Wesley

Do you count the military as spending on men? What about transportation? What about interest? What about education? I am just pointing out that the line is not exactly clear for probably the majority of the budget.

deleted after realizing I misread the quote

"I would like my name and number removed from your list and never contacted again, thanks."

People are not required to go to college, it is a choice for the student. Thus, colleges are infinitely better for students as the fact that the students have more choices and can leave if they want to, then the colleges actually need to provide good services to the students (in general). There may be better alternatives for some people, but it is nearly impossible for one to sit on a mountain and delegate what the best path is for everyone (not that you are exactly arguing for that, but I exaggerated to illustrate a point). My biggest question is: What do you think the purpose of home schooling is?

No problem, it can be very confusing stuff. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

There are held in a P2P fashion on a ledger that is known as the blockchain. Everyone who runs a bitcoin node had a copy of the ledger. The coins cannot be spent unless you send the private key with the spend order. The coins are on coinbase's wallet. They only let users withdraw a small percentage of their total bitcoin holdings at any one time as the rest is in "cold storage" (aka untouched and unaccessible by the internet). However, no matter how reliable the system is, I would not recommend opening yourself to third party risk by storing coins with a third party. Use coinbase as an exchange and maybe a way to spend petty cash, but any large investment I would highly recommend creating a paper wallet and storing them in a safe and secure location. These were people who opened themselves up to third party risk. Mt Gox had access to all of their user's coins and they did not have a working cold wallet storage system. People who used Mt Gox as their storage opened themselves up to the third party risk of needing to trust Mt Gox. Bitcoin attempts to eliminate third party risk and it should not be re-added by the user when possible. If you are going to store coins in savings, use a reliable exchange and then send the coins into cold storage as soon as you can so that you are not exposed to trusting the third party. Read up on paper wallets and cold storage. In general, people understand physical security hundreds of times more than they understand digital security, so I generally advocate a physical solution with backups whenever people are getting into bitcoin, for all coins except the petty cash that you plan on possibly spending in the near future.

Here is a thread I wrote a while back titled Bitcoin: Getting Started. If you have any other questions, feel free to add them to this thread or write to me in a PM.

I might point you to the FDR meetup page (Link at the bottom of the page): MeetUp From there you can meet people and things might evolve from there where you will either meet women at the meetups or more rational guys who might be able to introduce you to some of their friends. I also say you can find people to talk to. If you hang out in chat, friend people on the boards, join skype conversations, etc. As far as turning FDR into a dating site or having a dating section, I think that FDR might not be quite popular enough in order to so that well and that Mike and Stef can spend their time in other areas better, but if someone else wanted to spend some time putting something together, it would be an interesting idea that I would be curious to see how it works out.

Consciousness or life is certainly not necessary for creation. Life is simply created by the proximity of the right chemicals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis You also need to recognize that nothingness is not really the same in physics as it is in philosophy. This article explains it pretty well: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/08/16/the-physics-of-nothing-the-phi/ In the end, it is certainly not necessary for a consciousness to create things. It is certainly impossible for something inherently contradictory in nature or scientifically impossible to have done so.

I know they are in the bomb and the brain series. The links to the resources were broken, likely in the move to the new boards. However, I found the part 4 sources and I think they are in there: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/22050-the-bomb-in-the-brain-part-4-the-death-of-reason-the-effects-of-child-abuse-references If those aren't it, then they would be in the part 3 sources and someone may be able to find it in a board search, but I think that that link is what you were looking for.

Everyone has a different theory as to what healthy eating is. Also, it is very true that different regions and cultures have adapted to be better with different foods. More than anything, I would recommend what is called n=1 experimentation with your diet. Figure out different diet plans, try a paleo-esque diet, try veganism, try the south beach, try intermittent fasting, try super low caloric with binge/cheat days and whatever other people have suggested. Keep a food diary where you have an idea of what you eat (there are several apps that track food) and then keep track of how you feel, how well your workouts are going, how well your bathroom trips are going, what your weight is doing, what your measurements were before and after, and anything else that may apply loosely to food including mood, acne, etc. Give any plan that you find credible and possibly good a 1 month trial period where you see how you do on it. Go 100% on whatever the plan for the month is and make sure you give it all the chances (aka you wont know how well the diet actually did unless you actually do it and dont cheat on the diet). In the end, you will tend to find something that is close to ideal for you, or you may even decide that veganism is the best, but that life is not worth living if you can't have bacon, so you will cheat on that one thing (just as an example) but you will know what the consequences are of not strictly following the diet through n=1 experimentation and through research of the plan. The goal is to find the best plan for your taste and health for a lifestyle change. Do the same thing with your workout plan. Try out a crossfit gym, join a couple distance races and train for those, try some Wendler 5/3/1, try some bodyweight exercises in your home, sign up for a volleyball league, or whatever else. Find what you like and don't like and pick a plan that you want to stick with. More than anything else, if you pick a consistent diet where you are mindful of your food intake and try to be healthy and you have a consistent workout pattern that is fun and enjoyable and challenging for you, then you will do better than most people in the long run. Figuring out what works for you is far more important than asking others what works for them.

