Pepin

Not at all a nutritionist, nor do I do that much research. Most of the information I get is from various experts and I parrot it. Anyway, good and bad cholesterol explained in the articles below. http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/AboutCholesterol/Good-vs-Bad-Cholesterol_UCM_305561_Article.jsp http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/ldl-cholesterol-the-bad-cholesterol Depends on what the person does and what they are eating. Issues of high fat diets may not be directly be caused by the fat, but indirectly through its affect on appetite. Fatty foods tend to be less satiating, and people who don't track their caloric intake will tend to overeat on high fat diets. If I remember right, the minimum amount and maximum is a point of contention, but a 0% or 100% fat diet is out of the question. Anyway, I don't claim to know how much is needed, so this question is confusing. I hope that isn't in question as I said nothing to indicate that this wasn't the case. It is vague because the argument I am making is in the form of an Aristotelian mean. There are black and whites in terms of extremes, but there is a large grey area with most any nutrient. I am avoiding being specific on amounts and effects because I don't know enough to give numbers, but I do know enough to know that there are extremes and substances to be avoided completely. I would agree that it would probably be good to distinguish between artificial and natural trans fats. I am completely happy to say that I do not need to know anything about trans fats and can confidently make an argument from authority to show that currently there is scientific consensus on the effects of trans fats. Unless I really get into nutrition, this is all I ever will be doing, as understanding it is a whole other thing.

If you are to debate someone who is religious at your workplace you must accept the various consequences, such as: having to interact with the person on a continual basis with the subject matter always hanging in the air; potentially being reported for religious intolerance; degrading your happiness at work; and opening up potentially unwanted discussion on the subject with other coworkers. It is perfectly acceptable to discuss this subject matter with your coworkers, but be aware of the risks. There is no obligation to debate someone. There is a large difference between debating strangers, debating friends, and debating coworkers. In the case of friends and strangers, if the conversation ends up poorly, you can break ties and never talk to them again. The effect that this can have on you is limited, at least in terms of time. In the case of a coworker, provided that neither of you switch jobs or positions due to the debate, if it ends poorly you are stuck in a pretty awful situation. You have to be very calculative in what you say, who you say it to, and the topics you discuss with others. I may choose to talk about anarchy with one of my coworkers after long discussions and reassurance that my views will not comprise my relation with the coworker, and that they will not be discussed with others without my permission. I am likely not to choose to talk about anarchy with someone who will berate me, tell others that I said I despise poor people and want a system that will kill them off because I am a social darwinist, and who will make coming into work the last thing I want to do. My advice, think about yourself, and less about others in these circumstances.

Depends on what you mean by personality. To a large extent we can override genetic predisposition to certain behaviors through repetition, but some may need to put in far more time and effort. Certain traits are extremely difficult to attain for many, while they are effortless for others. Like with most anything, there is a combination of environment and genetics that will maximize or minimize particular potentialities. The nature/nurture concept to a degree breaks down in terms of ability, though vestiges can be reassembled in extreme cases. Athletes and top tier intellects have massive genetic components to their ability, and though environment had an effect, it is the genetic inheritance which is more at work. In terms of issues which do not pertain to ability, research seems to indicate that traits such as introversion and extroversion are not very correlated with environment. In my opinion, particular ways of thinking tend to be more inherent, and these different ways of thinking influence personality. Not much of an answer, but the factors are rather complex, especially in gaining accurate measurements. I think it is a mix, with environment either maximizing or minimizing certain traits, and other traits being generated either through the internal or external environment. I don't think it is one or the other.

