Youtube comments of \/ (@joebazooks).
-
4000
-
3400
-
2600
-
1900
-
1800
-
1800
-
1700
-
1200
-
1200
-
944
-
898
-
884
-
766
-
640
-
613
-
584
-
580
-
571
-
565
-
535
-
535
-
467
-
425
-
420
-
399
-
379
-
352
-
344
-
331
-
320
-
292
-
281
-
270
-
266
-
257
-
254
-
244
-
228
-
213
-
206
-
205
-
204
-
201
-
178
-
169
-
169
-
164
-
161
-
158
-
155
-
135
-
124
-
116
-
113
-
109
-
106
-
105
-
103
-
98
-
98
-
96
-
94
-
92
-
89
-
89
-
85
-
81
-
80
-
71
-
63
-
60
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
49
-
46
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
39
-
39
-
37
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
i've experienced extreme social anxiety for about 8 years now, 5 of which--the last 5 years in fact--i've barely left the house. i'm still uncertain as to what exactly has caused it, but i'd wager money that it is largely due to the fact that i, too, abused substances (mainly cocaine and ecstasy, with spurts of crack, heroin, and prescription drugs) from the age of 14 to 25. it took me 11 or so years, but i've finally cleaned up my act. the anxiety has in many ways become more manageable, but it's still a cause of great disorder in my life. i just wanted to share this in case there are any kids out there who are, like i used to be, currently experimenting with drugs or, after discovering that drugs can be a source of immense pleasure, are subsequently abusing them. you might not notice any negative effects for years, even if you heavily abuse them, but i can guarantee you that if you continue abusing them sooner or later you will experience some very troubling ailments. my best friend, too, one of the kids with whom i did all of the drugs over the years, ended up suffering from chemical psychosis and was diagnosed clinically insane. he's also recovering, yet it has taken years and years upon years... be careful kids! think twice.
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Adam Thornton
if you are deliberately stuck somewhere--say, on an island--with 99 other people, all of whom have green eyes, you know that at the very least 99/100 have green eyes.
now, since we can't be sure of our own eye color, let's simply exclude ourself from the equation; if we exclude ourself from the equation for a moment, we know that 99 other people--all of whom have green eyes--know for certain that at the very least 98/99 people have green eyes since they can't see their own eyes.
98/99 is what each of them perceive.
99/99 is the reality for each of them.
bearing that in mind, if i know for certain that at the very least 99/100 have green eyes since i can't see my own eyes, what are the chances i myself have green eyes?
99/100 is what i perceive.
100/100 is most certainly the reality.
i think the chance of you not having green eyes is 0.0001% or something similar, but i could be wrong
but it should never be that complex of a process to begin with anyway. if you are deliberately stuck somewhere with 99 other people, all of whom have green eyes, the chances you also have green eyes is through the roof
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Pietje Puk nah just the basic languages of front end dev, so html/css/javascript and a little php, but i'm seriously considering learning either c, c sharp, python, or java, though not entirely settled on any particular one just yet. yeah, so your company is similar to companies that sell analytical software, but instead of analytical software it's ecommerce orientated, like shopping cart/payment/ etc, right? i really wanna start my own thing. i actually have a HUGE idea, which is why i'm considering learning one of those other languages. i also plan to learn SQL or some DB language.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** yeah, of course the fact that israel might have humiliated or even murdered their cousins, uncles, aunts, father, mother, brothers, and or sisters, while indiscriminately fighting "terrorism" has absolutely no effect, right? BOMB ISRAEL, A TERRORIST STATE!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I still don’t necessarily agree with contemporary governance, though, thanks to the internet and or media that is much more accessible, I’m much less cynical now regarding government. Some of these politicians, with whom I had never been acquainted—to any degree—and thus heretofore would have naturally disregarded out of my very own prejudice, actually seem to be rational human beings. But with that being said, let’s now face the facts in order so that we can finally address the real issues—what really matters—directly and appropriately. First, the system at large is (or constituent systems are) inherently flawed. Politicians, from the president or prime minister right down to the local mayor or city council, are basically figureheads. That is to say, they are virtually powerless. They are merely individuals that are no different from you or me. They are individuals whom desire to provide for and protect their own families and even their extended “family”. They are individuals whom are also subjugated in various ways for the sake of fundamentally maintaining the status quo and upholding traditional institutions, simply because making real change, implementing necessary change, is respectively scary and difficult. In today’s world money and weapons (or actual force) is power! Governments in the modern world are bought and sold, if you will, and held hostage at gunpoint, so to speak. Such platforms can foster and facilitate as much wrongdoing as they do right. And we're all complicit. To gain an inkling, yet critical understanding of the true nature of contemporary governance, one need not look any farther than the most basic pillar of contemporary governance: not consent, as proclaimed, but coercion. Coercion, now that’s power! When not a bullet to the chest, but the mere sight of a barrel or a baton strikes fear so deep within us that it accomplishes unwavering obedience, is a call for concern. Government is a ritualistic institution that is, from birth, thrust upon us without choice and obviously accepted without question—no different than, say, the tradition of Christmas or, better yet, Halloween—costumes and all. It’s a particular practice, a behaviour, a bad habit that we unwittingly carry forth unto the great abyss. And yet we are all swallowed up, stricken by a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome. The day that an official representative—any representative of the government that claims ownership of the very land loyally nurtures me all of us, any representative of the government that defends this claim with the back of his hand—formally seeks my explicit consent to being governed, just might be the day that I’m persuaded. Even though I now have an iota of understanding, an iota of sympathy for some of these figureheads, I still won’t vote. A flawless system is one that earnestly acknowledges each and every part. And this system is far from flawless. It’s time to sincerely acknowledge one another so that we can move beyond. We definitely do not need an official system of coercion to accomplish this. Collectively we have the power to sow our own fate and yet we shall reap whatever it may be that we choose to sow.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AnarchoHumanism
it seems to me as if the "system" as a whole (educational systems, political systems, monetary systems, institutions of law enforcement, banking systems, basically everything) fosters and facilitates corruption. our systems function exactly how they were designed to function, but, yes, ultimately people are the problem. however, i believe there are more people with good intentions than bad intentions out there. still, it takes only a few rotten apples to spoil the whole bunch, especially when you have hierarchical structures everywhere.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
aaron patterson
an acorn and an oak tree are not "the same thing in the end", just as an oak table and an oak tree are the not "the same thing in the end", hence the linguistic distinctions.
