The options should follow this format:

15-20
21-25
26-30

Etc.; people with a 5 in their age have two options to pick from

No, you misunderstand; the "they" that supposedly funded this "advertisement".

I'm curious about this mysterious "they" everyone keeps referring to

I only have access to Time Warner and AT&T

OP's an egalitarian shithead

Karl Marx was also an egalitarian shithead

Coincidence?

I'M MAD AND I'M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE

There's a death penalty for rape in many areas, and not even this stops rape.  Your idea is a less extreme version of the death penalty, so it's highly unlikely it's going to work (and considering the consequences you've proposed, it's pretty important that we not employ policies that have no benefit.)

There is simply no fear-based solution that has ever caused someone to observe a law that they wouldn't already have observed.  The only way to stop rape is for women to treat their children with dignity and respect, i.e. as human beings, instead of beating them (esp. the boys much more often than the girls hint hint power struggle hint hint rape is an act of dominance hint hint) and treating them like they're inferior.  Until this happens, rape will continue all over the world.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/04/23/amanda-kijera-liberal-human-rights-activist-raped-in-haiti/

Seems to be old news.

Makes sense; for feminism to grow and nourish, you need a weak and easily victimized "feminist woman."  To support self-defense among women weakens the feminist movement as it decreases the amount of ammo to be used in extracting taxes and moving laws in favor of a select group.  The movement to empower and equalize women is doing the exact opposite.

Yes, agreed; this is why I'm so attracted to smoking, the nicotine makes me feel remotely normal, or in the very least not my typical self.  I could stop, but then I'd feel like shit again, so the negative health effects balance out with that.

I wish I wasn't circumcised.  A person's stance on it is irrelevant; all that matters is that people have a choice about their bodies.  If the practice of whacking off a baby's foreskin is ended, I guarantee far fewer people would agree to it.

I learned from the book written by the inventor himself: http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Principles-Practice-Using-C/dp/0321543726

It's for beginner programmers so you should get everything you need while learning the language.

Everything people get addicted to is born from the need to self-medicate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbiq2-ukfhM

All other reasons are merely manifestations of this base need.

I smoke a pipe; it helps my focus.

That's just it, reality is not up to personal preference.  Whether a person will be honest with themselves about what can be real and what cannot is a matter of preference, but what can be is not.  This is why people who are honest get so frustrated with people who aren't.  The following link sums up why it's improper to assert there is a God whilst insisting those who do not believe merely have a preference:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Until this is resolved, any assertion of there existing a God is dishonest, and dishonest people are generally frowned upon in all areas except the one which the individual is being dishonest themselves (which is why atheists are always up-in-arms about it.)  The thing with religion is that people aren't told that it's dishonest; just the opposite, to assert that the given truth is not so will result in eternal damnation.  I'm certain bank robbers have a similar view; each member participating swears to uphold the asserted truth lest a terrible punishment ensue, the given truth being "We're all innocent."  It's not rational, it's fear-based, and we know that the truth is not a matter of consensus; the world was not flat because everyone thought it was, the sun did not revolve around the earth because it was popular opinion, and bank robbers aren't innocent because they believe themselves to be.  Yet we don't believe in those things, because people are brave enough to enforce a standard on what can and cannot be; but it's not an instant process, it takes years upon years for the truth to spread, and right now we're in passing between the gnostic belief of there being a God and the agnostic belief that the burden of proof lies on those who assert its existence.  All those who believe God is a matter of opinion are the same who insisted the shape of the world was, too, and I guarantee you the world's shape doesn't change based on belief.

That's not to say I agree that people who believe these things should be called insulting names, but it is important to acknowledge these standards and forge new beliefs based on changing circumstances; as said, to refuse to do so is dishonest.

Are you frequently worried about your health, or are you cautious with your partners?

If that dominant gang is a bunch of libertarians/anarchists whose beliefs overpower the beliefs of those who dominate through force and fear, you will have a far different system.  The vacuum of power is subsumed by a series of self-sovereign individuals, rather than a small minority of sociopaths brought into power by a majority of violent religious nutbags (i.e. not libertarians/anarchists) who think society could never work without coercion.

The reason why society appears to always resort to forced hierarchy is that you always use the same people of today in this future society, making it appear utopian no matter what changes are made; if you have a vanilla-chocolate swirl , but scrap it and make yourself another frozen yogurt with the same flavors, how many times would it take until you get strawberry-sherbet?  You'd always get a similar system of today in the end, because the system doesn't make the people, it's the people who make the system.  The breaking factor in this matter is the fact that "human nature" is a direct response to one's childhood: most children live in a forced-hiearchy retard-ethics microcosm, and learn to accept the same in the macrocosm.

Thus, the game of anarchy is won not through abolishing government, but to get everyone else to become disillusioned with the concept; this occurs when mankind is ready to treat children as though they were regular humans.  So, if it's anarchy one fears, they should treat their kids as horribly as possible, and ensure their neighbors do too: 100% success rate of achieving a totalitarian state or your kids' childhoods back guaranteed.

So, if you missed it: the basis of your argument is that anarchism always resorts back to our current system thus making it pointless; your argument is invalidated due to the fact that human behavior is not static: ergo, the current system is always the system the people want, and the system of tomorrow, whether monarchy or anarchy, always involves different people with different wants, just as the systems of the past reflected these alternate desires.  There is no such thing as an oppressed society, for there is never a government whose citizenry does not accept as just, except the one that's on its way out (hint hint.)

I'm in the same boat as you.

What do you mean, "so what"?  Are you okay with the world is today?  Because obviously you think it's fucked up, and so do I.  So how do you fix it?  As I said, human nature is malleable, so if you seek a better world, you have to raise better humans.  Where does this primarily occur?  In parenting.  When parents raise their children peacefully and rationally, you get a generation of peaceful, rational children.  What do peaceful, rational children do?  They play nicely: they share, they don't hit, they don't lie, they respect each other's things.  Which system is a mirror of these values?  Anarchism and capitalism: statism necessitates a violation of property rights, and socialism (the "property is theft" sort) necessitates a violation of property rights, and people who will not put up with this support neither; because people today are raised constantly having their property violated, e.g. spanking, time-out, having things taken from them, on and on, these values are mirrored in the state: you have an entity which can punish, put in prison, and take things away such as taxes, and you have individuals who have to put up with it for the good of society.  It's a mirror; modern government is an extension of "human nature", as are all forms of social organization, including Anarcho-Capitalism.  So: who adheres to AnCap beliefs?  People who are going to raise their children peacefully and rationally, who will fix this world and shape a culture which doesn't accept where the world is going now.

I'm pointing out that your observations are shallow and your intentions are worthless, if you've yet to catch on.