Michael Archer

And that is a run-on sentence. What's your point?

Violence for the sake of violence never amuses me. Fortunately, there aren't many games like that. I don't need there to be violence for me to enjoy a game. Hell, I love Viva Piñata.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING

USA! USA! I live in Canada right now, but I still think USA is a better country. And whoever hates America, please step forward so I can beat the LIVING SHIT out of your argument.

Alright, I'll bite: who makes the laws? I would think the laws in anarchy would be the whims of whoever could use the most force. Are you saying that the ruling principle of anarchy is not force? If there's no government (i.e. and body that only uses objective, retaliatory force), anyone can initiate force whenever they please. Force is the opposite of reason, so your assertion that you're a "Rational Anarchist" is a contradiction; the mind cannot operate under the barrel of a gun.

Which is metaphysically flawed, as I've explained many times. Is it more morally wrong for an individual to throw her life away to keep it? This is Appeal to Pity and Appeal to Emotion; you're ascribing our mature thoughts and feelings to a clump of cells. I'm rationalizing the mother's choice to dictate the terms of her own life. You're trying to rationalize something that's clearly not a human being dictating the terms of its mother's life. I fail to see the reasoning behind the anti-abortionist's double-standard. As a fetus, you didn't "want" to be aborted and you didn't "not want" to be aborted. I put quotation marks around those words since a fetus doesn't really have the mental capacity to make moral decisions like that. Fetus' don't have opinions. Pro-abortionists don't consider what the fetus "wants" because pro-abortionists don't recognize the fetus' right to exist since such a right would imply that the mother has no rights and would have to become a breeding pig. They also recognize the fact that there are no contradictions with moral absolutes and that the notion that a mother has no right to her life but the fetus has a right to her life would be a double-standard and therefore, a contradiction. What? So we're in agreement now? I'm all for individual rights. The choice of abortion rests solely on the mother--not even the husband or boyfriend. That's why I advocate abortion; the only part that matters is making sure an individual can pursue their own happiness through their rational self-interest.

I just realized why I like Rainbow Dash so much: she's the only kid's show character I can think of that displays egoism, selfishness and pride as virtues. Every other kid's show demonizes them. Think about it: how many can you name? I can think of many counter-examples, e.g. Mr. Krabs from Spongebob. Mr. Krabs created his business and his money from nothing--and his biggest "flaw" is his love for money. Squidward the egoist is portrayed has a pompus, arrogant jerk. Going back even farther: Sylvester the cat and the coyote are demonized for being selfish; they just want to eat. Yosemite Sam's greed is depicted as evil; he's willing to murder to get money. EDIT: One last thing: Poiuyt, saying the show is like Sabrina of Braceface is Guilt by Association fallacy. Just because the shows may share some qualities, doesn't mean they're on the same enjoyment or intellectual level; by the same logic I could say, "Batman shares qualities with He-man (a show you denounced); therefore, Batman is the same as He-man and you're a hypocrite." It's important to assess the shows objectively, like I tried to do in my previous post.

Wow, this thread grows so much every time I visit it. This has probably already been mentioned, but Season 2 premieres on September 17th. Excuse me while I go cry tears of joy into my Rainbow Dash pillow. I disagree. Braceface was a melodramatic girly cartoon that focused on relationships no one gave a shit about; none of the characters had any redeeming qualities or were likeable in any way. Yes, Braceface is über girly. Before you say, "and MLP isn't?" keep in mind that the conflict of every episode of Braceface was non-existent or trivial at best. Braceface was not funny in any stretch of the word; I don't think they were trying to be funny. I didn't see enough of Sabrina to give a thoughtful opinion. How is it any different being an MLP fanboy than say, a Lost, House or a 24 fanboy? Also, why does Looney Toons get your sanction? It has dragons, funny characters, magic and is almost 100% slapstick. I could say that slapstick is one of the cheapest forms of humor available. I actually think the humor is on par with MLP. Again, how is this different from anything ever made? Do you chastise anyone who says that they liked the "Get a Mac" TV spots? Or any other commercial in general? By the same logic, I could criticize anyone for liking Seinfeld or The Office since the shows exist purely to make money for NBC. The profit motive is not evil--everything good comes from the profit motive.

poiuyt, you're the most rational My Little Pony hater I've seen--I respect you for that.

Were you confused by my use of the word "legal"? Sorry, I meant to say that since there are no laws, anyone can initiate force.

Hmm...I would have said shadow as well. I'll encrypt the solution to the hallway one like koach did: YycrOtegUetAnteeSeut!hKeuoAeaeNeucyhdYguisGutnsaUtnseaouAtnsRthnsDtnWtnsHaoeuAeuoTeoDoeuOtnsOsntReuaWeouOeuUntLtn!#$Dnts3T890euH3tneE9tuO904tnsT943tnHntoeEtoaeuRthsoeuGtsuUtsnAtshR34DeaouSaeuAne8YiuicgI.crlSoeauTntgHsnElrp9RentaeIeoauG.pa,HsnToaeuDnthOs-ntOstnhR? God, we really need a spoiler tag.

