Ray H.

This isn't an argument.

Abortions destroy genetically complete humans that haven't aggressed against anyone. There is a moral component.

I was just making a prediction with regard to how the male versus the female prodigy would be depicted. I doubt the writers are aware enough to make any points about compulsory education and parent/child separation.

Is Trump not pandering to his supporters? Are his positions this year the same as they have been in the past? If not, why not?

Could be that young Ben Solo was an impatient student who pushed the bounds of his power with the expectation that he could use them to right wrongs. Of course, leading to power lust and the raping and pillaging of the otherwise pristine galaxy. Pattern recognized. Could be that young Rey Solo was deprived of the use of her power and potential, not even being told that she possessed such a thing for her entire childhood. Nevertheless, all she requires is to be inserted into critical situations for her abilities to erupt perfectly and innocently. *vomit* I pray to Yoda that this flips around and Rey goes to the Dark Side. Make it 2 for 2, Luke! Ohhh, wait! That would leave us with the two protagonists being Poe and Finn. Insert biracial, homo-erotic plot twists. Those two did become quite fond of one another quite quickly. Poe certainly liked the way Finn looked in his X-wing jacket.

What are Trump's principles? His selling point is that he can wheel and deal and get things done. Sounds very free markety doesn't it? But how does he wheel and deal? Eminent domain use? Threatening lawsuits? Bankruptcy filing? Making grand promises, claiming grand wisdom and ability when they come true, and conveniently forgetting about the ones that failed miserably? Generally doing what he can get away with? Are these virtues? Should I expect the same from President Trump? Oprah has built a successful, diverse empire, as well. I'm impressed. I don't think she should be President either.

Many people that vote don't put much thought into it. They've been led to believe their whole lives that it's a duty; that democracy is the bulwark of freedom. It isn't immoral for them to think this. In fact, they may believe that the alternative is despotism. It would be immoral for them to choose that outcome, and so they vote to preserve liberty. Many people have placed trust in the concept of democracy. I can't blame them. It's got a two hundred forty year marketing campaign behind it. By the same reasoning, I don't hold it against otherwise moral Christians that the god they believe in is immoral. The church promotes "God is love" and this is what Christians that I know are drawn towards. When, overwhelmingly, the voters/Christians that I am surrounded by are living in a moral way, I will not hold it against them that they've fallen for entrenched dogma. This is the only life I'm going to live. What a waste it would be to write off everyone who votes as just as immoral as the liars they've placed trust in. My tack is to inform those I know of political and bureaucratic bullshit. Hopefully, adding to the discontent for those institutions. The solution is changing the minds of the powerless, not indicting them.

Rothbard's case against the flat tax

I'll do her a favor and not watch her videos.

Later.

So, to be clear, the fact that the people being discussed might have lived their entire lives in an area under dispute makes no difference? What does make a difference is that they don't meet an IQ requirement to exercise property rights?

I detect an empathy gap in this thread.

An individual human is one that possesses unique genetic material, as well as unique experience. Each individual has property rights and is subject to the non-aggression principle, regardless of stage of development, since that individual will be able to reciprocate as an adult. No individual is wholly the property of another in any context. No adult is the property of another adult. No child is the property of its parents. No fetus is the property of the woman carrying it. Each is its own. And, in fact, the further the individual is from adulthood, the more responsibility those who gave it existence have in protecting it and ensuring its health and wellbeing to adulthood. A fetus is a human being with no control over its circumstances and no choice over who's womb it happens to be in. This does not make it property, nor does it make it a parasite. A parasite would have had some choice as to who's plumbing it crawled into. A fetus was forced into existence and is owed protection so that it can fulfill its potential. Abortion should be a last resort for truly tragic circumstances. Carrying the baby to term and putting it up for adoption should be the preferred option as long as there are no health considerations. It's too bad if that's inconvenient to the mother. It's too bad if she has to change her life for nine months. It's too bad if the man who got her pregnant is uncertain or missing or a douchebag. Too bad! Have the baby, give it up, and never do that stupid shit again. I've seen this happen. I've seen a community rally around a pregnant teen who carried a baby to term and then gave it up for adoption. Her life was not "destroyed" by having that baby. And more importantly, that baby's life was not truly destroyed.

