ribuck

Why are you surprised by this? We're talking about adult children here. Why should they not have jobs and pay rent?

My grandparents lived in the family home when I was a child, and it worked out well for everyone. The grandparents enjoy the company, and being around younger people helps them stay mentally young. The parents enjoy the childcare, the wisdom, and the general support if times get difficult. The children enjoy the extra adult attention, and it's much better for them socially and educationally than being in childcare. However, you can't count on your children and their spouses going along with your plan. So you need to save enough for your own retirement anyway. Then, if you end up living with your children, you can pay them a fair market-price rent so that they never feel like you are a burden. Alternatively, let them live in your house and they can pay rent to you.

I would start with "We The Living". It's shorter than "The Fountainhead" or "Atlas Shrugged", and not so "in your face". Also, as she said once, it's as close as she would ever get to writing an autobiography. If you want a really short read (under 100 pages), go for "Anthem". It's very well written, though a bit quirky and not particularly deep.

Jeez, read the comments, all of which are supposedly from law enforcement personnel.

Does a woman own her own body? Of course she does. Is the fetus a part of her body? If so, she's free to do what she likes with it. If it's not part of her body, she's free to have it removed from inside of her.

I don't see the point of trying to label another person as "morally corrupt" or otherwise. As soon as children can understand the NAP, they should (in principle) make reparations if they transgress. In practice, a parent or responsible adult will make reparations on their behalf.

I would like to tell you about a girl who was in the same year as me at school. She always had body odor. No-one would go near her, and she had no friends. She was fat. Other children taunted her. Her life must have been totally miserable. Thirty-five years later, I attended a school reunion, and there she was. She had lost weight. She no longer had body odor. She had a lovely smile, a friendly disposition, and a wonderful personality. She was happily married with lovely children. I have no idea how she turned her life around, but she's living proof that it can be done. PS: I don't think your "small member" matters very much. Women always say that technique matters more than size, and you can always use your hands and/or mouth to stimulate her. Maybe you'll end up with a small-breasted woman, and you can have a laugh about your small sizes while enjoying great sex.

The unborn child has a parasitic relationship with the mother. I don't think it's moral to force any person to sustain and nurture an unwanted parasite, nor is it good for the health of a developing fetus to be hosted by a stressed and unwilling mother. Having said that, there is so much demand from childless couples that I hope and expect that a free market for babies would encourage solutions that do not involve killing the fetus.

I often wonder about deep movies like this one. Do the writer and director really have such a detailed and insightful knowledge of the human condition, or does that aspect of the movie arise as a side-effect of them trying to make a commercially-successful film?

In the photo of the banana, the "blueberry-looking things" are seeds. Bananas have been selectively bred to minimise the seeds (occasionally you can see very tiny dots which are seeds). In the process, the modern seedless banana has become infertile and as a result is dependent on humans to propogate it by making cuttings. Anyway, to address your original question: Some natural foods are healthy and nutritious. Some natural foods are poisonous or non-nutritious. Some GMO foods are healthy and nutritious. Some GM foods are poisonous or non-nutritious. Having said that, there are a couple of potential differences. The changes in a GM organism are often much greater than those in a selectively-bred organism, so it may require more extensive testing to establish safety, and there is more potential for effects on the surrounding ecosystem. For example, when GM beans are made resistant to weedkiller (so that weedkillers can be freely used on the bean crop), those beans become weeds themselves if the seeds drift onto farms where other crops are grown. Regardless, there's nothing to fear "in principle" about GMOs. Like any new technology, we can research it, understand it, and review it so that we can exploit the best aspects while avoiding the undesirable aspects. Hhowever, there's one aspect of genetically-modified food that is bad. The plants are patented, and everyone other than the patent licensees is forbidden from cultivating the seeds.

Welcome, Thabani! It sounds like you have a great attitude towards the future, and I hope you do well and go far.

Respect to Josh. Science, for the win.

