st434u

First off I would like to point out that in many if not all cases, the labs who manufacture the vaccines are in bed with the State (or some State at least). The labs develop a vaccine, then the State buys a ton of them and gives them out for free or subsidizes them. In many cases actually forcibly injecting people who don't want it. This should give us pause. In any case, I have the following questions: -Where is the evidence that vaccines are effective at preventing disease? Why is it that proper, independent, long-term double-blind studies are not conducted on this matter? Why is it that populations that shun the use of vaccines, such as the amish, don't seem to experience more cases of the diseases the vaccines supposedly prevent, but often exhibit less? -Where is the evidence that disease can spread and only spread from someone who is not immune to someone else who is also not immune? In other words, where is the evidence that supports the idea of "herd immunity" carrying any merit? -Why is it that vaccines in the past supposedly worked with only one dosage, and now they require frequent boosters? -Even if vaccines do work exactly like the labs say they do, where are the studies done to compare pros and cons? Can vaccines overwhelm the immune system, and could it be that being "immunized" against one disease makes you more likely to get other diseases? Why is it that nobody talks about how it has been shown time and again that vaccines can create all sorts of negative reactions including paralysis and death, and that these effects are under-reported, under-diagnosed and minimized? -Even if you agree with everything the labs say about the vaccines they manufactured, how could it ever be justified to force people to take them? Or "force them to tell to anyone they come in contact with", like Wuzzum said. Shouldn't it be up to each individual to scan or question the others they come in contact with for potential dangers? And if there was a way to scan and figure out who the people are who the vaccine doesn't work on (they don't get immunization from the vaccine), shouldn't it be justified to apply all the same requirements and restrictions to them, as to those who didn't take the vaccine?

I kind of hate to say this, but when the only way a police chief can "get back" at someone is to create fake profiles in online dating sites, things don't sound too bad.

Sorry but I find this extremely troubling. These drugs don't do anything good, and most often the "symptoms" they are trying to treat are either not an issue at all, or a sign of underlying emotional problems that need to be dealt with. I'll leave now and try to come back with some evidence later. We may want to do another thread though (assuming you're up for it), I don't want to hijack Ashe's one. (by the way, I edited my post while you were replying, you may have missed that)

Oh god, I hope you're not giving them drugs for their "ADD"..... (which usually just means they have a mind of their own and want to make their own choices rather than acting like robots) What do you mean when you say you couldn't get them to be self-directed enough? You mean they would not want to learn what you wanted them to? Have you looked into unschooling? I ask because you used the term home-schooling, which is really just schooling but with the teacher being the parent(s).

The effects are clearly overstated, but in general, yes, some regulations made the air cleaner. That doesn't mean that that's the only way to go about it, though. Or the best. It also doesn't consider that the State had a lot to do with maximizing the problems of pollution in the first place, and it still does. Whenever socialists say "regulations solved this problem", you have to ask, compared to what? Since the State often trumps market regulations or makes them outright illegal; and in many cases it was State regulations that caused the problem to begin with. Also, it doesn't follow that just because some environmental regulations may have been helpful, others will be as well. Such as those restricting the release of CO2 into the atmosphere as if it was a contaminant, when really it's what all plants feed on, and without it there would be no life on Earth at all, or at least no complex life.

FYP ------------------ Ashe, we just had a long talk in the chatroom about this, so to not reiterate what was already said, I think this is an issue that has a lot more to do with relationships than with economics or political theory. Maybe you should post this in another subforum. Finding him a few videos or books might help, but it won't change how he feels about learning about all this at a fundamental level. The desire to figure these things out and learn more about them should come from him. In any case, for basic economics, I would recommend starting with How An Economy Grows and Why It Crashes by Peter and Andrew Schiff. It's written in such a simple way that a 10 year old would understand it, and it only takes a few hours to finish it. They make one mistake in the entire book when they justify a minarchist State, but other than that the book is perfect for a basic understanding of economics and most of the problems in politics. If he's willing to go the extra mile and read a huge book, give him Man, Economy and State by Murray Rothbard.

