wdiaz03

My two cents, I have never counted calories. I counted grams of protein. and tried to keep it close to 1g per lb of body weight. taken in no more than 30g per meal. adding a whole egg with 2 egg whites for breakfast some tuna from a can for lunch or chicken whey protein for snack or hard boiled eggs meat for diner yogurt for snack That's it. I also watched the carbs since I tend to pack fat easily. so ( only veggies and salads) and easy on the fruits. Again it depends on what you are going for, I for example consider Michelangelo's David an acceptable physique. But some people might want to have bulging muscles and then there might be further things to consider. BTW.It looks like the system ate my prior reply.

No problem, I'll PM you some pics so you know what I mean. Those pictures are of me about 3 years ago. and doing nothing fancy, Only supplement was multivitamins and whey protein about 40g a day. I did cut carbs (no sugar, breads, grains etc) only vegetables and salad with the meat to drop the fat. I'm about 5'10" 5'11" depending on the time of day and between 170 to 180lb. On those pictures I went below 170lb. The important thing is that I'm comfortable with those results. I'm not at the level of Elliott Hulse by no means, nor I want to if I have to put in massive amounts of time and effort. But keep in mind that I'm 39 on the pictures.

Hi Ed, I've been lifting for 25 years or so, If there's something I've learned is that its important to ground yourself and really figure out what you want and what you are willing to pay to get it. I realized quickly when I started that I was not going to compete so extreme muscles and strength took a back seat and I focused on looking and being fit. That said, I focused on major muscles group and typical routines, I picked up mine from an Arnold book I had when I started. Chest-Triceps, Back-Biceps, Shoulder-Legs, 5 sets with increasing weight. I'v seen nasty injuries at the gym from those who take it to the extreme. split biceps, split pecs, steroids and its effects. I myself had had to deal with joint issues, from lack of stretching as per the therapist. I don't know what would work for you, a lot of it might be genetics. But my 2 cents is to find something you enjoy and that you can stick to. I have seen too many get results then quit and loose it all back, Best of luck, and congrats on your path to fitness.

It seems to me that voting is like playing the powerball (which was 900 million last time I checked) when you vote is like you are trowing a dollar or two into the black hole of the lottery.Gives you the illusion that you are tilting the scales on your favor but good luck with those odds.

I see a lot of non-arguments. Just opinions not backed by anything. poverty causes crime? $60 fully automatic mac-10 from Home depot? really?

This story reminds me of "A person often meets his destiny on the road he took to avoid it." and the similarities with Oedipus the King by Sophocles are hard to ignore. with that said, think of the "big lesson" you talk about. It is hard for me to agree that the lesson is "make sure what you're doing, think about it, don't act on impulse" because the title of this story is "The life of St.Julian..." and the lesson seems more to me to be "give yourself to others no matter your sins and you can be a Saint too". Unlike Oedipus which is a Greek tragedy and he pays for his mistakes and in the end he takes his owns eyes out and begs to be exiled. The lesson being closer to that you mention. No need to have FDR or non peasants to teach this lesson since this play dates back to 429BC. We see the opposite with Julian "no matter how bad it gets don't give up and self-sacrifice because you will enter the kingdom of God" My point with the "castle" at the crossing was to show a way in which people he helped helping him back, and that all his sacrifices paid off with people building him some sort of structure and volunteer themselves. it should have been a thriving community of volunteers. etc. but we don't see any of that to justify the self-sacrifice. Julian spends his life relaying in blind fate. first on the battlefield. fighting with a stick and no armor, risking his life by becoming a beggar. then at the crossing, with the leper. etc. What rational people do is more like "calculated risks" I drive at the speed limit, wear my seat belt etc. If I acted like Julian I would get on a scooter at max speed and would not stop at red light or stop signs, not wear a helmet.... The lesson of the market can also be "rulers can be persuaded by the masses" because it wasn't reason and evidence, It was the fact that all the merchants held the buyer of the horse in high esteem. if it weren't for the other merchants vouching for him he would have been dead. the bedroom I can agree with you, but we don't see any real consequences for this terrible act he committed he becomes a Saint afterwards. Fighting the Turks would be less of a self sacrifice and more about stopping the Turks from invading if he instead of going into Berserk God Mode had used his brain like in the Trojan horse story and defeated the Turks with intelligence. You mention the castle on your last sentence and I explained the idea of having a thriving community at the crossing and not being all alone and defenseless.

