concrete when water and oxygen interact with it. If there are fractues in the concrete, that allow water to get in, you will have the reaction. If you prevent that, the iron doesn't oxidize. As do I, but for different reasons.

The main activitiy of communist group nowadays is not the global revolution, as one might think, but to stay ideologically pure and to fight other splinter groups. Many Libertarian / Ancap groups are the same now, with the difference that they open up to ideas of 'justice'. The thin vs. thick debate two years ago delineated the two groups, with the thin libertarians now being pushed out. Popular events now are in name only about Freedom, in reality they are a variation of SJW meet up.s

Gnon is a way for saying that systems that have the factor X tend to survive and thrive, while those that don't have it will decline and eventually die off. Both Christians and agnostics can agree with since it can be found in scripture, evolutionary biology, game theory, Ruth Milikan's work, economics, and the theory of convergent instrumental values.

It's not an implicit contract or agreement. Those only happen when you agree by doing what you do. They don't have to be written down or said loud. Not according to the NAP. The fetus is not a moral agent according to the NAP. Hence, an abortion is not murder. In itself, the NAP is binary. Either something violates it or it doesn't. The degree of the violation has to be judged individually. That judgment can't be found in the NAP.

That's what I meant with gnon.

Implicit agreements are strictly defined. They happen when you don't done agree verbally or in written form but with your actions. If you go to a dentist, it can be inferred that the dentist may violate your NAP by drilling holes in your teeth and filling them again. The act of sex is an implicit contract between at least two consenting adults. By not disagreeing, they come to a mutual understanding to have sex. Apart from cases where this is not true, what speaks against changing your mind. So you have two options when applying the NAP to you body. First, all cases not related to pregnancy where you can do what you want and then pregnancy where some options are prohibited. The NAP is of little use when it comes to evil. The reason is that you argue only deductively from an axiom, disregarding your senses, your experiences, your morality, faith and what not. The only important criterium is "can action X be deducted from the Non-Aggression-Principle?". If that is the case, this action is permissible under the NAP. You don't know about long term consequences of actions, the psychologicla make up of persons doing it and so on. Buying a kitten everyday and then killing it is permissible under the NAP. It is an evil act, because it causes suffering for the cat. Furthermore, torturing pets is a sign for pschopathy and so on and on. But using the NAP you claim to not know about, because of the argumentation without any sense of experience or sense data. The NAP does not use the categories good or evil for the reasons mentioned above. The only categories are "can be deducted from the NAP" or "doesn't fall under the NAP". You need your sense too recognize evil, a brain in a vat doing deductions isn't capable of that.

Stefan is an atheist, but he appreciates the effect that Christianity brings. Noticing differences between human races and talking about them.

According to Scott Adams that is the main attribute a master persuader has. Never admit to mistakes and double down on stupid stuff you said.

Aaaand big surprise, nothing came out of the weaponized autism of the /pols. Imagine my shark.

Nationalism as an alternative to globalism. The argument for closed and guarded borders. Arguments from effect for gnon. Political action to prevent future disasters. Race realism.

If you can't agree to something, there is no contract. Plus, the mother puts work into supporting it. The child doesn't homestead the uterus, it is entirely dependent on the mother for support. It's not logical consistent to say that nobody can tell you what you do with your body and at the same time call an action that affects the body of somebody evil (or wrong). Actually, the one about potential human beings is, when you reason using the NAP. Where does it say anything about potentiality? Furthermore, if you argue using potentiality then you are horrible person right now if you don't donate everything you have because somewhere right now a real human is dying of starvation. The important word here is created. Of course. Actually, that's an interesting example for a number of reasons. Killing an animal you own doesn't violate the NAP. In that sense, and that sense only, it's not evil when done for ulterior motives. You need additional arguments a posteriori (somebody who kills animals for fun is an evil person) to condemn that person. Not every action done in compliance with the NAP is morally permissible, just as is the case with abortion. But combining these two modes of reasoning, deduction using the NAP and abduction (people who kill their animals for fun are evil) is a categorical logical error. If an action is permissible under the NAP it's morally neutral, when it reaility it may be evil. Agreed.