I "scored" myself a 3. I didn't like the test much. A lot of things were looked over, and other things were more concentrated than they should've been. Also it left a lot of room for interpretation. For instance, both of my parents were hardcore marxists. How does one account for that in this test?

I think you're being too tough on her Lance. The only thing I really find an issue with is putting her back on her bed after she's asleep, which would be confusing for her when she wakes up, not knowing how she got there and why she's sleeping alone. But it really is only an issue if you don't explain to her that it's not ok for her to sleep all night on your bed, and that her own bed is perfectly safe and you can hear if something dangerous were to happen (if that is in fact the case, of course). If things are communicated clearly, I don't see this as a big problem. I don't know how I will handle these situations when I have my own children, but I think it's up to the parents to figure out if they allow cosleeping or not, and how often. I would also keep if mind that cats could potentially be very dangerous to a 6 year old girl, if they were to start behaving aggressively (which doesn't seem to be the case, but sometimes you can't predict these things accurately)

It's bad. What if you have your own car? Now you have to pay for something you're not using. If the company you're working for has 52 employees, they will fire 3 people that they wouldn't have fired otherwise, so you may lose your job. If a company has 49 employees, they won't hire anybody else, whereas they might have done so if not for this law, hence you won't get a job you otherwise could've gotten. And of course in both cases the company is taking a loss on having to fire some productive workers, or not being able to hire more productive workers, it's just less of a loss than it would represent having to pay every worker this extra benefit. Just because they came up with a way to avoid taxes by deducting some expenses out of your earnings, is not necessarily a good thing if you are forced to spend that money even if you don't want to. A good thing would be if they just lowered taxes.

I don't think it is insensitive. Some parents can manage to have children sleep with them, and some can't. And some only manage it on occasions. I think the most important thing is that you communicate with her and let her know that you guys need some alone time. Also I would try and talk to her about what all these noises are, keeping in mind that it's perfectly natural for her to be scared of noises she's unfamiliar with, or when living in a new place, and that sleeping with you will calm her down. Also, if the cats are a big problem for her, I'd consider getting rid of them.

This is not a problem. As more people hold on to bitcoins the exchange value goes up, but as more people start demanding other forms of money instead, the value goes down. This incentivizes the people who were holding it for appreciation, to spend again, and so on. If nobody ever starts demanding other forms of money instead of bitcoin, and the value just goes up and up, then there is no problem. Any given amount of money is enough to carry all economic transactions needed, so long as the money is divisible enough. Gold was being consumed in various ways when it was being widely used as money. At any given point in time the situation could arise where more gold was being consumed than was being produced. This did not stop gold from being a good money. Also, gold that was lost (or hidden) and never found was, as it regards market dynamics, destroyed. If you want to know the real reason why bitcoin will fail, consider these threads: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38337-bitcoin-intrinsic-value-and-mises-regression-theorem/ https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39541-bitcoin-fanatics-say-the-darnedest-things/

I don't know. That's why I asked why you felt that way about it.

I may be missing something, but it doesn't say anything about the children being murdered. It just says they were buried there. Could you expand on why you feel this way, Steve?

They have no understanding of economics, but that doesn't mean they're wrong on this one. Someone who's clueless can still make a lucky guess every once in a while.

While watching the video I had the impression that I was watching a scene from a Hollywood movie. It wouldn't surprise me if, in a way, the guy was so high on SSRI's and stuff, that he thought he was playing a part. In any case, there's one part I recognized from an actual movie. When he says "they're animals, and I'll slaughter them like animals" it's almost word-for-word from a line that Anakin makes in Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones, which came out in 2002 when this guy was 10. And that "evil" fake laughter he kept making was ridiculous. It seemed like something copied out of a kids cartoon villain.