If you commit risky behavior which endangers others, or their property, it is not moral. For instance, if I am to wave a loaded hand gun around carelessly with the line of sight passing over a person, yet this is simply carelessness and not any attempt to shoot, I can take action against this person as my safety is jeopardized. To be blunt, what is more dangerous? A man holding a loaded gun to my head who will leave me alone if I give him money? Or a man who holds a loaded a gun to my head due to his incompetence and lack of knowledge of firearm safety? Perhaps the first, but the second also sounds rather dangerous. It is common to think about these matters in terms of intention, but there needs to be no ill intent on behalf of a party in order to justify the use of force in particular instances. If the insides of a large machine are being cleaned by a woman inside, and if a man is about the press a button which would start up the machine and kill the woman, you would be completely justified in pushing her out of the way as yelling "don't press that" isn't likely to bypass his reaction time. If a person has a sudden stroke while driving a vehicle and becomes very reckless, using force would be permissible in stopping the person. The person could not be treated as if it was a choice to have a stroke, as they had no choice in the matter, though they would still be liable for the damages. In the case of someone who chooses to drive under the influence, the ability to use force would be permissible, as it the same as the scenario with the person with the stroke. The difference is in responsibility in the endangerment, as unlike the person who had a stroke, this person chose to drive under the influence and took no step to stop themselves from driving. Someone who drives drunk is like someone pointing a gun at you with no intention of shooting. As your post suggests, the primary issue is in a person taking such a risk and either dying as a result, or being unable to provide any restitution. If a drunk driver kills your child in an accident, what can they do? To cut to the meat of the matter, the primary issue with enforcement is that of needing to catch someone in the act. A law does nothing to stop someone from driving drunk, it only provides an ability to stop someone who is driving drunk. A law against risky behavior does not stop risky behavior, rather it only reduces risky behavior when such risky behavior is being committed. There is a deterrent effect in regard to the consequences of breaking a law, but for many, part of the risk in risky behavior is getting caught. It may be implied that someone who acts against a law against drunk driving either believes: they are competent to drive and aren't at risk of harming others or themselves; they are not competent to drive and accept the risk of harming others or themselves; or that the law is invalid and they are not at risk of harming others or themselves; or that there is no thought as they are beyond the stage of drunk. If a solution exists to the problem of drunk driving, it is not catching drunk drivers in the act, as the solution entails the existence of the problem. This really gets to the heart of ethics, as a moral commandment can only effect those who want be moral. A law against drunk driving is like a diet book for skinny people, those who would follow it don't need it, and those who won't aren't going to read it. To attempt to end this wall of text, the solution to this problem is in creating complex systems of prevention. The risk to address would not be that of those that drive drunk, yet rather that of those who are at risk of driving drunk. It is like how in health insurance the risk doesn't deal with whether the person has a disease, yet rather the risk of the person acquiring such a disease. If a person is at risk of a particular disease, the insurance company will take action to minimize this risk. If a person is at risk of driving drunk, the insurance company will take action to eliminate this risk. To be clear, this sort of risk assessment is long term. There would be many interdependencies which would all have their own reason to reduce the risk of drunk driving. The car insurance company would want to reduce the risk for their customer so they wouldn't have to pay out money. The customer would want to reduce their risk to get cheaper rates. Other drivers would want to reduce the risk to ensure their own safety. Road owners would want to reduce the risk so they could: advertise safer roads, so their roads did not become backed up due to an accident, and because allowing drunk driving on their roads would be seen as not being concerned with the consumer. Family and friends would want to reduce the risk because of their emotional attachment. Schools would want to lower the risk as it would look pretty bad if one of their star students killed themselves in an accident driving drunk. How good could they been educating the kids, and how good of a grasp do they have on their students when they didn't notice any signs before this happened? I can go on an on. What actual preventative measures would be put into place is impossible to guess. As far as travel, automation sounds like a good guess. For guns, why not cameras which will automatically trigger the safety lock when it identifies a human? To clarify once more, the problem not to solve is how to make good people be good. Rather it is how to prevent people from becoming bad, and how to reduce the risk of risky behavior. I hope this post was not too long or confusing, and I hope it helped.

I took a few of those tests of forums a while back, and I couldn't exactly answer a lot of the questions as they didn't make sense with my views at the time (was not an anarchist). I choose the best of evils and ended up on the point of the libertarian square. People seem to me to be pretty libertarian. Their hang ups tend to be in regard to regulation of corporations, education, healthcare and minimum wage laws. It makes sense that these are the issues people struggle with the most as they are the most difficult to understand in terms of laws, upbringing, history, economics, and so on. Economics is a topic people really tend to disregard unless it agrees with their bias. With that said, people are also extremely statist in positions they are not libertarian in. There is often little ability to move someone on specific issues if they are "convinced' that it is an essential state function.

