Ahren

The fact that you personally have seen no evidence means nothing unless you are an expert in the field. http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/109/23_suppl_1/III-44.fullHere is a study that shows 20% risk reduction for strokes. This is not weak. I personally have been prescribing these medication for years and side effects are rare. The benefits out weigh the risks. You are a layperson speaking as if you know and you do not. Sedentary usually leads to obesity it is a general trend. I believe Stef has gone over this with people that because you have an exception this does not invalidate the general trend. 65% of the American population is overweight and it not because they eat healthy but refuse to exercise.

Statins have a lot of evidence that they reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke in terms of secondary prevention. Which means people who already have elevated risk factors for heart disease have a risk reduction with the addition of a statin. It has not been proven that statins provide benefit for people without significant risk factors. Statins reduce LDL levels but also play a role in inflammation reduction within the arteries. When inflammed they have an increased risks of forming plaques which contain cholesterol. The statins reduce these plaques by reducing cholesterol. Lowering cholesterol helps with these plaques. It is true that cholesterol is needed in a healthy diet. What is not needed is eating fast food, fried foods in over abundance, combined with smoking which increases inflammation, sedentary life style which causes obesity and reduce cardiovascular fitness which puts strain on the heart, over eating carbohydrates which can lead to diabetes an independant risk for heart disease etc. We have medications like Welchol that reduces LDL but have not be proven to reduce the risk of heart disease that the statins have proven to. Welchol blocks the cholesterol absorption at the intestines and has none of the anti-inflammatory benefits of a statin. So if you are healthy and live a active life style a statin will most likely not benefit you. Unless that person has a hereitary hyperlipidemia and family history heart disease (like father and uncle having heart attack at a young age). This is not a cut and dry topic like eat no cholesterol and be healthy. But the layperson reduces the complexity to this because they do not understand the pathophysiology of heart disease. Kind of like how people reduce Defooing to, if people do not agree with libertarianism get them out of your life. When in reality it much more complex than that.

I just lick my finger and stick it in the air.

His unhealthy face makes me not want to listen to him.

It is a bit obvious to state that people should not be forced to be vaccinated. But for people that are not experts in the field to come out and tell others to not get something that could prevent a serious illness in child is highly ignorant and reckless. Anti-vaxers are basically just anti-science. They do not have the capacity to discern the mounds of evidence that has settled this issue long, long ago. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/vaccines-work-period/ http://www.immunizationinfo.org/parents/why-immunize

Basically he is advocating starting a second American Civil war to end slavery. I think that is insane.

I went through the same situation as you are currently. The problem I had is I was not completely sure about all the things I was learning and would grow angry if someone challeged my views. Not to say you are but just my experience. A deal sealer for anarchy is that one can not argue for something another person has no choice over. For example, two brothers are arguing about whether or not the older one should hit the younger. The younger one provides a great argument and the older brother is impressed by his reasoning skills and actually agrees with him. Seconds later the older brother smacks the younger one across the head. A week later the older brother approaches the younger brother and tells him how much he enjoyed the argument about whether he should hit him or not. He would like to engage in argumentation again. The younger brother being the brighter of the two says, "just get it over with."Another problem people have is with concepts. Concepts not based in a physical reality are subjective and therefore can mean anything. "We the people" can not be produced, no one can point to "we the people", it can't be touched, smelled, tasted, seen, or heard. You can touch a individual human and hear what he/she has to say but not the concept of "we the people". Therefore it is subjective and it can mean whatever someone can convince others it means.The concept can do what ever others can convince them it can. The same goes for the government. It is only a concept that does not exist.

http://www.economicsjunkie.com/universally-preferable-behaviour-a-rational-proof-of-secular-ethics/ This website explained it pretty well.

"The Ethics of Liberty" and "Our Enemy the State"

"Democracy is a massive subsidy for idiots."

If you say so.

The seven abortions are terrible and she is reenacting her childhood abuse with those men but the narcissism was not very apparent. She did blame the show instead of herself for the things she said, compared herself to Ganhdi which is kind of grandose, but she kept looking at herself and saying she would like for things to change. I have a narcissist in my life and trying to get them to see that the choices they are making causes the bad outcomes in their lives is almost impossible. As soon as I start to make a break through a fit of outrage surfaces, blame gets placed on something other than self and we go back to square one.

I am watching this right now. But my first impression is that the problem with personality disorders is that people do not know they have them. They lack self knowledge. This girl seems to know what she is about. She is young, attractive and feels intitled. I do not think this fits the criteria for Narcissistic personality disorder.

You ought to be reasonable. We can objectively discern what is reasonable. There case closed.

If determinism is true can there be a choice? Can a person consciously decide between A and B based on reason and evidence?

How likely is it that how there continues to be life on the planet is an act of immorality? The child can not consent because the child does not yet exist. Only until the child exists can they consent and this question can only be asked when they come to an age where they are able to understand it. Not bringing the child into the world denies them even the ability to consent.

What I do know is that these childhood illnesses have been almost eradicated from our lives. The great majority of people have never seen a child with Polio, Tetanus, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, epiglottits from an H. influenza infection, an infant with Pertussis, a person with Diptheria and therefore as we all know the unseen goes unnoticed. I guarentee that if one has seen these diseases in close contacts one would rush to vaccinate their child. I am very concerned with the subset of the libertarian community which grabs ahold of pseudoscience and takes it as fact. I understand the skepticism but to reach conclusions it has to be backed up with research that adheres to the scientific method. The research shows that vaccines are very safe with limited side effects. The influenza vaccine is very questionable to how well it works in elderly and it is mostly likely unneeded in healthy adults. The data actual does show this and this may be where people begin to get confused. They latch on to it and then question what if they all are useless?

Well if it is force to bring a child into this world then we all should universally stop having children. If we do then the human race would cease to exist and the this question would be meaningless. When these types of conclusions can be found through the logical progression of such questions they can be safely discarded.

I saw this and thought the same thing.

My thoughts are that she is hurt and using your empathy against you. She calls Stephan your "idol" which is a pejorative. There is much that unlies this use of terminology. First she knows that this is important to you but does not trust your judgement in choosing who to listen to or learn from. She does not care that this is important to you because she puts what you are learning about down. She is not interested in what you are learning about and instead of asking questions to know what you are going through just dismisses it as an "idol".