In that situation, I wouldn't sweat it. Just keep in touch, and drop by for a chat now and then. There's no need to feel uncomfortable or guilty about anything. If/when you have children, you'll probably get to know your mother again in a new way, as adult-to-adult.

That's the one. You can see "Young Stefan" sitting quietly at 10:21, and telling jokes on the steps at 16:06.

Stefan also plays a bit part in a movie that he wrote as part of his studies. So you can see how he looked back then. He has posted the movie to YouTube but I forget the title (sorry). The plot is memorable though - a soldier who returns from battle, only to find that he has lost his former sense of humor.

Where is your evidence for this? There is lots of evidence against it; it is the methodology utilized by most public schools in the U.S., and you can review their rate of success in teaching children how to read. The Steiner school system doesn't teach reading until age 7. By age 8 the children have reading abilities on par with 8-year-olds who have been force-fed with reading from age 4 or so. My daughters went to Steiner kindergarten until age 6. When they moved to a state school, they were labelled as requiring remedial reading education, yet by the time the state got around to organizing this (six weeks) they had caught up with the others in their class (and went on to be top of their year overall). So I have seen it first-hand. I helped out at the Steiner school, and sat on its management committee for several years. During that time I saw many, many children who became skilled and voracious readers. On the other hand, I also helped out in the state school, and I saw four- and five-year-olds who were extremely stressed by being pushed into reading before they were ready for it, and ended up fearing or disliking reading as a result. Children are naturally keen to learn. The best schools provide assistance when the child is ready. The worst schools follow standardized timescales and force-feed the children whatever is on the curriculum that week.

It makes no sense to give a child something harmful (a sweet) as a reward. If you do that, how can you expect them to take you seriously the next day when you encourage them to eat healthily? There are things children value much more than sweets. Time and attention from adults is one of those things. If you're pleased that your child has accomplished a difficult task (such as "successfully deciphering a line of phonograms"), spend some time with them doing something that can benefit from your input. In any case, don't promise a reward in advance of the task - that's just conditioning children to perform monkey tricks for rewards. When the child is ready and motivated, they will "decipher a line of phonograms" just fine without being promised a reward - or, more likely, they'll learn to read by whatever way their brain finds easiest, when their brain is ready for it.

I'm sure you can do better than that, Walker. Also, you'll probably find it much more satisfying to add value of your own.

It's a terrible situation that you're in, but before you make a move you need to have something better lined up or you might end up on the street. As others have suggested, getting a job is a great step forward if it's permitted in your area. Do you have any friends who would let you stay at their place for a while? If you could find a job, you could move into your friend's house while you save up some money. Then, when you have some stability you could move into a room in a shared apartment and build up your life from there.

Here's a link to the YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9cydesWzv8lVQh3us0fSWA But what does it even mean to be an "open source" YouTube channel? The term "open source" relates to computer software, and means that the source code is open to viewing and modification. On your channel, the videos are not even "Creative Commons" licensed. They are uploaded under the standard YouTube proprietary license. Hang on ... these are not even your own videos, just copies of other people's videos. If you want to curate other people's videos, just make YouTube playlists instead, or post reviews or remixes, or add value in some other way.

I'd go to a Manchester meet.

The advantage, if Scotland goes its own way, is that secession becomes an acceptable idea. In time, English counties will be able to seceed, then cities, and we will start seeing many interesting alternative societies.

That's a great video. It's sometimes easier to reach people through humor backed by reason, than by reason alone.

[edit: Blender seems to be geared towards animation, not video, but it seems to me that it can do the job] Blender is free. It's a very powerful video editor, although perhaps not the easiest to configure and learn. Here's a video demonstration of picture-in-picture composition using Blender:

People already get locked up over taxes. For example, Irwin Schiff (Peter Schiff's father) is languishing in prison on a 13-year sentence (his second imprisonment) for tax resistance.