This is often called the Dunning-Kruger effect. http://mindhacks.com/2013/12/02/the-more-inept-you-are-the-more-inaccurate-your-self-assessment/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning_Kruger The factors in such behavior can be genuine or self-defensive, and it is usually pretty obvious which it is. Someone who is self-defensive will tend to get emotional and fight back against disagreement. Someone who is genuine in their own self-perception will remain calm and seem to think they understood your rebuttal, when they clearly haven't. They will lack an ability to know when they are over their head intellectually. I have a difficult time understanding people who exhibit this behavior, especially the second class of people. They really think they are understanding your arguments and that they are doing a great job of holding their ground. You just get the impression that the other person is dumb and their "I don't understand this" sense isn't functional. Like you could say something totally nonsensical and they'd claim to know what you are talking about.

I don't really understand the question. But to give my thoughts anyway... UPB essentially tests arguments of what humans ought to do through rational means. The validity of an argument is dependent upon its internal consistency, capacity to be implemented and universalized, logical implications, and so on. I don't want to say that UPB would be common sense, but the basis for it would be taken for granted by most people. UPB style reasoning is what people do all the time, especially children, and it would be effortless to think in these terms without having irrational theories forcibly wired into your brain.

There is good cholesterol and bad cholesterol. Same with fats, with trans fat being terrible for health. Black and white concepts tend not to apply to biology too much.The idea that any nutrient is good or bad depends on dosage and it's particular form. There are of cause some black and white matters in terms of health, like with trans fat and snake venom, but context is needed in most cases. Water is of course essential for health, but too much will cause death. Fat is of course essential to health, but too much can lead to negative health effects.

Isn't this implicit in having a state?

The show is so complex in its presentation. Reflects a lot of current dynamics, or at least how they are typically thought of. Zeheer is not exactly bad, but not exactly good. His stated goals and actions lure in others, but the question the show is exploring is if the motives are misguided. It mirrors revolutionists in other countries such as Libya, except the aim is "anarchy". A large greyness is created through the conundrum of who is good, and who is bad. Many found themselves cheering when the rebels killed Gaddafi, yet also felt sick as there was little reason to support the rebels. Gaddafi was obviously a bad guy, the rebels are also bad guys with good motives (according to the narrative), and seeing them collide in this way causes such an odd feeling. More so, it reflects communist thought on reforming society. Violence as a means of ending oppression is contained in much of the thought, though the focus is always on high class people, as all of the workers are seen to be allies who simply need to be free'd. To comment on the earth queen's demise... She is dead. Why they don't just say it, even in that monologue Zaheer gave is because it isn't something kids shows can really do. They have to skirt around the word for some reason. In TLAB, death was more implied than anything. Here it was pretty blatant, just not made explicit.

That would be a threat. It is similar to mafia types suggesting that something might happen if you don't pay them. The claim, though silly, is enough to interpret as "if you don't comply, I am justified in using violence against you". Threats violate the nap. If you want reasons why, there is plenty of literature on it.

Walter Block has a great section in his book "Defending the Undefendable" on the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3vQQBe_02s The topic is incredibly difficult to discuss without concerning yourself with the details of a free society. Reputation systems would be quite likely, and people probably wouldn't take accusations seriously if it was anonymous. Instead, people would want to know about the person making the claim and their reputation for legitimate claims. If someone was known for libel, nobody would take them seriously, and it is likely that many service providers would refuse to do business with them. If someone had a very positive reputation, though it may not always mean the person is correct or is committing libel, it is far more indicative. An analogy is that of credit. Someone attempting to get a loan who has terrible credit will be denied because of their past behavior. Though it may be true that this might be the one time they will pay it off, it isn't assumed to be likely. Someone with perfect credit will get the loan because they have a history of paying off the loan. Though there is some chance that they will go rouge and not pay it off, this chance is very small and unlikely. To go further, with these reputation systems, it would be far easier for a person to defend themselves against this sort of stuff, as they will have record of their reputation. The company will actually have an incentive to clear your name of any libel and to speak in advocacy for you. If enough proof to the contrary is provided, they will seek out to decrease the reputation of the libeler until restitution is made. The decrease in reputation might affect who will do business with them, friendships they have, their life at work, the price they have to pay for a DRO, and so on. To get the gist of my reply, it isn't something that you can use force against someone for as no violence is committed, but it is something that societal systems can guard and take action against.