I'd give it a try

GMO is NOT the same as selective breeding. GMO involves blasting genes from one species onto another in a lab, then what you end up with is a chimera monster that has nothing to do with any lifeform that evolved properly and in healthy steps along the way. There's no way to tell what that can do to us when we eat them. They haven't "earned" their right to exist in the same way all other lifeforms have, through a slow process of selection whereby mutations that are harmful to the organism (or the grower) can be weeded out. However, there are cases where the answer is easy to come up with. If a crop is genetically modified to grow it's own pesticides, and we eat the plants, then we get all the pesticides too. We know pesticides in large amounts are not good for our bodies. With regular pesticides used in food growing, you can at least wash or peel some of them away before ingesting the foods. When the crops are growing their own pesticides, you can't do that, because it's not just on the outside, but in all parts of the plant, and in high concentrations. What's more, there are several people in powerful places who openly admit they have long wanted to design GMO crops to grow their own supply of drugs used to make the general population more docile and less able to reproduce. Some people believe they've already began doing this. Take, for instance, studies such as this: http://naturalsociety.com/genetically-modified-soy-linked-to-sterility-and-infant-mortality/ In any case, the question should really be about property rights. If I grow non-GMO, and your GMO crops contaminate mine through crossbreeding, shouldn't you be liable for damages? If you want to experiment with GMOs, knock yourself out, but it's your responsibility to keep your GMO crops from genetically contaminating mine. The reason why the GMO growers can't claim the same also applies to them in reverse, is because farmers have been growing non-GMO for thousands of years, and thus they've homesteaded the right of crossbreeding and the reasonable expectation has always been that by growing crops on the open, they wouldn't be contaminated by GMO crossbreeding, because those did not exist. And when GMO crops first appeared, they were able to crossbreed with non-GMO. I think the situation is similar to someone who programs a virus for Windows 7, and then claims that they had no intention to make the virus infect W7 computers, but that through everyday exchange of information with other people, the virus just happened to get out (which was inevitable since he did not take the precautions in shielding the information on his computer from everybody else using W7).

Welcome

Sorry, I meant to quote the whole sentence. I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of difference, anyway. And how is it dishonest?

Why do you think the two are never related? Childhood trauma that is never dealt with can definitely affect someone's sexual preferences. The typical example is someone who is beat severely as a child, and goes on to enjoy BDSM as an adult.

The question is compared to what? Compared to a straight couple, I would say the straight couple is more likely to raise the kid in a healthy way. Compared to foster care courtesy of the State, the gay couple is more likely to raise the kid in a healthy way.

The grey areas have to do with the delimitation of property which is abundant, and not with a particular action per se. Air, for instance is abundant. So much so, that nobody cares to set up systems for keeping their own air from being contaminated by others's air. Thus we have to rely on "environmental regulation" to deal with massive air pollution only, but small amounts of pollution can be tolerated. If someone breathing CO2 into your air was a big deal, you could always build an airtight containment space large enough for you and all of your plants, so that you could breathe only from your own supply of oxygen, and let your plants breathe your own CO2. Or you could buy oxygen in the market and pump it into your own breathing space. You could also charge people a fee for breathing your oxygen and exhaling their CO2 into your air. Something like this is likely to happen if humans start to privately colonize other planets.

I've had ads targeted at me based on messages and emails I've sent and received, sometimes ones from several months in the past. Also, you need to learn some manners. Blocked.

I don't trust google for a second. It seems to me that starting up, they were so far ahead of the competition, and leaking so much red ink, that they probably had to have large secret subsidies coming from State organizations. In any case, the targeted ads are super annoying, and they use every bit of information they can gather on you for that purpose, while other ad-based service providers don't, or don't do it as much.

It's very important to go even further, and figure out the reasons why it was this way. To treat it as an accident that our ancestors were so brutal to each other and children in particular is a big mistake. Lifeforms at large don't develop behaviors that lower their life expectancy and that of their offspring in a massive way. There must be very good reasons why our ancestors acted in this way. And I think by using economic theory and psychology we can come to the conclusion that they behaved this way because they evolved to behave this way, because in the socioeconomic environment that we evolved in (hunter-gatherer / tribal), it was the best way to maximize their genetical reproductive success, and that of their children and subsequent generations. I've made a few other posts about it, like #5 in this thread: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/36874-is-it-natural-for-humans-to-make-war/ Coming to terms with this fact may prove substantially harder than getting through this book and others like it.