Sleeping in a coffin is saying that they are dead inside. Garlic was considered to have healing properties (and still does) in a per-scientific era, just as the religions of the time made money casting out demons and curing peoples. I think it is just a hold over from that. People would use mirrors, garlic, and holy symbols as protection from evil and disease. Stake through the heart partially came from Vlad the Impaler, who Dracula was based on and who had a propensity for killing and torturing tens of thousands of people, which his favorite method being impaling. The other part of it had to do with the fact with impaling was how accused vampires were killed (though decapitation was also a common method in other regions). Considering these methods also killed humans, it was rather silly and a self-confirming theory that they were vampires in a similar way to how witches should be burned at the stake or drowned. Can't enter home without permission I think comes from the religious belief that demons are invited in and will trick you or manipulate you in order to "sell your soul" for money or fame or something and then it would always end badly for you. Looking at the entire idea of demon possession, pacts with the devil, etc might fall into a similar category. Here are a couple other sections from the wiki on vampires that might apply: Political interpretationThe reinvention of the vampire myth in the modern era is not without political overtones.[130] The aristocratic Count Dracula, alone in his castle apart from a few demented retainers, appearing only at night to feed on his peasantry, is symbolic of the parasitic Ancien regime. In his entry for "Vampires" in the Dictionnaire philosophique (1764), Voltaire notices how the end of the 18th century coincided with the decline of the folkloric belief in the existence of vampires but that now "there were stock-jobbers, brokers, and men of business, who sucked the blood of the people in broad daylight; but they were not dead, though corrupted. These true suckers lived not in cemeteries, but in very agreeable palaces".[131] Marx similarly famously defined capital as "dead labour which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks".[132] In Das Kapital Marx repeatedly refers to capital as a vampire, because of its monstrous metabolism: according to the German philosopher and revolutionary, in fact, capital is capable at once to suck living labour out of the workers and to transform them in an integral part of itself (variable capital).[133]Werner Herzog, in his Nosferatu the Vampyre, gives this political interpretation an extra ironic twist when protagonist Jonathon Harker, a middle-class solicitor, becomes the next vampire; in this way the capitalist bourgeois becomes the next parasitic class.[134] PsychopathologyA number of murderers have performed seemingly vampiric rituals upon their victims. Serial killers Peter Kürten and Richard Trenton Chase were both called "vampires" in the tabloids after they were discovered drinking the blood of the people they murdered. Similarly, in 1932, an unsolved murder case in Stockholm, Sweden was nicknamed the "Vampire murder", because of the circumstances of the victim's death.[135] The late-16th-century Hungarian countess and mass murderer Elizabeth Báthory became particularly infamous in later centuries' works, which depicted her bathing in her victims' blood in order to retain beauty or youth.[136]

Just as a brief summary, It seems that statists have over taken religious people 59% to 41%. However, I am getting a couple feelings from the comments that may make the poll not be as separated as it seems. 1. Many people seem to indicate that the difference is negligible, so they may have selected one or the other in that it is .1% more annoying or something as small. 2. Some people seem to indicate that statists are more annoying because they are at least rational enough to debate and that religious people are so insane that the debate doesn't even occur, and thus they are not annoying to debate. At least some of these might need "annoying" to be defined as there may be a point in which something is so far from achievable that it no longer could be considered annoying.

"I was researching really gay ice magic." -Stefan Molyneux As per the YT comments for "The Dangers of Dating a Sex Worker".

People say things all the time that is countered by the evidence. The number of very large people who have told me they want to lose weight and still eat crap and don't workout would astound you. The only conclusion that can be derived from that is that they do not actually want to lose weight. The same can be said with spanking. It takes a few minutes work as to research best outcomes for children as far as connection, empathy, raising good children, etc. The fact that they do not research and do not figure things out and take actionable steps to improve proves that that is not their goal. As I said, the children are not particularly a part of the equation when parents decide to spank. What is are the parent's emotions and inability to properly process them in a healthy way and so they act out. They can say all they want that they love their kids and would do what is best for them, but until they spend a little time researching and taking steps to improve, I simply do not believe it.