Whoever said that we started watching the show convinced that we wouldn't like it: it's true. I watch a lot of Zero Punctuation and they have internet threads on the sides of the videos; I lurk there a lot. On one thread, some guy posted a video of Rarity whining; my first impression was that it was cute for a little girl's show. The guy later declared Rarity was his favorite pony; that's when I decided to watch. The intro of the pilot episode is cringe-worthy for anyone über masculine, such as myself. I laughed derisively every time someone said "Equestria." After the pilot episode, I said to myself, "Meh. I'll watch another one, just because I like that Rainbow Dash pony so much." After that, I watched another one, and then another one hoping they had more Rainbow Dash. And then episode 5, I started liking every single character--with the exception of Applejack (I'm growing to like her, though)--and I was hooked on the show. It was a very weird experience, honestly. So you like the police doing illegal things? How about they come over, and beat you to a pulp, that sound good to you too? The Pirate Bay has never done anything even remotely illegal. I'm not doing anything illegal, so no--that doesn't sound very nice! Honestly, I know nothing about Sweedish law. I do know that in Canada, the police must obtain a search warrant to kick down the door of your house but they have to consult a judge to do that. Here in Canada, it's illegal to aid and/or abet criminal activities; I'm no lawyer, but it certainly seems that's what the The Pirate Bay guys were doing (they were part of an "anti-copyright" group after all). I seem to recall that they were convicted by an actual law, too... MAST3RLINKX is the unethical one, not me. If I torrent, I have an illegal copy on my hard drive; if I watch a streaming video, I'm watching someone else have an illegal copy. I think it's kind of like the difference between stealing cable and watching stolen cable through someone's window. Also, I could be wrong about this, but I've never heard of intellectual property owners getting mad at people who watch streaming videos; they get mad at people who upload them. Why does everypony say this? If the show gets to the point where it's so bad, it's intolerable, why is it not permissible to write it off? Even if the rest is decent, the show still averages on mediocre.

Any good fast paced console game allows you to turn up the sensitivity of your analog sticks.

Yes: I am talking about a capitalist government, which is the ideal government. In anarchy, what I described is permissible, given that the majority or person who uses the most amount of force agrees. In capitalism, that's never justifiable under any circumstances. I never actually mentioned any kind of scenario in my last post; I just said the initiation of force is permissible in anarchy. Because I think initiating force is immoral under any circumstances, my view is not compatible with anarchy. In capitalism, the initiation of force is never allowed; it goes hand-in-hand with my belief system.

That's what self-preservation is: taking a course of action that will result in a better life for yourself. A human being cannot survive without using reason. Force is the opposite of reason, so I consider someone who's being forced to remain pregnant to be literally dying. A "right" is a moral absolute--you either have a right, or you don't. If someone wants to get an abortion and you can morally say "no", then she has no right to her body. This is where I disagree: the fetus is not an independently existing organism on both a physical and metaphysical level. The fetus requires its host's life to be alive; similarly, a parent can legally disown a child so long as they do it through proper legal channels. This is because you have a right to your life and property and can use it in any way you see fit. The anti-abortionists advocate sacrificing an actual individual's life for the sake of a clump of cells; there is no rational justification for this. To dictate that (and possibly force) an individual must use their body in any way is a violation of human rights. Why does a woman not have the right to her own life, but the fetus has the right to it? A parasite can not lay a moral claim against its host.

Bats are no more likely to have rabies than any other mammal. Rats have been known to carry other diseases along with rabies, though.

There should be a way to link to specific posts. Doesn't every post have its unique URL? I want to be able to reference someone to the first documentation of Archer's Law.

There is one space between each of by responses and posts; I DID NOTHING WRONG. (Off topic, did you know that wrong is an adverb? Take that, high school english teachers!) I don't think streaming videos are illegal, but on a moral issue: For one thing, Youtube is huge; if something is on Youtube, usually the owners of the intellectual property know it's up. The onus is on them to file a complaint; if no complaint is filed, it's assumed they don't have a problem with it. Torrent sites are too underground for them to do anything about it and they're usually in different countries. Props to the Sweedish police for taking down the The Pirate Bay guys. Really, it's only unethical if the corporation has a problem with you using their intellectual property. People like Valve could easily get all the machinimas on Youtube taken down, but they don't, so the videos are ethical. Also, when people who upload streaming videos are sent cease-and-desist letters from corporations, they usually apologize and quickly take the video down even if they're not technically in breach of the law--they have a respect for other people's property. Torrent people on the other hand, are obnoxious.

