A belief deserves respect if it is supported by evidence.

A consensus that doesn't have a rational basis is no more worthy of forming a basis for action than any other coincidence.

A failure to benefit someone from their suffering in which you did not cause is not something you are responsible for.

An unpleasant truth is always better than a pleasant lie.

Any long 1-way conversation between 2 people that don't know each other needs consent.

Any society where criticisms of any sort is unacceptable, the society itself is unacceptable.

Better safe than sorry.

     Better to ask for permission than to ask for forgiveness.

Better to be easy to be happy and hard to be mad, than to be hard to be happy and easy to be upset.

Better to be hated after asking, then to be defaultly hated under your doubt.

Better to be sad about an incident than to be angry about an incident.

Better to get screwed, by assuming people won't screw you over, than to assume people will screw you over, and not get screwed.

This can be rephrased as.

Better to assume people won't screw you over and get screwed, than to assume people will screw you over and not get screwed.

Better to be hated for what you are, than to be liked for what you are not.

Better to have no friends, and no enemies, than to have friends, but then, also have enemies.

Better to look at both sides of the story than only 1 side of the story.

For a person trying to remove a belief you currently hold, their burden of proof is met when and if they show that the burden of proof for the belief you currently hold has not been met.

I believe in leading by example, not compromising with evil.

I sympathize about those that are less fortunate, than happify over those that are more fortunate.

I value people without lawyers. If you really are innocent, you don't need 1.

If a minority group is offended by something, and that thing is censored, then the minority are being rewarded for what they take offense to by having that thing censored.

If a person you don't like does something you don't like, then a person you do like that does the same thing the person you didn't like does, you should be against it in the same way.

If I found out about an incident where a someone had been put in a position where if I had that same circumstances I felt was unfair, then I would do something about it/be against it. Even though the incident does not apply to me, I would still defend the victims affected by it since I am against it in principle.

If other people's ideas are false and tend to incite to violence, it's a vice to tolerate them.

If proof or evidence was required before people could have faith in something, the lack of proof or evidence would be meaningful.

If something cannot be justified in any way, there simply is no support for it.

If there is something you don't know, and you make up an explanation, those who dispute the validity of your explanation don't have to figure out some other way to explain the thing you don't know.

If you choose to accept false beliefs that lead to violence, then you are totally responsible for those choices.

If you do not know whether or not something is true, do not make a claim and act on it

It's hard to find someone whom objects to freedom of speech when the speech is limited to only things that don't offend them.

It doesn't matter who holds an opinion - all opinions should be evaluated equally regardless of who holds it.

It is foolish to be more confident in your opinions that the knowledge you have justifies. But it would be irrational to have less.

It is not okay, if, a situation where if you had a lawyer, you would be found innocent, whereas, if you hadn't had a lawyer, you would be found guilty of a crime.

It is not okay to believe in something simply because you want it to be true or wish it were true.

It is okay to be proud of something if and only you chose to be that something, and not if you were born to be that something or don't have the choice to no longer be that something.

Laws should be based upon whether or not there are rights violations in the individual acts, not the ultimate statistical consequences of miscellaneous acts.

Making sense is a pre-requisite for actions.

My life isn't about making friends - it's about resolving enemies.

Never expect anything from anyone.

Not only should people be judged on what they do, they could also be judged on what they don't do.

1 must have a specific reason, in reference to a specific incident and time, in order to not like someone. 1 cannot simply not like someone due to "general annoyance." If 1 cannot remember why they do not like someone, then they simply don't have a good reason to not like someone.

People need a reason to be depressed. They can't be depressed, "just because."

People whom don't do evil, but approve of those that do it, are themselves evil.

People whom have evil ideas or intentions but don't practice them are also evil.

People whom allow evil are evil.

Proving that something that has already happened was unlikely to happen proves absolutely nothing.

From the emotional appeal, something that has the intelligence to differentiate the difference between right and wrong has a responsibility to do right from wrong.

Something that is a guide to moral agents that cannot distinguish good from evil is itself evil.

Successful determinations turn reality into facts. But without a consciousness to parse it, reality is not itself inherently divided into facts. The boundaries that divide reality into facts are created by conscious acts.

The fact that something has bad consequences is not evidence that something is wrong in any way other than it causes those exact consquences.

The good news is only good news when you don't hear the bad news that comes with it.

The nice thing about freedom of speech is that when it's used and displays ignorance and stupidity, there are usually many people that are willing to step forward and show the ignorance and stupidity for what it is by using their freedom of speech.

The only thing that matters when deciding whether or not to believe something is whether or not it is true.

The reason things have rights do have rights is because they're capable of respecting rights.

The truthfulness of a specific belief is the same, regardless of how many people believe in it or don't believe in it.

There is no such thing as an "incomprehensible explanation."

Things are what they are, not what they will be.

Truth is not determined by opinion, but by evidence.

When getting insulted by someone, a counter-insult should not be worse than the original insult. And of course, a counter-insult is completely unnecessary if it is irrelevant.

While we do not have an obligation to right every wrong, we have the right to right any wrong we choose to.

You need a logical reason to discriminate against something. You can't equate discrimination that is logically required with discrimination that isn't.

You need a specific reason to not like someone (repeat).