FreedomPhilosophy

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/11/14/the-most-narcissistic-u-s-presidents/

This was an excellent appraisal of the potential of bitcoin technology, very well presented.I was watching a youtube recently*, the speaker was saying that London's financial hub is 14% of the UK GDP!!*http://youtu.be/HAB65t4Xh-c?t=1m35s

Income has a big influence on where children grow up and thus their peer group. There have been some twin studies that reveal how genes affect personality.As for the degree of abuse/neglect present and their influence, I do not think these have been well enough studied to get precision. As Judith Harris points out genetics are often not accounted for in behavioural research. Judith Harris (and perhaps Pinker - if his work is similarly argued) also present weak arguments though.I've not studied this topic a lot so far, but much of what I see claimed is based on weak research.

Pinkers claims seem to concur with what I have read.The most significant factor in developing the average childs personality is their peer group and then genetics. Parental behaviour is one of the smaller factors unless the parenting style is unusually abusive or neglectful.Of course as parents you can have a big influence on who your children grow up with, i.e. picking better neighbourhoods and places where there is less/no drug culture and so forth. It's worth considering that other free ranging primates have developed an appreciation for psychotropic drugs, it is dubious to claim that a drug habit = bad parenting, primates are naturally curious and experimental organisms.Smoking and drinking habits do have a genetic factor.Further reading http://www.amazon.com/The-Nurture-Assumption-Children-Revised/dp/1439101655/ - by no means an exhaustive or unbiased piece of work but worth a read. I also suggest reading the reviews to this book - the better informed authors reveal many of the weaknesses.

Hi, I posted a few on the old boards under some of my other pseudonyms. I'll see if I can dig some of them out.

Indeed, we all know that without government people would run around killing each other!

Private ownership of land predates the state in common law and many species of animal are territorial, no state required.

It seems unwise to risk what you may not be able to afford to lose. Timing is important, one needs to buy low but in such a volatile new market, getting in at a low is more likely to be by luck than skill.I do think that from a fundamental perspective bitcoin does represent a good investment opportunity for the medium and possibly long term because its value has probably yet to be fully realised.

"I used to travel all over the world without a passport before 911." repeat the process carrying a bag of cocaine - there is no freedom "So we are just supposed to wait and see how far he wants to go, how many more will be slaughtered and enslaved? Aren't we supposed to help others who are being murdered and oppressed? What do you propose, that we sit and let it happen?" Interesting use of the word "help" - if there are some serial killers living in your basement, is it ok for me to "help" their potential future victims by dropping a bomb on the whole house and so killing many innocents? Indiscriminate killing is always morally reprehensible. I think a better example of helping victims of oppressive regimes would be given by people such as Oskar Schindler. "Like Patton said, we should have taken out the Russians while they were weak at the end of the war" How do you propose we stop genocide then ?" People should have the right and perhaps even a duty to be able to arm and protect themselves. Those who fail to do so have some element of responsibility if they are unable to defend themselves, and likewise those politicians and peoples who disarm or allow themselves to be disarmed are open to easy invasion and oppression. I do not think there is any duty to rescue other people, particularly if they are disarmed and would have no way of returning the favour if you were in their position. "that didn't help the others very much did it?" war isn't equivalent to "help" "that is not realistic. National defense cannot be voluntary or we wouldn't be able to fend off crazy dictators like Hitler. Sometimes you have to all buy into a program to make it efficient and powerful enough to effective." I think a well armed and determined population would be very well able to put off or resist invaders, think how the USSR got a butt kicking in Afghanistan. Once a significant proportion of any given population are armed well enough, invasion loses its appeal. Best way to end tyranny is to stop the child abuse that generates tyrants and dissuade people from joining their armies.

That old meme still circulates that without government people would run around killing each other. But keeping the peace seems to be a big problem for big government.

I've been having some exchanges on this topic yesterday and using the following points: 1) our freedoms have reduced over the last 100 years of war, if soldiers believe in freedom why do they fight for the institutions that takes our freedoms away? 2) Is there any compelling evidence Hitler was and could take over mainland Britain? 3) WWII was too late to prevent most of the genocide and what about the millions subject to genocide in the UUSR, and China - no help for those victims because the perpetrator was too powerful?4) The Swiss and others managed to preserve their independence without getting involved in warfare.5) If people really feel so passionately about defending a remote underclass from genocide/oppression they are free to go and do so as mercenaries on the side of their choosing. There's no need to compel everyone else's involvement via the state.6) wars should not be detached from the madness of the people who make them possible or from the financial and poltiical benefactors who agitate for them

An adult does not have the same nutritional requirements as a growing baby. Breast milk isn't very fatty, contains little protein and it's mostly water and the fatty acid composition tends to reflect the mothers diet, see below. And the science is in the scientific literature, you seem to have no idea how ridiculous your claims are. Peter Attia is a blogger and has no idea what he is talking about, what is his published research? Where has he done the painstaking work of refuting actual research findings? Do you really believe that him saying something makes it a fact?