Think about it in terms of a barter economy selling grains and produce. Is it possible for everyone to profit off of every transaction all the while not starving? How about actually being better off than they were before? I suggest thinking about it in these terms as money is far more complex than we imagine it.

Just a minor correction, an example of an argument from fallacy ought not to contain a refutation, rather just a rejection of the conclusion. Like in your example, the falseness of the nutritionists claim does not necessarily entail eating unhealthy food as truth, as it could be argued that there are no healthy or unhealthy foods, or that eating food altogether is unhealthy. Though the phrasing is completely comprehensible, it is difficult to see the issue I am addressing when in this form. To rephrase the argument: Nutritionists claim that consumption of X class of foods are required for health Nutritionists are making an argument from authority Consumption of X class of foods are not required for health The falseness of the nutritionists claim does not imply anything about foods which are not required for health, rather it only implies that there is no correlation between health and foods which are considered to be required for health. From the example, we can not infer that unhealthy foods, foods that are claimed to be detrimental to health, ought to be consumed. I hope I am not being annoying and overly technical.

Maybe there is something I am missing, but some of those examples don't sound right. Once issue is that the argument from fallacy simply claim that an argument is false if fallacious, it does not make a counterclaim. If a nutritionist claims the spinach is healthy to eat, and I claim that they are wrong because hamburgers are healthy to eat, then I am not using the argument from fallacy as I am just making a counterclaim. The issue with the counterclaim is that the two being health are not mutually exclusive. For it to be a fallacy fallacy, I would claim that the nutritionist is wrong because they are making an argument from authority. Like in your example, if they claim that a food is healthy because it is popular, the fallacy is an argument from popularity. It of course does not imply that the food is unhealthy, but neither would such a fallacy imply that another completely different food is healthy or unhealthy. It would make sense to claim that the argument is false due to the fallacy, just not the conclusion. The fallacy fallacy is most prominent in cases where a statement fits some criteria for a fallacy, but is not an actual fallacy. It is very easy for people who lack critical thinking skills to go overboard in identifying fallacic forms, when what is being argued is not in the shape of a penis. If I am to say: "John is known for lying. In his deposition he said he didn't steal the laptop. He is most likely lying". Many people will say that this inference is incorrect as it is an ad hominem argument, which is defined as a dismal of a claim based on someone's character. This is an ad hominem argument, but it is not a fallacy as John's character and history of lying is completely related to whether he is lying or not. Another example is: "Health experts recommend staying away from suntan booths". Someone may hear this is retort that this is fallacy in that it is an argument from authority, that just because an expert says it is true, does not imply that it is true. Examples of times when scientists were wrong before are likely to be provided as evidence. Yet, though this is an argument from authority, if the expertise of the health experts can be established, it is not at all fallacious as their profession is completely related to the validity of the claim. The fallacy fallacy is big on youtube and especially in the comments

I'd rather like a computer chip in my brain which could help store and pull information, do math, control various things, and perhaps enhance my cognition and well being. Psychic chips would be quite awesome.

To quote the applicable definition from Webster's Dictionary: Giving by definition is voluntary, as giving is a free choice. Mandates by definition are not free choices. To combine the concepts is to combine oil and water. To put this into full context. "The right to not be robbed does not preclude the unchosen action of a freely chosen action to transfer possession, it simply restricts others from enforcing this unchosen action." To reduce the statement and to make what is being said more clear: "Unchosen action x is chosen. Enforcing unchosen action X is not valid". The issue is obviously the blatant contradiction and that once something an action unchosen, it is by definition enforced, provided that it is unchosen due to the actions of people. The statement is confusing in that it is either making an exception for theft, by claiming that something like taxation is voluntary, and therefore not theft; or that there are actions which people must commit, that people do not wish to commit to such an action but must for an unstated reason, and that such actions are nonenforceable. I don't have a clue what the second case is talking about, mostly because of the unstated reason. Must people commit such an action for fear of enforcement? Do they value the benefits over the costs of the action? Is there some sort of societal out-casting which is the disincentive. Perhaps I am missing something on this, having not heard it, but I don't understand the point unless it is the first case. Also, please note that this is not an argument. It is a statement. It does not imply that it is wrong, but it leaves the audience to figure out what the possible arguments for the conclusion are. It is like if I were to make the statement "the JFK assassination was a conspiracy". If you are going to pick this apart, you'd have to figure out what arguments I have to make such a claim. You could just make the opposite argument and find evidence to show it wasn't, but this only refutes the conclusion and not the evidence which may have been used to support the claim.