acorn : the nut of the oak tree
tree : a usually tall plant that has a thick, wooden stem and many large branches
"acorn, plant, tree, organism, object...all the same thing when you approach from a scientific definition standpoint." this is just downright wrong, hence scientific distinctions. with your special logic, an oak tree is a cactus, yet scientifically speaking one is of the beech family, Fagaceaeand, and the other is a member of the plant family Cactaceae within the order Caryophyllales...
stop spreading nonsense, please.
1
-
1
-
aaron patterson
yes, because i've "[spun] out of control and [have yelled] 'swear word filled insults' at [you]", right? lol. the only one "clouding the truth" right now is you ;)
likewise, an acorn is but only one part of a complex process that yields an oak tree. try sticking an acorn in an isolation tank that shields the nut/seed from sunlight, soil, moisture, etc, to see what happens!
sticking with the metaphor, the pregnant woman is the suitable environment in which an acorn becomes an oak tree; you're basically disregarding the entire environment for the sake of an acorn.
another metaphor would be 'a forest of paper, pencils, and chairs'; this is called a metaphor for good reason...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yarina Valverde
i asked simply because Hotel July 's initial comment made it seem as if he knew where to buy cheaper clothes. of course thrift shops come to mind, and wholesalers, but i interpreted his comment as if he knew about a retailer that sells brand new clothing at cheaper prices than H&M.
personally, i'm not too concerned about buying cheap clothing.
i'd rather buy cheap clothing, especially if the quality of that cheap clothing easily rivals the quality of more expensive clothing, which often happens to be the case. most expensive clothing is just as poorly made as its cheaper counterpart.
likewise, by the time you purchase anything, the cheap clothing has already been produced by and purchased from sweatshops, so your purchase or lack thereof will not have a significant impact on whether or not this cycle/phenomena continues.
it's apparent that, even if sweatshop workers are unfairly underpaid, they need the money--and this is the real problem, the underlying problem. the real problem is not that some people are unfairly underpaid, but rather that these people are struggling to such a degree that they willingly accept the reality of somebody else blatantly exploiting them/their labour in an extremely unfair manner. imagine that! imagine struggling to survive to such a degree that you not only have accepted but actively sought employment--to earn an income of course--whereby that income doesn't by any stretch of the imagination guarantee even the slightest degree of comfort. i mean, why have we as a species created circumstances in which people are compelled to participate in being treated unfairly? why have we created circumstances in which people are motivated to be exploited by other human beings?
and, nevertheless, this is but one symptom of an even greater problem, that of entities (or in other words governments) laying claim to all of the land and regulating such regions, and willing to defend that claim and uphold said regulations--whether or not such a claim is justified or said regulations generate favourable circumstances--by any means necessary, which tend to be (or perhaps even always are) coercive and violent.
i can't help but be grateful that my own financial circumstances aren't so dire, yet all of this really forces one to contemplate whether or not one wishes to be a part of such a despicable world, a despicable species. we're all complicit, directly and indirectly. by waking up in the morning, going to work, and paying taxes, you are partially responsible.
nobody should be allowed to own anything unless they have mixed their own physical labour with it. ownership of companies should not be traded publicly on stock exchanges.
our monetary systems and general system of trade is rotten to its core.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Eddie no, man. you can disregard one of the frogs in the clearing altogether because you already know that 1 out of 2 are male. the probability of the 2nd frog being female or male is 50/50 and this is independent from from 1 of the frogs being male. just because we don't know which of the 2 frogs is male, doesn't skew the probability of the 2nd frog towards female.
the only time the following possibilities and probabilities (MM25%FF25%FM25%MF25%) come in to play is if you are calculating the probabilities of 2 unknown frogs in a row.
for instance, it's like having two die. in order to survive you need two 6s, but we know already that one of the die is 6, so you're chance of rolling 6 and surviving is 1/6, not 1/36. NOW, if you had to roll two consecutive 6s, then the chance of that happening is 1/36, but we already know one of the die is a 6, so we are only rolling once and the probability and results of that roll are independent from the predetermined roll...
