st434u

Yes, but most of it is contradictory. Also, one may want to know what's healthy. Cocaine will make it very easy to lose weight. But it's probably not a good idea as far as your health goes. I don't necessarily disagree with Robert Lustig, but there's a problem with these claims. Especially when you consider how a part of his argument is that there's no food in nature that contains both sugar and fat in large amounts. Here's the problem. There's really only one major natural, whole food source of calories that contains a very high amount of fiber and can be found in relative abundance in the wild. Fruits. And they also contain a lot of fructose.

Silence, by definition, doesn't communicate anything. Honesty requires communication. Thus totally ignoring someone can't be honest towards them. That doesn't mean that it's wrong to do that, sometimes you shouldn't be honest with some people. But I think you're wrong to think that it's honest towards someone to refuse to communicate with them and not tell them about it. Likewise, it can't be dishonest to tell someone that I no longer want to communicate with them in the future, if that's indeed what I intend to do. If someone stops communicating with me and I don't know why, I may think they're dead. I may think they've been arrested for a crime. I may think they hate me. I may think a lot of things, and their silence in and of itself doesn't communicate anything to me about why they're no longer talking to me, and it doesn't communicate if that's a temporary thing or if it's permanent. If instead they talked to me and told me that they no longer want to communicate with me, and explained why, then that would be appreciated and I'd consider it an honest thing for them to do. Every time I've decided to stop communicating with someone with whom I had some sort of emotional connection, I told them about it and explained why. They never bothered me again and I think they always appreciated being told that this was my intention. I was never left asking myself questions about whether I should've told them or not, and they were never left asking themselves questions as to why I stopped talking to them and if they should try to reach out or not.

I don't think aggressive is the word I'd use, but yes, straightforward and honest, with the people with whom I'm interested in having good relationships with. It was a struggle in the beginning as I was realizing that others in my life were not interested in this kind of approach to relationships. They were not interested in introspection and improvement, even though they always said they were. The conversations that required introspection and emotional vulnerability? Sometimes I'd start them, sometimes they'd start them and then back out when they saw that things got real. Or maybe you meant something else. Were you talking about romantic relationships? Being the man I'm always the one who has to pursue at first.

This happens a lot to me, also. But not just with people from FDR. I think in many cases it's due to the fact that my honesty and straightforwardness is toxic to their false selfs, and they don't wanna give that up and heal, so they stop talking to me altogether. Explaining why they're gonna stop creates too much of an opportunity for introspection, so they'd rather avoid that. This never happens with people with whom I remain distant, such as people I do business with, or others with whom I don't even try to talk about feelings and other important and often unexamined topics. Because of this, it's always a disappointement when that happens. In my experience, even most people who say they want to heal and improve their lives, don't really want that. They just want to pretend like that's what they're trying to do. It can get overwhelming, like you're living in some sort of twilight zone, and you're the only one sane enough to see past the delusions that people create for themselves. It can be very lonely. But after years of experience, what happened to me is that I stopped putting so much trust in others. I only trust myself, and if others want my trust, they have to earn it. People will always say and promise a lot, in order to get you to trust them, but trust can't be given, it has to be earned, and earning it means actions, not just words. Because I don't really trust others until they've proven they can be trusted (which is hardly ever the case), it's less of a disappointment when I realize they can't be trusted. Or rather, my level of trust in others is based on their actions. I might trust someone in some areas, but not in others. Like I can trust someone won't steal from me, but maybe I won't trust that they're really trying to heal emotionally the way they say they are.

Economic Left/Right: 7.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.38 Apparently I'm slightly more lefty and slightly more authoritarian than Milton Friedman... HA! I'd say this is pretty broken. A lot of the questions are ambiguous.

Coca-Cola says the amount of sugar in coke is not a problem. At least as far as obesity goes. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/coca-cola-funds-scientists-who-shift-blame-for-obesity-away-from-bad-diets/

It may be the caffeine that killed the ants. I hear they put double the amount of caffeine in diet coke as in regular coke. And caffeine is an insecticide.