I love this. It doesn't seem like they are going somewhere dumb. They might, but it is more likely to a grey area, with all sides having done wrong. I am going to guess that they may will end on the concept of a republic, but I am not sure what their message will be exactly. Linn's sister may have a somewhat ararchic city, which may be the ideal the white lotus are pushing for, as there are hints that she is conspiring with them. That city seems not really to have a government, though I could see it being argued it does. Republic City is the US, a Ba Sing Se is China. Not sure the appearance is Stefan related, but it is possible. Anyway, the spirit world is in anarchy, and there is going to have to be some tie in with this. There is an explanation of the origin of government in the last season, and it may be possible that harmonizing with the spirits entails a form of anarchy. It is true that the reason for government no longer exists in context to the show. I may be too hopeful, but there are many possibilities.

The term can also be used in a negative possessive way. A parent might brag "my child is the star qb on the football team" and go on to take any accomplishment of their child as their own. A creepy girlfriend might overemphasize that her boyfriend is hers and hers alone. Some parents seem to see their children as temporary slaves, in which case the term is usually used in more a possessive sense. This is the minority though. What questions are coming up exactly?

Parenting is a verb, but it also describes a genetic relationship. Language is confusing and complex in this way, as words often have many meanings depending on the context, just as the word "my" can indicate possession or relation. A positive relationship between two or more people. Metaphorically, the term often is used to show that these people stick together. If you tell someone "Rachel and I are in love", what someone is likely to ask is "is she your girlfriend?". Though someone can somewhat assume that you are implying that you are dating, the question that beckons in the mind is "who is Rachel and how does she relate to this person?". As argued in my previous post, the use of the term is to convey relational information quickly, and to avoid confusion and clumsiness. Of course there are others ways to ask such as "are you two dating?", but I am arguing that there is nothing wrong saying "my X", or "your X", or "Jim's X". Not important in context to the argument, but high level information is information which is heavily abstracted. It is far easier to say "daughter" than to describe what a daughter is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-_and_low-level This doesn't happen. If it does, the child only needs a quick correction. Children are very adaptive in learning completely confusing and backward language. If a word or term does not make sense with their experience, they are more likely to ask about it than to assume that they understood correctly. You: "Bob and I are going snowboarding" Me: "Who's Bob? Your brother? Your friend? Your boyfriend? Your instructor? Some guy you met recently? A long lost friend? Your enemy?" and so on. The statement works if I know who Bob is in relation to you, but as I argued in the previous post, we introduce people with these terms to establish a relationship. Once someone knows the relationship, that Bob is your brother, you will stop saying that he is your brother. “Also, Bob who parents me said this.” You: "Also, Bob who parents me said this" Me: "I didn't know you were adopted" The my pertains to the reference point. If you say "my aunt", we know that we are talking about your relationships. When you say "aunt", you are specifying how she is related to you. This pattern is essential in conveying relationships and is still there without the term "my". You: "Rachel won't stop nagging me". Me: "Who is Rachel?" You: "The girl who I am dating" Note that the bolded terms establish a relationship in the same way, that you are relate to the girl Rachel through dating. My entire post was dedicated to showing that the term "my" in these contexts is not the same in these others contexts and providing the use of the term. If this is something you think I was not aware of, then I must of done an absolutely dreadful job in writing my post.

