fractional slacker

Exercise has little or nothing to do with weight loss. Are you making the claim exercise has nothing to do with weight loss? Fructose is toxic and dangerous. What is the definition of toxic? Real whole foods is what your body wants. Food is what your body wants/needs, absolutely. That is a given.

Generally, yes and yes. In addition, if you discount a small 250 calories (snack) shortly after waking up, my "mini fast" is 16-18 hours. If you read my earlier post (with link to article), the latest research gives some indication that the longer you go from last meal of day 1 until first meal of day 2, the better. It's not conclusive or definitive, it's a theory in development. "Having a stable weight doesn't mean you are healthy." Perhaps you would like to define healthy without indicator of stable weight?

Good film, albeit with usual lefty bias. Interesting historical view on the 1968 news industry and the clash of post modernism (Vidal) with classical liberalism (Buckley). Both had a weird, sometimes grating, yet sophisticated style of communication you just don't see nowadays. Nice to see two actual enemies battling it out, instead of usual political hired guns that only serve at the behest of the highest bidder. http://www.oregonlive.com/movies/2015/08/best_of_enemies_review_how_a_1.html

Sophistry from start to finish. It's a moral argument attempting to justify amoral behavior. "I'm just surviving..." Is that true? Would they die if they didn't do X?

Because inventing problems is the only purpose of the SJW. Now they are shaming white feminists for.....being white. The "equality' crowd lectures white feminists on how they have a lot to learn. WARNING: watch video with barf bag handy

'White privilege' does not exist. It is a social construct. It is used by socialists AKA commies to inflict guilt on whites so that they willingly give up resources. 'White privilege' is an attempt to use Neuro-Linguistic Programming and alter reality.

Socialism works compared to what? Socialism works to the advantage of the ruling class the way rape works to advantage of those with no romantic sexual value. Rebutting this guy would be like pointing out the use of weapon to a rapist. They will deny, obfuscate, fog, and attempt to distract from anyone pointing out their only tool is the use of force. When they can no longer deny they are using force, they will move the goal posts to defining the use of force as a virtue. Rebutting this guy in front of a live audience might have some benefit. Rebutting socialism on this message board would be preaching to the choir.

The gay agenda, like Patrick pointed out, is about destroying the nuclear family and traditional values in general. The agenda is carried out largely by attacking western culture in general, and Christianity specifically. Now cultural Marxists have stepped up their game by targeting the non-religious eg Richard Dawkins. They also absolutely hate Adam Carolla. http://www.advocate.com/politics/media/2015/03/06/homophobic-racist-adam-carolla-done-apologizing

SeriousSuana - From what I can tell, that is the epitome of altruism. Disgusting typical sophistry.

Anyone want to give epistemology on addiction ie clear, concise, falsifiable definition?

No rational person can object to voluntary sexual behavior between adults. But that doesn't serve the interests of political parasites and their obsession with identity politics. IMO the gay agenda is a branch of Cultural Marxism. Their agenda is more govt. power via propaganda and violence if necessary. Ask Alec Baldwin or Hulk Hogan what happens if you say bad word and run up against the gay agenda enforcers.

Sexual orientation does not exist. Sexual behavior does, absolutely. Good luck pin pointing exactly why someone prefers X rather than Y. One thought experiment I like to run by folks when discussing the nature of sexuality goes like this. If a man has only dated women, goes on to marry a woman and have kids but always fantasized about being with men, is he a homosexual? What if he kissed a man once, does that make him homosexual? I think you get the point. The thought experiment can also be reversed to question if a gay man is heterosexual. So IMHO sexual orientation is not something real. Furthermore since homosexuality has devolved into a political action mob, there is little chance of having rational debate with interested parties.