Why do you discount it? I think it is way more common than most people suspect, and pretending it doesn't exist can lead to huge problems. Besides, if such a thing exists, and is grossly overlooked, obscured and obfuscated by the media and politically correct speech, there may be sinister reasons why. One example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/belgium/10346616/Belgian-killed-by-euthanasia-after-a-botched-sex-change-operation.html

Very interesting. I had heard of this 4 or 5 years ago. I wonder if anything changed since then.

Another thing is that because of Obamacare, -which makes companies pay big additional taxes if they have more than 50 full-time employees-, a lot of businesses have fired full-time workers and hired multiple part-time workers instead. Assuming a worker gets two 20-hour-a-week jobs instead of one 40-hour-a-week job, with the same hourly pay, he is now working a lot more to make the same money because he has to spend time travelling from one job to the other, changing to the appropriate clothes they must wear at each, etc. But another thing that happens is that the US has now become a "job-sharing" country. So if there's only one job available and two workers who want it, instead of one worker having a full-time job, and the other being unemployed, what you get is that the two people each get their share in half of the job, and half of the pay. So both of them count as employed as far as the labor statistics go, but none of them are really bringing home a decent income.

The venezuelan currency is now down to 600-to-1 versus the US dollar, from 180-to-1 a few months back. And the "official" exchange rate is still at 6.3-to-1, which was the actual market rate a couple years ago. Viva Chavez?

When you have a monogamous relationship and a family unit, the children share their genes with all of their caretakers and siblings. And the parents can spend all of their resources in raising their own children, which of course all share half of their own genes. The siblings can contribute to the raising of other children which share at least 25% of their own genes. Because of this, private property can be maintained, because each family cares for and sustains their own. What other people do or fail to do is not of much importance, as long as they don't directly interfere with the ability of your family to prosper. In a tribal union setting where children are cared for by all the tribe members, resources must be shared, and selfish behavior must be restricted. That is, you need everybody to produce and contribute to everybody else's wellbeing and not take too much for themselves and their own. In this situation, if someone is producing more and not contributing enough, it directly harms you, your children and your tribe. So they must be dealt with by force. The ideal economic system for tribal unions is communism. Furthermore, under a family union setting, neighboring families become trading partners. But under a tribal union setting, neighboring tribes become enemies. So boys need to be raised to become fierce warriors loyal to their tribes when they grow up. They need to be willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the tribe. Likewise, girls need to be raised to become cold hearted mothers, so that they are willing to sacrifice their own children for the good of the tribe, if necessary. The best way to achieve these is not through mutual respect, but through child abuse. In either case the children are owned, the question is whether it's better for them to be owned by their parents, who have a biological drive to sacrifice themselves for their children's wellbeing, or whether they should be raised by the whole tribe, which has a biological drive to sacrifice the children for the good of the tribe.

If you want to raise kids that act like wild apes, then yes, polygamy is the way to go, and tribal unions are the best. If you want kids that are well adapted to a civilized, peaceful society based on mutual respect and private property, then you need family unions, and monogamy. The "natural" mating behavior for humans is that of beasts, that is, polygamy and tribal unions. The "natural" socioeconomic status of humans is that of primitive hunter-gatherers. The "natural" economic status of humans is tribal communism. The "natural" state of humans is war, coercion, murder, theft, rape and torture. Marriage, monogamy, family unions and private property are not natural, they are social constructs. And they are what's necessary to maintain peace and civilization.

It's a good signal that you're not supposed to have a friendly conversation with the other party.

I've seen captchas where the images are digitally generated by the server, and are perfectly readable to the human eye, but not to bots.

Good riddance. Stealing from a robber is not immoral. It's a pity it's so little. They don't care about a few billion when they steal over 3 trillion per year. They only reason they make a fuss about it is publicity. Stealing from the taxpayers at large is bad though.