1
-
Eddie Fair enough that you think it's a problem of conditional probability, and if the problem was intended to be an example of conditional probability, it's a terrible example at that, because it's not in fact conditional probability in the way that you imagine.
Further, conditional probability is no different than statistical probability, insofar as with conditional probability you're simply taking into account foreknowledge of one event (A) that effects the probability of another event (B).
Yes, the Monty Hall problem is a problem of conditional probability because knowing that the host has to reveal a door with a goat behind it (event B), after the contestant has already chosen one of three a doors (event A), influences the probability of the contestants second choice (event C). In this case, the knowledge concerning event B is a condition that effects the probability of event C.
Let's look at the conditions and events of the frog problem...
(condition A) knowing of the species 50% are male, 50% are female
(condition B) only female frogs possess the chemical antidote
(event A) spotting a frog on a stump
(event B) hearing a male croak from a group of two frogs
(event C) choosing which to go
None of these events or conditions effect the probability in the way that you imagine, nor in the way that the video proposes--so don't feel bad about yourself for screwing up because the creators screwed up too.
Let me illustrate this for you with a simplified analogous experiment for the sake of clarity and your understanding.
a. Get 4 pennies
(the 4 of which will represent the entire species of frog, which is analogous to condition A earlier in my comment because in order for the fact that 50% of the species is male and 50% of the species is female to be true, the species must contain an even number of frogs or pennies)
b. Place 2 Heads-up and the other 2 Tails-up
(this is analogous to condition B earlier in my comment because we know that 50% of the frogs are male and 50% are female)
c. Remove 1 Heads-up penny from the group (which will be your Male in the group of two)
d. Put on a blindfold
e. Mix up or have somebody else mix up the remaining 3 (2T and 1H) pennies that are leftover after step c.
d. Remove 1 penny from the leftover group of 3 while blindfolded
(the penny that you remove blindly is 66% likely to be a Tails-up penny because in the leftover group of three pennies is 2 Tails-up and 1 Heads-up, which leaves you with a group of 1T and 1H.)
e. Distribute 1 of the 2 pennies that remain in the game to the left
(50% likely to be T and 50% likely to be H)
f. Distribute the last penny to the right
(also 50% likely to be T and 50% likely to be H)
g. Remove your blindfold
h. record result
i. Repeat steps A to H indefinitely 100,000 times
The frog problem is conditional probability, but not in the way you believe it is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Alkaski yes, i have heard of conditional probability, but the "possibilities" that you're accounting for in your calculation are not the actual possibilities for the frog scenario. the actual possibilities for the frog scenario are as follows: DM, MD, DF, FD; whereby D represents the given male.
as to whether or not there is a female frog on one side and or the other, so that you would be able to survive:
(in the clearing) DM, MD, DF, FD - 2/4 50%
(on the stump) F, M - 1/2 50%
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Leo Smith you're wrong. flipping a coin once does not change the probability if you were to flip the coin again. if the condition was to flip two consecutive heads or two consecutive tails, only then does the probability lessen. let's use dice as an example. if i were to use only one die, and i rolled a 6, re-rolling this die does not increase the likelihood that i will roll a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, on the next roll. this is known as the gambler's fallacy. if we had two die, however, and the condition for our survival was rolling a 6 with each die, this would be more unlikely. BUT, we already know that one of the die has been rolled and it's a 6, therefore the roll of the next die becoming any of the six numbers is equally likely. it is not all of a sudden more likely to be a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
keith stone you young timers! back in the day, like 10 years ago, weed was always the easiest to get was weed because we had tons of buddies who sold it, since like half our school smoked it. booze and cigs were almost equally as difficult to get our hands on. in fact, i would say cigs were harder to get because, appropriately, very few smokers would actually buy them for us, knowing the addiction intimately. getting booze was always sketchy, however, because most of the people who would buy kids booze were alcoholics or junkies, some of whom were likely to keep your change or run off with your money lol
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
that's ironic, you're choosing to ignore information while saying that my method ignores information.
i'm not presuming that 1 of the 2 remaining doors is equally as likely as the other, but rather that one is more likely than the other...
what i'm proposing is an alternative method to deduce the exact same conclusion, or rather, to make the exact same decision.
for instance, i choose door 1 of 3 (33% right, 66% wrong).
door 3 is opened and nothing is revealed; therefore, i'm left with doors 1 and 2.
whether i choose door 1 or door 2 is 50/50, whereby door 1 retains its 33% right and 66% wrong.
door 2 is more likely than door 1.