The most relevant fact is that this is a child. He's not a jerk. He's learning to be a jerk, though. Thanks to his parents.

Economic Left/Right: 3.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69

Well put, AnarcoB.

Uh, no. Where did you get that from? Edit: I probably wrote that confusingly. "Reinforcing" wasn't entirely accurate. "Influencing" would be better. Whatever an individual's orientation as an adult turns out to be, it is the net result of that individual's experience as a child/adolescent of what is appropriate in fulfilling sexual desire. It's much clearer in the article itself. By the way, what a child understands as being appropriate, may not be what society as a whole accepts as appropriate. There are infinite scenarios that could contribute to a child associating sexual desire with behavior that many would disapprove of. For instance, molestation, or, more innocently, a lax enforcement by parents of traditional gender roles, which one study found to be the case in opposite sex twins, perhaps explaining the increased same-sex attraction rate found in that group.

Sort of, but not really, according to this article in Aeon Magazine. Those "certain social conditions" involve the often subtle influence of social norms during childhood and adolescence which may either enhance a baseline genetic sexuality or activate genetic expression of sexuality entirely. Parents and peers do the influencing through encouragement or discouragement of types of play, dress, style, etc. The author briefly sketches out some historic examples that have come and gone, such as pederasty. He condemns that practice as nonconsensual, but concludes that Epigenetics strikes again?

Well, those are certainly words you typed into your computer machine.

Holy crap! The way I described "random" is absolutely consistent with its definition. "Without regard to cost or benefit" is just another way of saying "undirected", "unplanned", "nonspecific", "made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision." No one claims that mutations occur without cause. Causation does not determine nonrandomness. Intent does. There is no intent behind mutations.

To be clear, when I said changes in the nuclear genome, I meant changes in a population's allele frequency. I did not mean to imply that mutations occurred rapidly in an individual in response to some need. As I'm sure you know, mutations occur randomly. They are errors. Once in the genome, however rare they may be, they have the potential to be expressed in response to some environmental pressure. That expression may be positive, negative, or null. This expression is then selected for or against (or not), leading to changes in a population's genetic makeup. All variations of a gene originate through mutation. In fact, all genetic material is ultimately a result of error that has persisted. The mtDNA-nuclear fertility relationship is no exception. There are strains of rice, maize, beets, and other crops that scientists routinely use to take advantage of this mechanism. By turns, breeding in or out the sterility of the crop. You won't find anyone arguing that mutations are directed or purposeful or that they are mostly beneficial. Only that the ones that are beneficial, if occurring in the right time and place, will become more prevalent.

Define "compelling evidence", because you insist on repeating the request for such, in spite of being presented with scholarly evidence. There are links to three studies that support the claim that the nuclear genome changes to save male fertility. It is not a suggestion or an analogy. This is the second time I've called you out for misrepresenting this one study. I won't bother to do it again. You're clearly smart enough to understand the written word and to find the relevant research on your own. Perhaps, you can link to some research that I haven't been able to find that is evidence for some other mechanism for the speciation of the planet. I also request an example of some "compelling evidence" in some other field that erased some skepticism that you held. Do not think that your bare skepticism is compelling to me.

Are there posters, other than MMX2010, that people opposed to the rep system see as having been unjustly ostracized? I'd certainly appreciate some links to other posts that anyone at all feels the FDR community would have gleaned value from, but didn't because it was hidden. I'd also like to see links to posts that were substantially upvoted, but were inconsequential or joky or abusive. The rep system may not be perfect. I've often wondered if individual posts being hidden, as opposed to all of a user's posts being hidden, would be a better system. As I know James has pointed out before, the design and implementation of a rep system is not simple. It takes time and effort. FDR has limited resources. I suspect that if someone donated some coding expertise or some money earmarked for designing a new system, then Stefan and the boys would consider changing it. For now, I, for one, am unconvinced that the current system is being abused to the point that they should divert their attention away from producing content.

From the study: "Existence of a sex-specific selective sieve in mtDNA is likely to exert strong selection on counteradaptations in the nuclear genome that restore lost male function." Followed by links to other studies.

Lalilulelo, Mitochondrial DNA is quite compelling. And its evolution depends entirely on mutations; no recombination here.