I wouldn't rule out anything. If someone scams you they deserve no respect. That said, it seems to me that any situation where someone is offering you a job and requiring a down payment is likely a scam. The whole reason you want to work for somebody else is because you don't have capital and they do, so you sell your labor to them for the security that they provide to you. If they're demanding that you make a down payment when they should be the ones paying you, it seems to me that most likely they're trying to scam you.

As much strong criticisms as I have of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, the encryption being hacked is not one of them. I admit I'm not very knowledgeable of the specifics involved, but it seems to me that if there was a serious concern of the encryption being hacked, wouldn't developers just come up with a new software upgrade pack that ups the ante as far as encryption goes? Since it costs several orders of magnitude more resources to decrypt a code than to create that same encryption system...

Absolute monarchy is the least harmful type of State. It is precisely because Australia has remained a part of the Commonwealth, that Australia is far more free than most of the rest of the world. If you want to challenge a particular type of statism first, target democracy, which is the most evil and most destructive of all. Once democracy is defeated ideologically as well as in practice, we can look at the comparatively minor evil and destructive power of monarchy.

This doesn't change my fundamental position. If anything, it could mean that the State finally realizes that Bitcoin is no threat to them at all. But I'm sure BTC enthusiasts will like this. Well, compared to what it was said before that the NY State would require from all people transacting in BTC and other cryptocurrencies, at least. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/york-regulator-issues-final-bitcoin-154145433.html Cliffs: * "digital currency companies operating in New York state that hold customer funds and exchange virtual currencies for dollars or other currencies are required to apply for what is known as a state "BitLicense." " * "The rules do not apply to software developers, individual users, customer loyalty programs, gift cards, currency miners, or merchants accepting bitcoin as payment." EDIT to mods: Oops, I meant to post this in Current Events. Feel free to move.

Right. Thanks Alan. I'm not sure if it's been mentioned already, but I had watched the first video several years ago, and thought the host asked a great question right away, if only a little blunt: "How unhappy was your childhood?"

Most women who value their sexuality are highly religious. Keep that in mind. It's tricky, because religious women are also more likely to lie if they don't value it, but want others to believe that they do. And of course, there's the whole religion thing to get over, which is no easy task. And most religious women will only date a religious man. Generally of the same religious inclination, too.

More spending doesn't equal a higher standard of living. Also, true inflation is much higher than 0.4%, for the past 7 years it's hovered between 5 and 20%, while the State claims it's been between 2 and 0%. More taxes means more wealth going to the State, and less wealth in the hands of those who earned it. Also, Obamacare made it so hundreds of thousands of people are being fired every month from their full-time jobs, and instead having to get two part-time jobs, so that they don't qualify for Obamacare, but have to spend more time travelling from one job to the next. This has the added benefit of reducing the State's unemployment figures report, as if you have 200,000 people who get fired from a full-time job, and 400,000 people who get hired for part-time jobs, the State reports that as a total gain of 200,000 jobs, with the consequent drop in unemployment. It's all been designed to cook the numbers.

In Argentina, where I'm from, an old slang term for doctor is "matasanos" which means "one who kills the healthy". Does your body have a deficiency of drugs, X-rays, vaccines, and other medical treatments? The human body is far too complex for some wannabe engineer to monkey around with it and try to fix things that are wrong. We can fix machines that break down because we know how they're built, and we can build them. We can't build a human body. We can't even manufacture a single human cell. I learned from an early age and from first-hand experience, that if I wanted to stay healthy, I had to keep as far away from doctors as I could. The only reason I would see a doctor is if I had a foreign item, such as a bullet, that needed to be removed. Or perhaps if I had a broken bone that needed to be set. But that's about it. There is now more medical treatment and intervention than ever before, and there is more disease than ever before. You decide which caused which.

Wait are you the same mr1001nights that used to get into endless debates on youtube while promoting communism? I guess that would make sense, since communism is just another type of anti human ideology like this one you're mentioning here. You'll be glad to know that most of the people in power around the world already agree with you on both.