wdiaz03

Yes, He can leave whenever he wants. What? There's only a collection of a fee. No, Peter can seat all day as well and not get wiped, he can work for someone else and force will not be used to bring him back to his owner. Again you are assuming that an economy is frozen, And that the Islanders have everything they want. Since they don't, there Lots of needs, and those needs can be met by the 5 newcomers whos labor will be in high demand.. One of them can fish, the other can weave leaves into clothes, etc. What if one of the newcomers is a doctor, and a landowner gets sick? How many coconuts is he willing to trade for a cure? or maybe a chunk of land? They can specialize, they can provide services that the landowners don't have the time or skills to provide themselves. Eventually the newcomers can accumulate enough wealth to buy a chunk of land for themselves. That's exactly what I'm saying.

Rebuttal? More like hiding in a corner screaming "Please don't cut my funding". Nothing knew here. But more of intellectual cowardliness. He starts with.. "Don't label me, I'm not an atheist..." then he rambles about the definition of agnostic and tries to applied it to the existence of god. "...to refer to one who doesn't know has not seen evidence for it..but its prepared to embrace the evidence if its there..but if its not, won't be forced to think something that is not otherwise supported... " Then he removes himself from the conversation "I don't have the time, the interest, the energy" to debate the question of the existence of god.... Then he says it is odd that the word atheist even exists..and equates to non-golfers..non-skiers.... etc. Poor excuse of a scientist who claims to want for people to think straight. but understandable since his paycheck likely comes from religious people and he most cater to a religious public

Hi there, I've had a few people approach me with similar stuff over the years (buyers club, traveling clubs...etc) but never that aggressive. I just dismiss them with your same arguments. What I think happened is that your client must have acquired those pressuring skills during his lifetime or more likely during being part of the group. A friend once told me he was approached at the university by a similar scam and another person, casually passing by joined them, and showed interest. he said he was not interested and and went on his way to later find the two people who pretended to be strangers to each other comparing notes on how to do it better next time. All these techniques are as old as mankind and I don't doubt that they make their way into these marketing schemes. Your best bet is to remain calm regardless of what they say and be firm on "I'm not interested" I always deffer making a decision in the moment with the "I'll think about it". I find that that defuses the citation. Also the "how do you know" comment can be turned around as well. You don't have to go to find out if this is for you or not, because you are not sure you refuse to go until you are sure. You can claim that your time is so valuable that you want to make sure this is something you want before spending time on it. Just remember that they have heard every excuse in the book by now and most likely will have a response. Hope this helps.

Wait a minute, What's so bad about McDonalds? What's bad is the choice you make once you are in there. I would compromise with chicken nuggets meal or chicken sandwich with apple slices and milk, etc for the kid. and get a grilled chicken salad for myself.

Just go to the message you want to quote and click the quote button. You can click any number of times to push the quote to your message. Can you explain this a little more, What is the right you are talking about. I disagree, I think it is the same whether you have two people or a million with resources and the million and one has none. Certainly the second guy can ask. he can plead, he can negotiate, but he has no right to the coconut that someone else found. This is the basis of a free market and NAP. In fact if the first guy is smart he would share it. next time he might be the one holding the shorter end of the stick. but he is not under any obligation to share. I ask you. why do you want to make this a right? is it because you feel you have nothing of value to offer the world that you feel powerless if found in a similar situation? This type of thinking seems to come from people wanting some moral rule because either they have nothing to offer or they do not want to be thankful and show gratitude when receiving a handout. They want stuff as a right. Stefan has a podcast on this very topic exploring this type of thinking.

You assume people have a right to natural property. Two men in an island and one finds the only coconut left before the other, is that unjust? After all the guy will harm the other by not sharing it. Say that one is taller than the other and can get to fruit the other man cannot reach, is that unjust? After all his tallness harms the other guy....

I read the Block chain smashers article, very informative. I have a few questions. It seems that you need miners to process transactions, right? Is the process of mining the same as the process of validating transactions? As validation becomes harder and harder wouldn't that increase the cost of transactions? Will the purchasing power of the coins also go up as the cost of mining increases? meaning there's always a profit margin? There seems to be a pressure towards powerful miners, This is tricky because they are easier to hit if bitcoins become illegal. Thanks in advance.

Some people are prettier than others, smarter, stronger, bigger, I could go on & on, are these unjust?

It seems to me you are drowning on a puddle of water, you keep repeating the same things over and over but avoid seeing the obvious. Plenty of people today start of with no resources, think immigrants? You come to this country, you work for someone else and save money then you buy land. That simple. In a modern economy with division of labor a person does not have to own LAND to survive. People don't want land. people what the product of the land and what it produces and they can buy that from producers.

There has been a lot of writing on this subject, have you heard of the "homestead principle"? Ok, why didn't Bob check with the local authority regarding the ownership status of this land prior to building his farm? He could then contact the owner and work out some sort of deal? he should have followed whatever legal means to become an owner.