I did about 6 years mostly eating fruit and the odd salad, I remained very slim and in excellent health on the whole. Long term consumption of commercially grown fruits can leave you deficient in bulk minerals and B12, but this can easily be remedied with more variety, use of root vegetables or supplements. The traditional diet of most Asians is carb based with no obesity epidemic and generally superior health and fitness to Westerners who consume a lot of animal products and processed foods. There is a genetic predisposition to obesity, and a few other factors, but essentially it occurs because people eat too much and exercise too little. Paleo diet has been extensively debunked in an epic series of scientific videos on youtube by Plant Positive called "primitive nutrition" and in the video below. Paleo adherents are usually incredibly resistant to and ignorant of science though, it is like a religious cult.Fat and specifically saturated fat is destructive to human health. The science behind this is almost rock solid at this point. Debunking the paleo diet: Christina Warinner at TEDxOU This are some huge claims at odds with nutritional science, so let's see some sources please.

This is disturbing and it provokes some interesting thought experiments.Maybe having computer simulations could help solve the problem, a sim can't be a victim! Ironically though, this could steal market share from the real children who would take in less money and may be driven into prostitution.And do pedos jerking off in front of children via a video feed cause them more harm than the children's parents whacking them though? It's perfectly ok for adults to watch each other jerk off via video feeds, so at least that's a non crime for adults, adults can't hit each other without consent though. Seems like there's some serious inconsistencies.

I don't doubt that making love to my partner is a far richer experience than emptying my load into a stranger, on the other hand some nights I prefer to watch a crummy movie at the cinema than watch the best actors in a theatre.Moralising about preferences seems futile to me.

Doesn't all paid labour involve "selling the body"? Why is labour using one part of the body morally different than another?How many partnerships (marriage or otherwise) would occur between men and women if the woman was not prepared to offer sex as part of the deal? Are such sexual partnerships still "prostitution", or is it only prostitution when money and strangers are involved?

it seems more likely than not that btc is still greatly undervalued

I'm not sure I understand the concept of exploitation re prostitution. In general it seems to involve someone being vulnerable and that vulnerability being used to derive a gain for someone else.In the case of slavery clearly the slave master exploits the slaves weaker position and gains a monetary reward. And the slave is in no way exploiting the master. This is not so clear with prostitution, the prostitute can make a very good living, even "retire" in her 40s if she's an up market call girl. So it's clear who makes the monetary gain, but who got exploited? Was the pro vulnerable because she only had selling sex as a way to make money? (may be true in developing world) But was the client exploited because his biology/psychology predisposes him to want sex that he can't otherwise easily get?

Common Law predates the state.

Hi Mishelle, thanks for that excellent reply.Your point about data is very pertinent. A person with genuine curiosity about human behaviour would start by picking up some books on biology and psychology. And NOT with shame based personal judgements and empty rhetoric. Of course feminism has never been interested in exploring scientific explanations for social phenomena.Here's my unscientific explanation for why women prostitute themselves and men pay: some women prefer making money for sex to being chaste, some men prefer to pay for sex rather than make the time/emotional investment pursuing relationships. And even in relationships men want sex more often than their partners, hence there is a lack of "supply".The article linked is insincere and shaming. Another problem with that daft feminist rant is that not all female sex workers are prostitutes, some are pro doms. How does that square with the men have power over women BS?

The school has a duty of care to protect its students from bullying while on their premises. If it fails in that duty of care then it should be sued. Parents should withdraw their children from any school where bullying is not being effectively prevented. If children are being bullied just off school premises, then it is their parents responsibility to escort their children out of school. Expelling repeat offenders would also be a logical step in preventing bullying.

All mammals can reason, for example choose a better course away from a predator. On the other hand the mentally ill sometimes cannot perform this kind of function.

I made my own program digging a bit deeper into things and I'm cynical about it.

I think there would be some shift back towards paper packaging and package free loose produce. This could improve peoples health as a bonus.

Russell Brand attacked parliamentary democracy on Newsnight recently and told Jeremy Paxman why he doesn't vote. Brands criticisms of the establishment have caused a stir because they are true. The days of party politics enjoying popular support are gone. But what is to be done? Brand advocates windfall taxes on corporations and an "egalitarian socialist" system but admits he has no idea how that might come about. He seems to think that other people know how to do it. I'm cynical about this. The left have played all their cards and can only mouth empty rhetoric. Brand is no stranger to profiting from mega corporations either. In this review I take a deeper look at these issues and Russell Brand.