again, this might not be technically correct, but it works. i understand that the probability of whether or not the car is behind either door 1 or door 2 isn't 50/50, yet i am making one choice from 2 options (50/50). the probability of 50/50 obviously doesn't pertain to the probabilities of whether the car is behind door 1 or 2, but this info can still be utilized whether or not you choose to acknowledge it. the probabilities are obviously 33/66% and then inverted.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
General course of action
01. the car is placed behind one door
02. one door is chosen
03. one door is opened
04. another choice is granted
05. everything is revealed and win or loss is determined
Possibilities/Possible courses of action
01. Car is behind D1
(1a) choose D1, D2 is opened, stay with D1 *WIN
(1b) choose D1, D2 is opened, switch to D3
(1c) choose D1, D3 is opened, stay with D1 *WIN
(1d) choose D1, D3 is opened, switch to D2
(1e) choose D2, D3 is opened, stay with D2
(1f) choose D2, D3 is opened, switch to D1 *WIN
(1g) choose D3, D2 is opened, stay with D3
(1h) choose D3, D2 is opened, switch to D1 *WIN
01. Car is behind D2
(2a) choose D2, D1 is opened, stay with D2 *WIN
(2b) choose D2, D1 is opened, switch to D3
(2c) choose D2, D3 is opened, stay with D2 *WIN
(2d) choose D2, D3 is opened, switch to D1
(2g) choose D1, D3 is opened, stay with D1
(2h) choose D1, D3 is opened, switch to D2 *WIN
(2i) choose D3, D1 is opened, stay with D3
(2j) choose D3, D1 is opened, switch to D2 *WIN
01. Car is behind D3
(3a) choose D3, D1 is opened, stay with D3 *WIN
(3b) choose D3, D1 is opened, switch to D2
(3c) choose D3, D2 is opened, stay with D3 *WIN
(3d) choose D3, D2 is opened, switch to D1
(3e) choose D1, D2 is opened, stay with D1
(3f) choose D1, D2 is opened, switch to D3 *WIN
(3g) choose D2, D1 is opened, stay with D2
(3h) choose D2, D1 is opened, switch to D3 *WIN
Hypothetical example
i. let's say the car is placed behind D1; thus ruling out 16/24 (or 2/3) possibilities (of the 8 possibilities left 50% are winning courses of action; 50% are losing)
ii. let's say i choose D1 or D2
iii. if i choose D1; there are two possible actions and four possible responses (2/4 are winning)
iiii. if i choose D2: there is only one possible action and two responses (1/2 is winning)
How is this not a 50/50 shot? Or where exactly have I gone wrong?
1
-
Tyler Holte
(I'll respond more thoroughly when I get up tomorrow, but hopefully this shall suffice for now.)
I'm analysing this from an completely objective point of view instead of the hypothetical participant's subjective point of view.
There are definitively twenty-four possible outcomes or courses of action. The entire event begins when game-show places the car behind one of the three doors, nevertheless ruling out sixteen or the twenty-four outcomes immediately and necessarily.
Those aren't actually duplicates, even though it might seem as if they are. There are twice as many courses of action if one chooses the door behind which the car is actually concealed because, then and only then, the rules permit the host to open either of the two remaining doors without exposing the car, as opposed to having his decision forced by consequential limitations that are contingent on the rules of the game.
[edit]
That is the exact sequence of activity: (1) Game-show places car behind one of three doors; (2) Participant guesses at which door conceals the car; (3) Contingent on the participant's particular guess, one of the two remaining doors is opened; (4) Participant is then offered a chance to change his initial decision if he so chooses; (5) Everything is revealed and whether the participant wins or loses is determined.
Objectively, the choice is virtually 50/50 after one door has been exposed, considering the edge is virtually inconsequential. What edge does the participant gain if changes his selection to the door that wasn't exposed? Supposedly 33%, right?
1
-
1
-
Tyler Holte
My list of possibilities or possible courses of action is just that, a list of possibilities, not probabilities.
It could be said that each sequence is just as likely as every other sequence because each sequence begins by placing the car behind one of three doors.
Nevertheless, some actions are equally likely whereas other actions aren't. For instance:
The first action of each sequence is just as likely as the other because every course of action begins by placing the car behind one of the three doors. What is the likelihood that the car is placed behind D1, D2, or D3? Since we don't have the actual statistics, we ought to assume 33%.
Likewise, the second action of each sequence is just as likely as the other because the contestant selects only one of three doors. What is the likelihood that the participant selects D1, D2, or D3? Again, we ought to assume 33% since we don' have the actual statistics.
More importantly, however, if the participant's choice is D1, what is the likelihood that D2 will be opened? 50% if the car is behind D1, 0% if the car is behind D2, and 100% if the car is behind D3. The reason the probabilities of each action now begin to vary is because each action in each sequence is contingent on the preceding action.
Bearing all of that in mind, if the car is placed behind D1, what is the likelihood that the contestant will choose D1? This remains at 33%. My analysis or list of possibilities does not suggest that the contestant is more likely to select D1 if the car is placed behind D1, nor D2 if the car is placed behind D2, nor D3 if the car is placed behind D3, but rather you are suggesting this because you've simply misconstrued the data.
We are entirely uncertain as to whether or not somebody will stay with or switch from their initial selection, therefore either action is just as likely as the other.
Again, I agree with you that the contestant always gains an edge, probabilistically, by switching from his initial selection when the opportunity is offered.