Salon.com ,along with most lefty outfits, has entire departments dedicated to smearing UBER or any business not paying liberal extortion fees and touting the big government mantra. It's quite interesting to watch. This is their typical line of "thinking." If a business isn't fighting against racism and sexism, it can't be a good business. That's Salon's idea journalistic integrity. http://www.salon.com/2015/07/23/progress_isnt_always_progressive_what_ubers_celebrity_defenders_dont_understand/

Adam could have done worse, for sure. Luck played a big part here. The camera was clearly the brake on roid rage guy's tantrum. If roid rage guy were more drunk, Adam would have not fared well. If roid rage guy decided to stalk Adam and jump him outside, someone would have been hurt. Learned long ago being in a place that mixes roid rage guys with alcohol is not wise.

Yes, endorsing for the courage to take a stand and make the establishment uncomfortable, not for political office.

Feminism is a religion, or cult perhaps despite its possible benign origins. It's an A Priori idea based on finding new ways to categorize women as victims regardless of empiricism. It's overarching goal, IMO, revolves around destroying the good/logic and elevating the bad/chaos. For example here you have an app for sexual consent. It elevates clarity and removes ambiguity in the realm of sexual relations between men and women. In following article this app is described as "evil." Is empiricism, logic and clarity the enemy of feminism? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3166650/The-Yes-sex-app-New-mobile-phone-device-films-people-giving-consent-protect-users-assault-claims-health-workers-condemn-contracts-evil.html

That is a touching story. You sound empathetic and in touch with your emotions. Where and how those emotions originate is difficult to ascertain. Obviously, I couldn't say. From a philosophical perspective, this brings up a contrasting dichotomy or juxtaposition. If a narrative, in this case your high regards for Mr. Satoru, causes an emotional reaction without regards to any empirical emotional connection, what can we say about this reaction? I don't know if that makes any sense. Let me try this. If you had never played Nintendo and knew nothing of Mr. Satoru until you read his biography postmortem, how do you think you would react?

I won't even attempt to weigh in on the morality aspect. The question to me is how would this go in free society? I believe the market would accommodate this procedure to some degree. The question then follows: would you continue dating a person if they said they owned,operated, or were employed at such a company?

Recently Dan Carlin did a podcast on this topic. Common Sense with Dan Carlin, show #294 Back Doors to Glass Houses.

I found the concept of "falling in love" with a computer program voice more science fiction than I could handle. The scene where they have a picnic double date with a phone standing in as a participant was laughable.

If fairness and truth are your goals, you can only make objective observations ie she was driving over speed limit or driving faster than flow of traffic. If you ascribe intentions, you have moved into the realm of subjective intentions.

Fine line between fast driving ( a rational strategy) and reckless driving (an irrational strategy). So fine that it's completely subjective. A fast driver may have a death wish, indeed. But a death wish in and of itself is a vague and subjective idea with no objective standard to be measured against. The issue at hand termed in a more neutral fashion would seem to be one of risk vs. reward in the context of a social interaction: driving. When does the collective desire for less risk (frowning on fast drivers) outweigh the individual desire for more risk (driving fast)?

If things are as bad in Venezuela as we have been lead to believe since the collapse in oil prices, why does its story not garner more attention and headlines from the right? I have been thinking about this for months and can't figure it out. Any thoughts?

Similar to what thebeardslastcall call just posted. Governments can not discriminate anymore than unicorns can, because they are both a fiction. Discrimination is one of these trigger words that gets thrown around and used in arguments from emotion. Discrimination is the essence of a free market. The free market is blessing for those that do good, and a curse to those who refuse to do good. The truth discriminates against falsehood and vice versa. The job of the sophist/politician/preacher/and public school teacher is to disguise falsehood as truth. The job of the philosopher is expose the falsehood of the sophist.

MTV is nothing if not a perpetual politically correct propaganda machine. They are at the forefront of the culture war. They support R's and are in opposition to the K. They started the Vote or Die campaign which meant vote for a democrat or you will wish you had died. MTV has done more to usher in the age of Idiocracy than all illegal drugs combined. The idea they have truth and reason as goals of this White People "documentary" is as likely as the Pope making it his personal mission to discovering the unifying theory in physics.