What I was saying wasn't exactly about shyness or low self esteem. I think my self esteem is fine (though I think the concept of self esteem is somewhat bull..., but thats another argument) and I think I have a normal amount of shyness to openness, depending on how well I know someone. It is more a symptom of my history in which eye contact could lead to attack or perceived threat from the people around me and a lack of interpersonal connection with people growing up in order to practice empathy and connection. I want to meet people and like hanging out with them and generally would not consider myself shy or of low self-esteem. I would consider myself poorly trained through abuse and having a lack of experience through neglect and both of those are things that I worked/am working to process. My point is to not make judgement about the individual who is lacking eye contact as calling them shy, rude, or lacking in self esteem, but rather to recognize the possible history that would lead to that behavior. In the same way that Stef has talked in recent shows that you would not call someone who was in a concentration camp as a kid a bad person or use other negative descriptive words because they got uncomfortable when talking with very German looking or sounding people, I would not use these negative terms to describe someone who lacks eye contact because they were likely in a sort of concentration camp as a kid in order to have learned that behavior. It may be something they need to work on, or maybe even something they cannot fully recover from, but they are not (necessarily) rude, shy, or lacking in self esteem because they do not hold eye contact.

Then I would not consider it a dairy product, but an oil product and has more similar consequences to industrial seed and vegetable oils, which tend to be not the best fat sources. At least as far as I understand non-dairy cheese.

re·spect riˈspekt/ noun noun: respect 1. a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements. fear fi(ə)r/ noun noun: fear; plural noun: fears 1. an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat.

For people who have not been raised empathetically and in aggressive environments, eye contact often is considered a challenge or a threat by their abusers. The avoidance of eye contact almost certainly is a symptom of prior abuse or neglect (no experience of relationships with true connection by which to practice things like eye contact). Thus, I would consider it something to work on in order to make true connection, but rather to have some empathy for the possible history that created someone who is not used to eye contact or specifically uncomfortable with eye contact. I occasionally catch my eyes wandering and I have to focus specifically on eye contact for longer conversations.

The question to ask as to whether spanking "works" is to ask what the goal of spanking is. Stefan has referenced some studies (idk where they are or what to link, so maybe someone could help with that) in which children who were spanked for not performing a behavior were "misbehaving" again within minutes of the punishment, let alone the raises in general aggression and issues that the violence creates in the child for periods longer than 10 minutes later. Thus, it would work if the goal were immediate compliance. It would not work if the goal was to create well-behaved children then there is some good evidence that it does not work. However, I would say that none of these things are the goal of spanking. The goal of spanking is to relieve the anxieties and fears of the parents when they are confronted with things from their children that make them uncomfortable. I think there might not be a substantial difference in prescription as the acting out of violent abuse may relieve anxiety in the near term, but reinforces it for the long term and makes actual healing with a therapist less and less possible. I guess my only differentiation is to say that since spanking has such negative outcomes, I would have to assume that the goal of spanking has nothing to do with child discipline. Thus, talking about the outcomes for the child is not a proper evaluation as to whether or not spanking works or not as it may be the stated goal, but it is not the actual motivation for the behavior.

The fetus is no more a parasite than if I go to the store and buy a pet and take it home and now have to take care of it that that pet would be a parasite. The mother chooses to have a child, and thus it is not parasitical and in fact I would consider many more parents to be parasites of their children than children or fetuses to be parasites of their parents. It is possible that in the extremity of rape one could consider the fetus to be a parasite as it is taking from the host against the desires of the host and to no benefit of the host, but this describes an exceedingly small percentage of pregnancies as to be nearly irrelevant for normal discussion. It is almost certain that an individual who was supporting the ideas of evictionism or other such ideas was viewed by their parents (or they are a parent who viewed their kids as a parasite) in which they ignored the fundamental reality that the child never chose to be there or wanted to be there, but the parents were the ones who performed the actions necessary to bring the child into the world. If you chose to bring it into the world and bring it home to take care of it, the child must be giving you something in return as far as enjoyment or happiness or something, or else it would not have happened. People need to take responsibility for their decisions instead of creating abstract theories that ignore the circumstances by which the fetus was created in order to justify their regret or in order to normalize the feelings of their parents.

I have to admit that I am a bit confused now as well.

/me just saw the old posts regarding torrents and then edited this one out.

I don't think I am particularly fearful of other people not changing. However, I think that is somewhat the expressed goal of FDR to create a world that is more free and peaceful, etc. By definition, improvement in this sense requires some others to change. Even, so, this is not my focus as I think that every post in which I ask about others, I also ask about FDR, or a group that is theorized to contain them and what implications it has for us, which was the part you didn't quote.

So, taking it a few steps further. We have a group of people in the category of "history of isolation and minimal secondary benefits". What kinds of worldviews would the average person in this group have? Where might there be biases that come out in the ideas of FDR as a result of this worldview? Is the worldview accurate and "provable"? I can imagine that people who are used to isolation and lack of secondary benefits are more independent and not as good at forming groups, which can make community and things like attempts at meetups more difficult to start up and people will tend to drop out of these groups in the long run, just as a possible example of what I am talking about. Second, taking the people who are not in this profile, is there a way to target or reach them, or are they too connected to the existing state of things to consider radical changes? Maybe they are less likely to desire changes, but can be changed if the path is made easier (aka the other side has community and visible benefits even greater than their current state). How achievable is this? Is it worth pursuing or is the cost/benefit too high at this point?