In spite of that, whether the car is behind one door or the other of the two remaining doors is a certainty. The car is behind 50% of the two remaining doors in other words.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Blueflare1o1
it's 50/50 if the 3rd door does not exist and what was behind each door is not exposed.
HOWEVER, because a 3rd door does exist, your first choice from the 3 doors had a 33% probability of being correct and a 66% probability of being wrong; HENCE your first guess is more likely wrong than right.
Now, if your first guess is more likely to be wrong than right, and the host of the show reveals a goat behind 1 of the 2 remaining doors and then offers you a chance to change your choice, you switch because he's basically allowing you to swap a 33% probability of being correct for a 66% probability of being correct.
You have to look at the problem like this:
Let's say hypothetically door 1 is chosen.
Well, then this scenario
33% 33% 33%
| 1 | | 2 | | 3 |
virtually "becomes" this scenario
33% 66%
| 1 | | 2/3 |
which (after the host reveals the goat) virtually "becomes" the following scenario
33% 66%
| 1 | | 3 |
If the car is in fact behind door 2 or 3, which is twice as likely as it being behind door 1, and the host then reveals a goat behind door 2, then the host just did you a favor by eliminating 1 of those 2 doors, which collectively have a 66% likelihood of hiding the car.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"The 'source of your problems' is not the institution of the government itself but the private corporate interests that have control over representatives. Only seeing "the government" as the problem is to be looking at it in a very elementary way."
you're wrong. the issue of private corporate interests co-opting gov't in order to ultimately further fulfill said interests, over and above humanity's general interest, is an issue inherent to gov't itself. it's a gov't's duty to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place. the purpose of a gov't is to govern, hence the responsibility of societal issues like the aforementioned issue falls upon the heads of those who are in charge of controlling such activities. the argument your making is akin to, say, a parent blaming his or her children for sweet talking the babysitter into allowing them to stay up all night and eat the bag of sugar in the cupboard when, in fact, the onus of the "crime" clearly falls on the babysitter. gov'ts is an inherently faulty institution which, naturally, has allowed itself to become even more corrupted than it might usually be. gov't isn't the only problem, but it's certainly the source of our problems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
i live in canada and always use the oxford comma if practicing good grammar. from my experience, it usually avoids more confusion than it creates. the oxford comma makes sense, period.
i.e.
a) 'he had stolen, bought and sold, and squeezed lemons.'
b) 'he had stolen, bought, sold, and squeezed lemons.'
c) 'he had stolen, bought, sold and squeezed lemons.'
personally, i believe a) and b) express two different notions, if only slightly; whereas c) is just confusing and borderline nonsensical.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
icemd24 In short, the method they use treats effectively identical outcomes as different possibilities, and it uses these additional possibilities, which are irrelevant to the outcome, in its calculations of the probability. Likewise, they disregard relevant information, which in turn has generated an inclination to consider irrelevant information as relevant information in their calculations. In other words, it would be no different from declaring:
(1) buses travel to only two different destinations, Destination A (DA) and Destination Z (DZ);
(2) there are as many buses travelling to DA as there are travelling to DZ;
(3) in order to survive, you must get to DZ;
(4) you notice that there is 1 bus at the bus stop on the right, and 2 buses at the bus stop on the left;
(5) you know that 1 of the 2 buses at the bus stop on the left is travelling to DA;
and, after asking 'What are your odds of survival if you go right?' and 'What are your odds of survival if you go left?', then claiming:
(1) that because you do not know which bus at the bus stop on the left is travelling to DA, even though 1 of the 2 buses is indeed travelling to DA, there are more unique possibilities, and therefore more effectively unique outcomes, and for this reason your odds of getting to DZ in order to survive are 33.33% better than if you were to go to the bus stop on right whereby there is also only 1 bus with an unknown destination.
I hope that this is a clear description. Let me know if you have any more questions!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So what, you think your one vote is going to sway an election?! LOL So much for your say on the matter. You're insignificant and treated accordingly. Under the current system, everybody is insignificant and treated as such.
Anarchy is definitely the future, whereby the decentralization of sovereignty will continually increase over time, spontaneously, until one day every individual will be sovereign, as opposed to merely sovereign nations, and treated accordingly. And it is exactly that, the sovereignty of the individual, which has been and will be oppressed and opposed, I imagine, for years to come.
Democracy is a buzzword. What does that even mean? What governments do you even consider to be 'democracies'?!
1
-
drdanger
it's difficult to provide actual examples for a whole host of reasons. one reason being that, as i mentioned (i think multiple times) already, every form of government to date operates on the basis of or is supported by coercion. a second reason is the anarchy of the future will probably be distinguishable from the anarchy of the past in ways that we cannot yet imagine. there are examples out there, though, if you were to google it.
that's the difference between me and you. i look around and see that what we are doing isn't working; i.e. perpetual war, widespread famine and general deprivation, worldwide homelessness, etc. on the other hand, you seem to view these issues as nigh insurmountable as opposed to the fruit of our very own activity on a collective and individual basis.
anarchy, it will take time, but it's nonetheless inevitable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Amanda
"I don't see a way to control these people and enforce those laws without a body specifically made to do so."