With a government, no one else is legally allowed to use force with some really extreme exceptions e.g. self-defense. Even with self-defense laws, they're extremely strict (rightfully so) and a lot of people use them improperly. Even with the government, the initiation of force by anyone is illegal; this means that the government may only use retaliatory force against those who initiate it. With Anarchy, the initiation of force is legal--and arguably, expected. In capitalism, it's banned from all relationships. Governments are (well...they should be and under capitalism, they certainly would be) bound by a very strong constitution and are not allowed to initiate force. Any other kind of force agency (such as anarchy's private defense agencies) are not bound by anything and are allowed to do anything they want.

So you do want to feel superior to them. As opposed to say, Apple computers, Dell computers, ipods, iphones, video games, and even food? Do you criticize people for liking those things? So you've never said, "You haven't seen Dr. Strangelove? It's a classic; you should watch it sometime. It's hilarious." You've never made a Batman reference? I find that hard to believe, no offense. In regards to your thread interruptions, that's the internet for you; many people (myself included) will make meme references. I've never had the real life conversation derailment thing happen, so I can't empathize. Why is it worth your energy?

I was thinking about these the other day and I realized how much I like a good one. Before you go and post one, I want to make a point that this thread is only for good word problems. By that I mean, a good word problem has unequivocal wording, defines a clear problem and has a single clever solution. Let me give some examples: A shitty word problem: Imagine you're in a brick castle with no doors, no windows and no way to get out; how do you get out? Answer: Stop imagining. (this is just retarded--I don't need to explain why) A mediocre word problem: What eats and lives but drinks and dies? Answer: fire. (This isn't bad except it might be confusing--eating and drinking implies animal functions, so people aren't going to think of inanimate objects) An awesome word problem. You might remember this from the movie Labyrinth with David Bowie; you might also remember that the girl got it wrong: You're in a hallway with two doors. One door leads you out of the hallway and the other leads you to instant death. You don't know which door leads where and you're not about to flip a coin with your life. In front of each door stands a guard; one guard always lies and the other one always tells the truth. These guards are aware of their own habits and the habits of the other guard i.e. The truth guard knows that he tells the truth while his friend always lies and the lying guard knows that he lies and his friend always tells the truth. The only problem is that you have no way of knowing which guard is which. If you can ask only one guard a single question, what would it be to get you out of the hallway alive. (This question is unequivocal, defines a clear goal, and has a single solution. It's the best one I've heard in my life. I'll wait a bit longer to post the solution.) TL:DR version: Go.

You're right; I never said it wasn't killing potential. I said it was insanity and not consistent with nature to equate the potential and the actual. That's why there's a difference between killing a fetus and killing a brilliant doctor. I apologize for my "facepalm" comment. It's just that it's the thirtieth time I had to say that. I think the only reason people get abortions is self-preservation. A young woman doesn't want her pregnancy to hamper her life (which it certainly would), so she gets an abortion. From what I hear, being pregnant is a handicap e.g. it's hard to get in and out of cars. Abortion is always done for a selfish reason and like you said, there's nothing wrong with that. I find anti-abortion evil because it's treating an individual's body like it belongs to the government or society. If you think that an individual has the right to their own life and body, you cannot be anti-abortion. People's bodies belong to themselves--they certainly don't belong to the government to treat them like breeding pigs. Yup. That's why a fetus, by its very nature, has no rights. It's similar to the reason why dictatorships have no rights; a government that exists by initiating force on its citizens (and violating their rights) has no rights since there's no such thing as a right to violate rights. Similarly, a fetus has no rights because there's no such thing as the right to live as a parasite.

I try not to add people I haven't met in real life. I'll make an exception if you're really good at Left 4 Dead 2.

They're my favorite animal, period. More specifically, it's the Lasiurus Borealis--more commonly known as the Eastern Red Bat. I swear I did not google the Latin name for it just now; I knew that from a while ago.

Please DO NOT torrent the show. Aside from the fact that it's illegal, it's immoral and unethical. If you love the show, you want them to continue making it; it costs money to do that. Also, you have no right to steal someone's intellectual property. I see the Youtube videos being pulled as a good thing; Hasbro thinks the show is profitable now, so they'll take it off Youtube and sell their own copies. Another thing that's been bugging me: why do people hate the show so much? No, I'm not asking a deep philosophical question--I'm simply asking if the show's that bad, why do people spend so much of their energy hating the show? I remember the Twilight novels--I never read them, but from what I heard they were trash and pretty much just porn for twelve year old girls. My sister and mom did read them and they said that they were awful. At that point, I made up my mind about the books being bad. However, I did not go on internet forums saying how bad it was and calling people that like them stupid (even if I would be right). If something's bad, it's not worth my time and effort. So why do other people spend so much energy hating something bad? Wouldn't they rather spend their energy on something more productive? I think it's the same reason people hate Portal because of the fans: they want to feel smugly superior to everyone else.