Agree, great way of explaining the science and getting kids involved.

I sort of see what you are saying and it is indeed tempting to think of the story that way, But given the religious message in it I think that the actions/decisions are happening in the moment, with no analysis of prior or future actions that made the situations come about. By this I mean that religion and current society want you to look at the moment and make a decision. This manipulation plays on people’s emotions rather than rationality. “The grotesque MAY be holy, and the beautiful MAY be devilish”. Sure! do not discard the ugly for its looks or embrace the beautiful for its looks, But it does not mean embrace the ugly because it is ugly either. This is what we see on the story. They embrace the leper because he is ugly and needy with complete disregard for their own safety. This self-sacrifice and altruism is the message that I see here and the message that religion and society wants people to embrace. The leper cannot be philosophy, the leper is blind fate. Philosophy does not teach you to self-sacrifice, to give yourself and those you love to be consumed by society. Just like your story of the homeless and the Porsche driver. Again, this is looking at the snapshot of the moment. A man down on his luck and a man blessed with wealth that can’t spare a dime. How about how the homeless is where he is? What is he doing to dig himself out of the hole? Why not have a sign “I work for food” and instead of asking for money asking if the man needed work done? Raking leaves, checking the tire pressure, anything!. If he had honestly said “Listen, I don’t want you to give me money, I want to earn it, etc” Don’t you think that the driver at this point would have said, “I don’t need any work done man, but I appreciate your effort, here please take this” Julian spends his life not passing tests in compassion but self-sacrificing himself and later his wife to society. He put his life on the line by waging wars for others. To the story credit those that he helps “in the wars” or in the castle” do reciprocate his deeds. But instead of surrounding himself of those that appreciate him he chooses to self-sacrifice to those that offer him little in return. He lives in borderline poverty at the end of the story and does not have anyone to even defend him and his wife from the robbers that ultimately kill them. Had the border crossing been turned into a castle and sanctuary full of those that he had helped then it would have been a different story. But he has nothing to show for at the end. He blindly marched on towards his death with little regard for himself and his wife. I keep asking myself, if this a story that someone like Ayn Rand would have written?

Right, And it might be the way the experiment was setup, which does not mimic real life, at least for me. He is saturating the air inside the car. then using hot air to "expand the towel" inside the car and adsorbing the condensation. Makes sense to let in dryer outside air, Now move to steamy South Florida. Hot air and high humidity. You have a saturated Big towel inside and outside the car. Its starts raining. the temperature of the glass drops related to the air inside the car, and condensation forms. Should I then try to expand the towel inside the car? its already 90 degrees? Should I let saturated outside air in? I would say no to both. I will turn the AC and let the cold DRY air absorb the condensation from the glass. as the air passes by the evaporator it will cause condensation there, and that water will drain outside. So with the AC on and blocking outside air the air inside the car will be colder but dryer. and the most important "COMFORTABLE"

Interesting, I always figured that the car was to smart to have the heater on and the AC on at the same time. I figured that moving the selector to heat will not activate the compressor since the selector would be like a thermostat, it would be inefficient to run the compressor if one wants heat. I always used Cold Air. my car automatically switches to outside air when changing to defrost. but I always turn it back to inside because here in the swamp it humid outside. Will try heat next time since its basically free. Also, there's no mention on how long the shaving cream will stay effective.

Hello, While reading UPB on page 68 I came across the APA concept (Aesthetically Positive Action) and how "being on time" qualifies as APA. A few paragraphs later the example of "liking jazz" is brought up and how it is not APA because one cannot universalize "subjective preferences are universally preferable" But this same idea can be applied to "being on time" since some people might like being on time and some don't and being on time can be a subjective preference. When talking about APA Stef says: "For instance, if my APA is: “be on time,” then it can be a universal standard that can be totally avoided. I cannot forcefully inflict this APA on you because you do not have to be my friend, you do not have to be on time, you do not have to respect or follow my preferences in any way whatsoever." but the same concept can be applied to "liking jazz" For instance, if my APA is: "liking jazz" then it can be a universal standard that can be totally avoided. I cannot forcefully inflict this APA on you because you do not have to be my friend, you do not have to "like jazz", you do not have to respect or follow my preferences in any way whatsoever." What am I missing? Thanks,