For fuck's sake, life isn't about controlling other people. Isn't that what a rapist does? Tries to control another person? You and all of these cops, amongst other individuals, have a rapist mindset. Anybody who wants to control somebody else is seriously sick in the head, which is a lot of people unfortunately. Life is neither about enforcing the law. A rapist, a thief, a criminal of any sort disregards the law; hence the criminality of their behaviour. The law does more harm than good. I don't understand why that's so difficult to comprehend for so many different people.
In addition to that, it makes absolutely no sense to relegate the "protection" of ourselves (that which is proclaimed to be the service provided by the police) and the enforcement of our values to a particular group of people, a small group at that. If you were a criminal, what would be more worrisome: a small, localized group of "protectors/enforcers" or a massive, non-localized group of "protectors/enforcers"? Obviously the latter. Likewise, many values that are enforced, are not values held by the majority, let alone the whole.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
David Williams Well, if there an equal probability of choosing, say, a male frog at random, then the population must be split evenly, otherwise there would not be an equal probability. This is why, for instance, there cannot be an equal probability of choosing a male or female frog at random from an odd number of frogs, even if the sample from which you are selecting a frog is substantial, say 1000 frogs; if there are 501 males and 499 females, there is not an equal probability of selecting one or the other, as it is slightly more probable that you will select a male frog at random, however insubstantial this difference may be and despite variance. I'm sorry to break it to you but if you have an equal probability of selecting heads-up or tails-up coins from a massive sample, you're no more likely to pick one over the other; which means even if you are to select just 2 coins from 500 coins, probability dictates that you'll end up with 1 heads-up coin and 1 tails-up coin. I get what you're saying, and I agree with what you've said, but your conclusion is simply wrong.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
*****
you kind of lost me about half-way through your third paragraph.
likewise, you said, "you think it's imminently important that the word 'mind' is not necessarily the initial product of the brain." however, i feel as if the word itself certainly is a product of--in addition to the lips, the vocal cords, et cetera--the brain, insofar as the word is basically a particular form of information that was deliberately chosen and or "produced" by the brain to serve a function that is similar to any given sign (a street sign, stop sign, etc.), that purpose being to refer to, point to or at, and or represent another more elaborate body of information (as opposed to a material body/object/thing), specifically 'cerebral activity' to keep it simple.
further, because this particular word, 'mind', represents an activity, it is necessarily abstract, unlike a material object such as a tree that indefinitely possesses a definite form or at least a form that can be indefinitely perceived as definite.
i guess what i'm trying to get at it is whether or not the word's utilization is practical, whether or not its functionality stretches beyond the exchange of hollow information, beyond the production of noise? does the word itself, 'mind', foster and facilitate practical progress in one way or another to warrant its continual, somewhat prevalent use? even, does its use hinder or prevent practical progress in one way or another? does the use of abstract words in general create more confusion and disagreement than understanding? does the cost outweigh the rewards?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
it only makes sense that within the current system people are going to get shafted no matter what. for instance, if you're a property owner, developer, manager, or whatever, and you have 10 units to get rid of or rent, each of which costs you $1 to develop or maintain per month, you're technically better off if you sell or rent each of those units at $4 as opposed to, say, $2 per month, even if the vacancy level is greater, as long as you're filling at least 2.5 units per month in order to recoup your initial investment. it's only natural to increase the price, even if it means greater vacancy, because that new vacancy is equivalent to greater potential surplus. something is worth only as much as somebody is willing to pay for it. most people get screwed, while a select few are able to capitalize. a shame, really
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
some politicians might have the best of intentions, sure. heck, even the majority might have the best of intentions. but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. live and let live. the government should exist primarily to regulate not the individual's life but rather corporate activity, which happens on a much greater scale and therefore has a much greater effect than any individual alone could have. no victim, no crime. somebody jaywalked, what's the problem? somebody wants to grow or sell weed, what's the problem? somebody wants to sell lemonade on the corner, what's the problem? virtually nobody wants to hurt you, unless you've caused them a major detriment. nowadays too many people are either driven by fear or obsessed with so-called security, to the point that it's neurotic. the issue i personally have with government is that it's not consensual. if the government really were looking out for us or had our best interests in mind, coercion by a few wouldn't be necessary to gain compliance of the many. don't spit on my shoes and then try to convince me that you intended to clean them...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
*****
That's untrue. You have to think about it. Hence, the only difference between one clue and the other—'The person next...' and 'At least 1...'—is the degree of immediacy at which new information is induced.
It might be easier for you guys to understand this if we the change the clue slightly: 'The person beside the person who is beside you has green eyes.' Or even, 'The person beside the person who is beside the person next to you has green eyes'.
It might also help to consider the actual clue—'At least 1...'—and change that slightly: 'At least 99 of you have green eyes'; with which each of them will necessarily induce the information that 'If anybody has brown eyes, it must be me'.
What new information does the statement 'At least 99 of you have green eyes' have that the statement 'At least 1 of you has green eyes' does not? Nothing, yet the prisoners can leave a whole day or a whole ninety-nine days earlier. The only difference is the degree of immediacy at which new information is induced. '99' is just as arbitrary as '1' or '87' or '13' or '25', which in turn is also no different from any other clue that does not explicitly state that you have green eyes yourself.