I would disagree and instead propose that the language is used to differentiate between your own set of relationships with another's set of relationships, and to give information about the particular relationship involved. A use for stating a relationship is in implying the implications of a relationship. A sibling bond is different from a friendship bond, just as those are different from a parent child bond. To say "friend" carries a lot of information about a relationship, just as: "best friend"; "girlfriend"; and "wife" does. Using such terms is a method of communicating high level information about a relationship in a few syllables. Though you focus more parental relationships, it might be useful to consider the case of "my friend". The value in the phrase is in establishing that the person is related to you through friendship, but that this relationship is not shared by the other party. Note that when you have a friend in common with another, you simple call them by name as opposed to establishing that he is your friend. When a friend is not shared and the other party does not know who you are about the speak of, you say "my friend" to establish a person who you in particular are related to through friendship. If you are to speak of "Jim's friend", you do this to specify the relationship Jim has to this person, but to also clarify that the both of you do not share this relationship. In this case of a child and their father, when one child talks to a child from another family, they will use the phrase "my dad" to clarify that they are speaking about their father and not of the other child's. This is because not doing so can be slightly confusing as the term "father" by itself tends to sound like the relationship is mutual, that both children share the same father. This is why siblings will talk to each other in terms of "dad said X", but when talking to others will say "my dad said X". Another slight clarification that is made through the "my" specification is in making it clear that your are talking about a particular person as opposed to a general concept. If I were to say "girlfriend won't stop nagging", though it may be easy to figure out that I speaking about my girlfriend, there is an initial confusion and clumsiness in that it somewhat sounds like I am talking about girlfriends in general, or I may be talking about someone else's girlfriend. I would argue that the use of the term "my X" does not at all imply ownership. It is a method of conveying a relationship while also specifying the members in that relationship. The "my" is interchangeable with "your", "our", and "Jim's". The X, who is the subject, simply establishes the relation between the point of reference: "Jim", to the subject.

This is not a matter of IP a it is a matter of contract law and property rights. To put it this way, the service provider could be providing content which is all public domain, but this would not imply legitimacy to granting yourself free access to their service. Provided this distinction, a question to answer is if it would be legitimate for a neighbour to tap into your internet connection without your consent provided that it did not affect your speed and that they did not do anything illegal. I believe the scenario is in essence the same. To emphasize, the question is not if you would mind or not, it is if you'd have a legitimate "right" to take action against them. If someone did care, would they have a legal ability to stop them? Though focusing on the morality of media corporations may provide insight in the present, it avoids the heart of the matter. It is like talking about the philosophical nature of free trade in conjunction with the current economic state. If we are to talk about a particular action's validity, it is important to not confuse the issue with other variables, as then we are answering a completely different question.

I use a tracfone for calls and messaging, while I use my Samsung Galaxy II as a PDA mp3 player. I don't know why I'd need a fancy plan.

I taught myself how to program in high school, and in college I took a few classes during my first and only year. My skills were good enough to be hired as a programmer by a on campus company that received contracts from outside sources. Taught myself far too many languages in a short period of time, really my work was like another two classes. A lot of the recommendations to step away from the computer were quite helpful. This came more from books than my teachers, but the teachers really stressed understanding what you were coding before you coded. One teacher talked about various high level military projects which needed to work first try, and how anyone working on these projects always writes everything out to make sure it works on paper before implementing anything. A large issue with programmers is that they do not do enough planning, and tend just to code. There is the process of deciding to write up a part, writing it, and checking to see if it works. If it does, do the same thing again. If not, take the time to figure it out. This method is really looking for trouble on huge projects, as many complex issues start to pop up later. I've been there. A process of planning on paper helps incredibly in breaking down a project, figuring out algorithms, and so on.

To be honest, this was difficult for me to get past in term of real life interactions. It was like if there was enough cleavage showing, what they were saying didn't matter. It isn't like I was a ladies man or anything, though people tell me that with my looks I could be, but rather that my brain would shut off in the presence of attractive females. After recognizing that this wouldn't end up well, I did a lot of thinking and came to the conclusion that intelligence is what I am really attracted to, and soon after those who didn't display it would quickly loose my interest. Looking through profiles on okCupid caused me so much disappointment. I did have chats with a number of girls, though they tended not to go very well. I am not the greatest at texting, as I tend to write a little too much to avoid mis-communications... Though I stressed in my profile that I would far prefer a quick face to face interaction as opposed to a slow back and forth over the course of a month, everybody wanted to go the slow route. Really not sure about the quality of my profile, but I did get a large number of high ratings, but maybe that has little to do with my profile. I know that this is huge issue with attractive females, who are often flooded with messages.