Howdy Tomasio, You ask OP how "he" is to do this or that, but the market will decide what the best course of action will be, the truth is that no one can say for sure how things will sort out, That would be like speculating how will cell phones will work 500 years from now. Imagine you were back in the 1700s an someone argued that slaves should not pick the cotton. You might wonder how the cotton will be picked and ask him. since if you had to pay the slaves living wages then cotton prices would skyrocket etc. If the same guy told you not to worry, that there would be these giant machines running on the fossilized tree juice and matter from ancient dinosaurs and driven by a single guy that could pick the cotton in one day. You would call this person crazy. People can speculate how things might turn out, and Stef has done just that, I'm sure you will find answers to your questions on his free book "Practical Anarchy: The Freedom of the Future" I recommend you read it and if you still have questions feel free to post them.

Misleading if we are picking at straws. Change the analogy to "a Thief asks you to choose whether to take your TV or your radio" you can pick TV, radio, or do nothing at which point one of the two will be taken, or the mafia asks you and the rest of the businesses in your area to pick whether to pay x amount of money monthly or provide y amount of free services monthly. is it moral then to say nothing and hope for the best? and a violation of the NAP to make a choice?

Are you familiar with Walter Block's Negative Homesteading Theory? https://mises.org/library/human-body-shield I think you'll find that this follows your line of thinking. If that is the case one cannot assign moral responsibility to that person but then is it any different than not being able to assign moral responsibility to an animal that is attacking you? neither can be reasoned with because they are both being coerced, one by fear, the other by its nature. A holds a gun to B and tells him to shot C. Can C shot B in self defense?

This was excellent, Thank you for your effort, I'm perfectly fine with your intro. Since you are explaining how models are created and some people might not be familiar with the concept. As far as effective? I think it depends on each individual, If they have no principles, telling them that they should, will mean little to them. Like telling a thief that stealing is wrong, but all his life this is what he has done. These are the sociopaths among us. But I'm sure this will reach people whose eyes will be open by it. I like to think of it like planting a seed. You can't plant a seed and have it thrive in barren soil, So is the mind of the sociopaths, a wasteland. Maybe peaceful parenting is the way to produce fertile minds where these ideas, like seeds, can grow. You are producing seeds, we just need a way to greatly increase the number of fertile minds where they can grow. Again, keep up the good work. Its appreciated.

Right, the last castle has the lady an the castellan. but I didn't pickup anything about a husband. The enemy leader wants the lady, and she was willing as long as he converted to Christianity. the castellan is Julian's host and Julian asks him if he can go to battle with them, but he was dismissed for his appearance. That's when he arms himself with a log and goes to battle, in battle he picks up armor and weapons. The bedroom action I thought is was unwarranted, I say that because Julian to this point has no real reasons to do what he did. People around him are honest and good towards him. If he had been tricked and lied to before he would have had reasons. For example had there been some physical attraction between the enemy leader and the lady, and Julian had seen the leader's horse in the castle. etc. This is a theme that you see throughout the story, people Julian interacts with are good and honest. I could see turning this around a bit and have those people stab him on the back somehow...it would have been more dramatic. Example, castellan wanting to cover than a beggar saved him, could have claimed Julian attacked them while alone in the room, his savior took off and could have locked Julian on the dungeon. I don't know, But a little back stabbing towards Julian, if you know what I mean. But the story is good. I can see what you mean about a movie, But the ending is tricky once you get passed the bedroom. If they can make a movie about Noah (haven't seen it) why not this one.

Interesting read, Thanks for sharing. Too much altruism for my liking. It least it shows YAHWEH at his best protecting his flock. (not really) Where does it mention that "the lady of the castle lost her husband to battle" If you don't mind. Don't forget to show this scene with Johnny Depp on the promo, It'll draw an even more bigger audience from San Francisco besides those from the bible belt. "And the leper places his brow against that of Julien and his mouth as well is against Julien's mouth"

Thanks for your post, Can you point out specific articles on that site that contrast with Peter Schiff view? I'm interested since all I have heard so far is Peter Schiff type arguments. Also for a SHTF scenarios maybe looking at countries that had major events might help. I'm thinking that the fiat currency will not go away. when the dollar collapses those in power will rush to print the "new dollar" and people will just loose wealth and carry on. I'm thinking Cuba post Revolution. The national currency was replaced and people adapt (suffering and surviving) Having skills that can be traded. (welding, machining, mechanic etc.) seems to help. Metals also help, I'm sure people will rush in to profit from converting your bars and coins into the fiat currency of the time. but once has to be careful with bans on metals. If the new government tries to confiscate the metal it will make it illegal to own and then it will he a hassle to trade it in the black market. For those who think that there aren't enough wolves to police the sheep, Its not the wolves, is the other sheep you have to worry about. Just my two cents.