To further illustrate my point, consider the same problem but with only two prisoners on the island. The clue the prisoners are given is: 'The person next to you has green eyes'. Well, this clue can be interpreted in one of two ways: (1) The person next to you (plural) has green eyes; (2) The person next to you (singular) has green eyes. In order for the prisoners to actually know which interpretation is the correct interpretation, they first have to determine that there is nobody else beside the two prisoners—"Nobody else is around. It's only us two prisoners on this island, so then the clue must be interpreted as 'The person next to me has green eyes'." Only after they've first determined that, they are able to subsequently determine that, if the clue must be true, "I too have green eyes".
In the beginning the only information that each of them are lacking is whether or not they themselves have green eyes. If we told 100 prisoners that 'The person next to you has green eyes', though they would leave almost immediately (or much more immediately than in some other cases), nobody would actually leave immediately upon hearing that statement because the statement does not contain the information 'You personally/All of you have green eyes', which would be new information.
You also have to bear in mind that, even if they were standing in neat, orderly rows, there would be more than just 1 person standing next to you at all times...
1
-
1
-
*****
Foremost, I am going to modify my clue slightly: '[A] prisoner next to you has green eyes'.
Secondly, it is a stretch of the imagination to claim "the [creator] of the [thought] experiment" agrees with you and not with me on this matter, but this is beside the point.
Third of all, one of the conditions is not "the statement must refer to everyone", and this is also beside the point. Nonetheless, the original clue does indeed refer to everyone—'At least one of you (plural) has green eyes'—whereas the second clue does not refer to everyone—'A prisoner next to you (singular) has green eyes'.
Fourth, I understand that you do not agree with my definition of new information. However, your definition of new information applies to the original clue, 'At least one of you has green eyes'. The original clue is "information or data that allows [the prisoners] to reach [the] correct conclusion [eventually]; The very content of the information [alone allows the prisoners] to logically derive [the correct conclusion]"; if this were not the case, the prisoners would have left either long before you showed up to give them the clue or not at all.
'All of you have green eyes' > I know immediately that I have green eyes.
'A prisoner next to you has green eyes' > I do not know immediately that I have green eyes.
'All of you have green eyes' ≠ 'A prisoner next to you has green eyes'
Lastly, Remember that space, by definition, is three-dimensional and not linear, and therefore "[each prisoner] at the morning meeting must be [standing] next to [not only] someone", but more than one prisoner at a time. This is the crucial piece of information that you are neglecting. For instance, imagine a scenario with only three prisoners in a triangular formation: P1 is standing next to P2 and P3, whereas P2 is standing next to P1 and P3 and P3 is standing next to P1 and P2; if somebody told them 'A prisoner next to you has green eyes', it does not follow from this necessarily that P1 has green eyes because P1 is not standing next to only one prisoner, but standing next to P2 and P3; therefore, the prisoner with green eyes next to P2 might be P3 and not P1, and the prisoner with green eyes next to P3 might be P2 and not P1.
Again, there is no new information in the statement 'A prisoner next to you has green eyes', none whatsoever. "The statement itself has not presented any [new] information. This information is already available to everyone. As a prisoner with 99 visible green-eyed mates, you know that literally everyone on the island has knowledge of at least one green eyed inmate" next to them.
1
-
1
-
*****
As a reminder--the only two conditions, as explicitly stated in the video, are: (1) You can only make one statement; (2) You cannot tell them any new information. Yet, again, this is beside the point.
Furthermore, I find it quite ironic and incredibly telling that you've dismissed all of the valid points that I've brought forth as wrong without even addressing them, while addressing the only point that was beside the point, which I'm not sure why you brought that up in the first place... LOL
I suggest rereading my comment, or, if it still doesn't make sense, rereading your comment and then my response. As it is often the case on YT, you're misconstruing aspects of my comment; though I forgive you, for it has become beyond apparent that English is likely your second language. If you are incapable of basic comprehension--no shame in that--I bid you adieu
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
David Williams So you have 2 frogs... FrogA and FrogB. You know one of them is male. However, not only must one of them be female, but FrogB must be female in order to survive.
If this were the case, then necessarily the sequence/order/position in relation to sex would matter, and [ F (FrogA) M (FrogB) ] and [ M (FrogA) F (FrogB) ] can be considered in conjunction with one another as unique possibilities because they represent two different outcomes. They otherwise do not represent two meaningfully different outcomes and therefore should not be considered as such, as meaningful. It's pretty fucking straight-forward shit man...
We shouldn't even be discussing this, though; We are unable to determine whether or not the sex of one frog effects the sex of another frog, even though we know 50% of the population is male whereas the other 50% is female, since the quantity of individuals from which the sample was taken is unknown. If the entire population was only 4 frogs, then all of a sudden with 1 male exposed, the chance that the next frog is female becomes 66.%. This is the only situation in which the chance of the next frog being female is 66.6%
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
i only fear phobophobia
A loan is a terrible analogy because the terms of any loan are agreed upon before the money is exchanged. That would be a good analogy if and only if you sat down at a table with your newborn immediately after its birth and discussed the terms of said birth, which is simply impossible. Nice try, though.