No Problem Sean, There's so much conflicting data out there that it is hard sometimes to determine who is right. I'll have to admit that for someone that's overweight lowering the carbs is a good way of loosing weight, but it can't be taken to the extreme. Any potential harm from the diet could be justified compared to the alternative of doing nothing. Also how low is too low for the rats in the study? and for how long did they keep the rats in the diet? Even in Atkins, after the induction phase one is supposed to slowly increase the carb consumption over time. As far as O-3s do they explain cultures with elevated fish consumption? or are they doing their study on people eating fish-and-chips? (I'm being extreme here) but you get the point. I has always been my believe that the human body is a complex system and isolating individual variables is tricky, there's also the link of research and government that makes me skeptical as well. Are there hidden agendas? Who benefits? etc. One think I'm pretty sure of is that carbs have become way too easy to find in food, and I can see how people can easily over consume them.

Thanks for all the info Sean.

Thanks Sean, Can you explain what you mean by "tolerating sugars or carbs"? In your case, how many grams of sugar and carbs do you eat a day? how would you know if you cross that tolerance line? Regards

Sean, how many grams of sugar should the average person consume a day? when does it become too much of a good thing?

My point was that there a certain appeal to belonging to a particular group in the way the group accepts you without really knowing you. Just like fans of a particular team will accept you just because you are wearing their colors. Do you have such a need to be accepted? After all you rather be dishonest and be accepted, You will be deceiving them. If they knew your true believes they would not see you as one of their own. Do you have a need to use these people? You claim to be missing relationships and molding yourself in order to find one, yet on the "meat" thread you claim to be a monk and wanting to live on some land raising chickens and cows. These questions are for you, to spark thoughts of why you think this way, I don't mean anything by them. Regards

Hey...That's misrepresenting. The guy should have said "I think is not a number" the other "I'm pretty sure its a number" Since that's how the majority view it anyways

I would google "pdf to doc". The online editor is nice but I like the idea of having the doc file.

Right, so if we where to generalize this into a principle "I will not participate/sponsor activities that violate the NAP" then public roads, schools, taxes and basically anything government provided should be avoided and all we are left if with the cabin in the woods eating berries. Yup I like the priorities idea.

A "bitcoin, getting started" thread would be great, You can add any links you think can help as well as your insight. Thanks

Have you looked into why this seems important to you? What are you missing in your life? I can see how humans have always been social animals and to be an atheist is the equivalent of a bee leaving its beehive. To be in a beehive is to be accepted just for being a bee, just like being a fan of a particular sports team will get you acceptance in a group just by wearing the right T-shirt. They treat you like family without even knowing you.

Good videos, I agree with part 3, 9 minutes in: avoiding the use of the word god for the possible and only reserving it for its traditional used/meaning throughout history.

You are correct. I assumed you meant a sky god because this is what people mean when they speak of a god. Very few people think of the type you described. Since this is not the intended meaning It will clear things up if the word god and agnostic was not used the way you did. And what does "spiritual explorer" even mean? As far as I know Dawkins and Stef are atheist regarding sky gods since discussing the possibility of a creator that does not interfere in our universe is a mute point. until he decides to show up it can be treated as non-existent. What are you assuming atheist means? It seems as a perfectly valid position when it comes to the existence of sky gods. A definition of theism might help (from webster (View that all observable phenomena are dependent on but distinct from one supreme being. The view usually entails the idea that God is beyond human comprehension, perfect and self-sustained, but also peculiarly involved in the world and its events") That said, You would be also an atheist regarding god (sky gods). Instead of agnostic I prefer the term skeptic to describe myself as far as things than are not impossible. I've seen the word "wide agnosticism" used to describe agnosticism as a method of regulating our beliefs similar to the modern skeptical movement. the term "narrow agnosticism" used to describe agnosticism when applied to the question of god's(sky god) existence. It is this "narrow agnosticism" that Dawkin and Stef have shown to be flawed. Regards.

Thanks Sean for the information. I agree that LGN (Look good naked) factor is not a major determinant, Just wanted to get a sense of the trend your body was taking after following this lifestyle, Are you slowly gaining weight? What was the body Fat percentage trend? etc. You did not go into your level of activity. I'll be interested to know if you are maintaining your weight and if you are "shredded" as you put it, what level of activity was required to maintain it. I could not access your picture. But if posting one is an issue I just wanted to get a sense if how you look, and you can just describe it if that's ok with you. Thanks a lot for your input. and Congrats on the new addition to the family!

I used to think like you until I read Dawkins "The god delusion" and later heard some of Stef podcast on the subject, they put the nail on the coffin for agnosticism when applied to the existence of a god. Agnosticism is a fine position when it comes to possible events, but not impossible ones. e.i (One can be agnostic about a teacup orbiting Venus at the moment, but not about a horse alive and well orbiting Venus.) I caution you against trying to redefine god in order to move it from the impossible to the improbable, the god people speak of when the utter the word is impossible. a god that lives in another dimension that created the universe and does not interfere is not impossible but this is not what people mean. Hope this helps.

All good points, Thanks