ok lets do this my neo-anarchist friend :) same goes to you cheerleader @knyggajames

It's not up to aggressors to decide when their victims consent.

if you don't like it leave. In an an-cap society the same thing will apply

Large groups of people used to also sacrifice virgins to volcanoes and kill people for saying the earth wasn't flat. This is an appeal to popularity fallacy.

It' irrelevant whether or not is a fallacy. They believe it. You can say mine is a popularity fallacy..I can say you are making an idelogic fallacy. nonsense sophistry.

I certainly don't accept this. If morality is subjective, when would it be moral for you to rape someone? The whole point of morality is to identify universal standards of interpersonal conduct. To call it subjective is to render the whole concept of morality meaningless.

It's irrelevant whether you accept it or not. it is true and it can be confirmed by looking through history and cultures across the world. Your morality comes from the environment. In canada inuits eat their firtborn, sometimes, because their morality dictates that they can try again next year while if they die they won't be able to procreate. also. since you bringed up the fallacies game— the rape thing you mentionedd; is a strawman. example: "Oh you don't believe in God?" answer" so you want your kid to worship the devil?" . no noob arguments please. :) level up and learn how to use fallacies. don't throw them like jokers in a card game. they don't fit because you throw them. you have to know how they are applied.

This sentence is absolutely meaningless.

They have increased awareness. They have a high guard thus they perceive danger more than me and you.

Speculative. Appeal to incredulity. Yet another logical fallacy.

Nop, my young padwan. Humans are social animals. They are and will clumb together. I see your internet debate skills are not as sharp as your knowledge in anthropology.

Yes I have, but that's irrelevant. Food doesn't come from government. Fearmongering isn't an argument; it's just intellectual laziness.

Never said it is coming from goverment. I am saying that people will still fight each other over food.

Most people on this earth engaging in conflict have morality shaped from these conditions. Wars exist because some group of people say they defend some other group of people.

You need to take a philosohy class. Morality can be good or bad. The opposite of morality is not immorality. I can't believe you are THAT blond. Immorality is used from a group of people against another. For example americans call enemies terrorists..but so do their opponents. Each group sees the other as immoral because they disagree. Too bad they know as much about morality as you do.

Wrong. War exists when plunder is less burdensome than consensual exchange, which it always is as long as it is admitted that some people should be able to get away with doing immoral things.

War exists for luck of resources. every single species engages in it.... pleeaaase.

Why does your question begging assume that a group of men and women who force people to pay them prevents "the apocalypse"?

strawman. never said that. read what i write

Why would men and women need to steal from others in order to defend women and children?

Lack of resources, terriroty, everything that our species has been doing with or without goverments for thousands of years.

is this the best you can do? Let me then tear another arsehole to your most basic fallacy. the overgeneralising fallacy.

"The goverment..yada yada." basically this overgeneralisation dismantles your whole post. Same applies when you say "the statists" reffering to 7 or more billion inhabitants of a planet as if your statements represent all of them.

You can't speak for all goverments. In much the same way you can't make arguments about "religion" or "science". There are way too many form of goverments, religions and scientific premises.

:) I bet they didn't teach you this in internet forums about the over-generalisation fallacy. I have been running a freethinking group for over 10 years in my country. Teenagers join with your "angry college" arguments. it takes some time but they eventually get it. Some of them though remain "tinfoiled vigilante" level.

oh. if you are going to bring the sniff sniff "ad hominem" argument, learn what an ad hominem first is.

(seriously level up your reply if you want me to bother answering)