Dictionary.com; verb, "3.
(intransitive) correspond". Perhaps it was the wrong choice to use that word, however, since I used it as a transitive verb and you are obviously having difficulties understanding what I had meant.
If you stop paying your taxes, at least where I'm from, you will be hassled, violated, and ultimately locked up in jail. Nevertheless, you can't buy much without having to pay at least two taxes, usually.
Whose rights are even equal?
I really don't understand why you exert so much energy trying to prove and justify and an unreality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
In my opinion, a lot of the violence and crime in this world's circumstantial, due to current social structures, and a result of people's need for basic necessities to survive, such as nutritious food, adequate shelter, and clothing to keep them warm in the cold, not being met. ALSO, if one didn't have to worry about being locked up for using potentially fatal force while defending themselves and their property, and therefore if one had to fear for his life when committing a crime, there would b
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
On another note, though, I'm not quite sure what to make of his work nowadays. I used to be enthusiastic about it, but, for one, the lizard bit doesn't really factor into that; I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's a little farfetched with not enough evidence, not even circumstantial evidence, unless I've something. Also, from the stuff I've watched or read, he seemingly doesn't offer-up much information, aside from metaphors and analogies. That's just my opinion, though. I know nothing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Still, if I was in a gang, and our opposition announces and perhaps even believes they've captured or killed my gang's leader, when in fact they hadn't, I would play along with it. I mean, what an advantage, having your opposition believe you're leaderless when in fact that isn't the case. With that being said, it's possible he's dead. However, I still have reservations as to whether or not he is indeed dead, and, if that is the case, that the U.S. killed him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
a couple things about probability: probability is only practical if there is a definite number of outcomes, all of which are known, which, in this case, there is; but, determining definitive probabilities of given outcomes requires a complete understanding of the variables that lead to such outcomes, which, in almost if not every case, is never the reality. therefore, probability is usually only ever an approximation at best, especially when attempting to evaluate non-hypotheticals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course, on one level, you shouldn't; nonetheless, governments have basically seized and claimed the legal rights to all resources which were once commonly shared amongst man; therefore, if you're caught hunting your own food without a license, you could be slapped with a huge fine if not thrown in jail.
But, also, I'd be very careful with the words you're using. Things like education, infrastructure, communication, legal support, police, national defense, and foreign aid, in my opinion, didn
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course, like I said before, mankind is sick, and that is to say people are sick: your police officers, politicians, executives, the unemployed, carpenters, insert any form of employment here, and the list goes on forever. But our "issues" with creativity have nothing to do with our youth's attitudes. Indeed, the fact that attitudes are changing, and especially amongst the youth, is a very, very good thing when you consider the static and unchanging nature of institutions, or their inability
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ford, chevrolet, gmc etc are trash. i own a chevrolet bolt euv premier. love the car, but ive had so many issues with it since buying it mid-2022. however, to be fair, chevrolet themselves have been pretty accomodating, whereas the dealerships... i almost had to sue the one dealership from where i bought it. the other local dealership that ive been dealing with since then basically refused to acknowledge what could be quite severe issues with it. ive only made progress on this front since i got the GM of the dealership to test drive my vehicle, luckily during which the issue occurred, and then test drive the one vehicle of the same model they had on the lot. the dealership continually tells me the one issue is fixed, yet i notice the problem before i even drive my vehicle off the lot after picking it up... dont get me wrong. i absolutely love the car. but the manufacturing issues, dealership issues, etc, etc. i spent 50k on this car after subsidized govtl discounts. this shit might be excusable for $50 product, but a $50,000 product?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Still, if I was in a gang, and our opposition announces and perhaps even believes they've captured or killed my gang's leader, when in fact they hadn't, I would play along with it. I mean, what an advantage, having your opposition believe you're leaderless when in fact that isn't the case. With that being said, it's possible he's dead. However, I still have reservations as to whether or not he is indeed dead, and, if that is the case, that the U.S. killed him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So, you said, "taxes is not theft, its just money we all agree to pay for paying police, ambulances, and infrastructure and stuff."
I don't agree to pay it, and, according to you, I'm unable to opt-out — yet it's not theft?
What is theft then? If I coerced you into giving me your hat by threatening you with prison, court dates, fines and the whole shebang, even though you didn't want to give me your hat, in your opinion, it's not stealing...?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
First of all, giving your child whatever they ask for is light years away from allowing your child a little freedom. Now, of course, if you were to spoil a child, they would grow up to be a brat. But, again, being spoiled and being free are two totally different things. Second, I never said you should give your child the freedom to go around beating up other children, and this was not implied either. However, they learned those actions from somebody, probably their abusive alcoholic parents.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nearly everything serves a purpose. If marriage, as is, is serving a purpose for heterosexuals, then marriage most likely will serve the same purpose for homosexuals. I only drink decaffeinated coffee, at least for the most part. In fact, decaffeinated coffee has health benefits, considering caffeine, or at least caffeine in excess, can be bad for your bones. Your take on gay marriage is based on ignorance, my friend, because marriage isn't strictly a religious institution, but rather a semi-rel
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1