I see, lying cannot be claimed as moral. Just like murder cannot be claimed as moral. But to claim that the opposite is immoral is a lot harder. Just like murder in the case of self defense. Or lying to a thief. There's context that needs to be factored in. If UPB is unable to determine this, What principles or methodology can be used to determine what's immoral and when? NAP? I.e. "lying is immoral when...." If we need something external to UPB to determine what is immoral, then I fail to see the benefit of UPB. 1) Killing at all times is not UPB but killing under certain context is not immoral. - But no one engages in killing at all times, and if they can choose a rationale to justify it then we are back at square one. 2) Lying at all times is not UPB but lying under certain context is not immoral. - Again no one lies alt all times.

I can see how lying cannot be universalized because if one makes the claim "lying is UPB", is one lying then? SO one cannot make the claim without stepping outside of that behavior to do so. right?

I'm curious about how UPB would handle lying. What are your thoughts on this? Can two people in a room lie to each other at all times? If not, does that proves honesty is a virtue? Thanks.

dsayers, on 16 Dec 2015 - 10:31 PM, said: I wish OP would have included the example he posted on the thread that prompted him creating this thread. I think it would have saved some time and people could debate the example instead of trying to determine what he meant. I have included it here for further discussion. I already expressed my thoughts to him but will summarize it for others. The fact that the salesman lied indicates to me that there was fraud. The buyer would only buy the car if it "ran great" the salesman agreed it did. There is a breach of contract when the car is delivered without an engine. This is the classic empty iPod box from ebay. I buy an iPod I get an empty box. Thoughts?

Hmmm, Don't know if I can call it a gravity light. Since it's the human lifting the weight every 20 mins that makes this thing work.

Conceding your point when you can't think of any counterarguments shows a level of maturity you don't see often. I admire that. If you would like to explore why you chose to frame your argument the way you did I'm still interested. By this I mean why you chose the examples you did and omitted parts of the posts that would weaken your argument. In a recent call in show a caller mentioned how in his line of work (research scientist) research gets published even if the methodology was incorrect, data was manipulated, etc. There's that fine line that people come to, Like I'm sure you came to, where they see something that would waken their argument and they decide to leave it out. I'm not saying that you are at that same level of dishonesty, I just wonder how this starts and becomes a habit. I'll give you another example close to home, a friend of mine used the following quote: “Regarding the Great Depression, … we did it. We’re very sorry. … We won’t do it again.” Ben Bernanke, November 8, 2002, in a speech given at “A Conference to Honor Milton Friedman But he framed it as the Federal Reserve admitting how their manipulation of the economy caused the great depression and how they should have left the free market handle the correction.. This was going to be delivered in a public setting. I found the quote too shocking to be true and further research uncovered that Bernanke while admitting fault, meant that the Federal Reserve should have done a lot more, not less. I pointed this out to him and advised him not to use the quote on the context he originally planed. Thanks in advance.

What seems interesting to me is how in an effort to change people's minds some people (consciously or unconsciously) seem to ignore points that weaken their argument. The OP wants to promote the value of street epistemology. But before doing so, sites a number of threads where not using this approach was counterproductive. This I imagine in an attempt to make his argument for SP stronger. When I read his post his points seemed valid, and now reading yours I can see how he misrepresented his examples. Had him been honest and just posted his argument. For example "I think the use of SP when interacting with theist is a much better way to engage them" and open that for discussion, it would have been a more productive thread. I saw the video. I admire the guy for engaging people this way, like he said at the end, he does not know how effective SP is in changing people's minds, and he is working on finding out, I can see how SP on an online forum can be challenging. One would have to ask a simple question, wait for the reply a day or two later, ask another question...etc. the interaction that takes 5 mins on the street would take weeks, not to mention the other people jumping in and expressing their opinions. The equivalent would be engaging someone in mail chess across the world while each player being surrounded by a crowd. each person in the crowd jumping in with suggestions and derailing the game, because it is no longer about what move each person wanted to make and why they think they are making it. It becomes the best strategy for either black or white to win. how much can each of the players learn about their own game and how to improve it no longer being the focus. Thoughts?