GRosado

Anybody live in the O town or around that area it would be cool to meet some people over spring break.

If I didn't live with my parents still & had a house of my own I would totally invite you. But hope all goes well with you.

Very awesome poems, personally not a big fan of poetry but I will not hesitate to admit that your stuff is awesome

GRosado95 I don't really post too much

https://www.childwelfare.gov/preventing/preventionmonth/about/ About:National Child Abuse Prevention Month is a time to acknowledge the importance of families and communities working together to prevent child abuse and neglect, and to promote the social and emotional well-being of children and families. During the month of April and throughout the year, communities are encouraged to share child abuse and neglect prevention awareness strategies and activities and promote prevention across the country. Although I am wary of government programs or initiatives I think this is a positive one that tackles the root cause of many of societies problems.

No public goods is used to define a good that is not rivalrous or excludable. You can't just erase a word from existence even if it is artificial or whatever you were saying it was.Yes I know no country in the world currently does that but that's why I was asking if it is possible for there to be a voluntary form of government, sort of based off the social contract theory of Rousseau & Locke. What your saying is if your able to opt out but what I'm asking is if you voluntarily opt in to live in a country that is essentially a voluntary government cause your signing a contract to pay a certain amount of taxes for certain goods, whether the goods are Public or Club goods.

It seems like your not trying to understand my question & answer it, just providing input.A business can sell citizenship & public goods??? Wow that's strange considering business is private & they sell private goods.There could be many reasons I am simply asking a question. Also you can comparison shop between private sellers true but could you not do that between country's. For instance Chile is selling certain public goods at a lower tax rate than Zimbabwe so I decide to move to Chile instead of Zimbabwe & I voluntarily sign a contact that says I will get these public goods in return for me paying the tax.Wouldn't that be a form of voluntary government?

Question, what if a person moves to a country & signs a sort of contact where he agrees to pay taxes in return for citizenship & other public goods the government provides. That would fit under the voluntary umbrella wouldn't it?

The first way is a better way to use both words. But they are synonyms of each other so whoever corrected you isn't really making a differentiation in words.

Very interesting to note that many ADHD patients have been misdiagnosed & have reactive attachment disorder.

Im already circumcised but I'm wondering if there is a procedure where you can get circumcised at an older age.

Yea people will be against it & then defend what they were just against.It happened to me on an instagram, everybody was cheering on spanking & I commented that I was disgusted with their comments & some military maofftarted insulting me & said his children were hit plenty & they turned out well. So I look at his pictures & there's a picture if his son telling his teacher to fuck off. I couldn't stop laughing.

Lichtenstein is the freest western country? I would say Chile or Switzerland is.

Medical Marijuana stocks are a tricky investment but they should see credible gains in the next few years as more states legalize medical marijuana. The only ones that I know of are the penny stocks which aren't a risky investment but at the same time penny stocks don't always make large gains.

Not exactly sure but a quick search on Google might bring something up.

Which East India Company are you talking about? Dutch, British French, Portuguese?

Businesses that sell weapons will have a form of background check for people or there will be some sort of private oversight organization that will set standards for businesses that sell weapons to follow. I'm not sure what could prevent illegal weapon sales but I'm pretty sure there is some way to discourage it. Now let's theorize that some bad people get ahold of weapons & plan to use them for nefarious purposes. Businesses, individuals or collectives can pay for protection from these bad people through PMCs, security guards etc cetera or they can purchase there own weapons & use them in self defense.

The general consensus on these forums is Anarcho-Capitalism so I don't think people here would be willing too give any credence to limited government.The only taxes that could exist if you operate under the constitution would be tariffs on imports & exports, sales taxes, excise taxes & licenses/occupational taxes. Those could fund the essential functions of the state.However I don't think any of those escape the realm of theft. So Anarcho-Capitalism is the way to go.

Deflation is very beneficial to purchasing power of any currency. Wages tend to decrease along with deflation but prices are lower so workers are able to purchase more at a lower wage. Inflation is created if there is an increase in the supply of money without a corresponding increase in the demand of money. The supply of money doesn't have a lone affect on purchasing power unless your a monetarist working within the framework of the Quantity Theory of Money.

In all honesty I'm not an expert on Christianity either but I am a history nut. Well all historians agree he was a real person & they say the two events of his baptism & crucifixion were real. They however hold no opinion on whether he was divine or not, they call it the historical Jesus. Some sources for the existence of Jesus are Josephus, Mara bar Sarapion, Tacitus & Pliny the Younger. I'm not exactly sure if or what the Shroud of Turin proves.

Then on that note this conversation is over, not much was accomplished due to faulty communication, faulty understanding & all around Disgruntledness.

I didn't rely on information from Wikipedia, I watched an interview with Ted Bundy in his final hours so I took what he said as the truth. Who knows you better than yourself. Also if I remember correctly Ted bundy said that himself "Not perfect but good" Ok that's a half truth they lack empathy, remorse & responsibility. I recommend you read this: http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/1040-3590.1.1.6To read it you might need to purchase it my psychology teacher let me read his copy so that helped me out.

No brain defects, a good childhood environment, not a perfect but a good one. Is it really universal? I know that spanking leads to aggression but I don't think all aggression stems from abuse. Then again I don't know to much on the psyche of the abused only read one book about brain development in children.Yes I understand that some people reject the notion that they've been abused due to societal norms. But I also believe people are sometimes telling the truth that they haven't been abused.How was my introduction of Ted? When I introduced him as an example we were talking about childhood environments & I described his environment truthfully. You didn't bring in the brain defect until this post & the Ted buddy post was 2-3 posts earlier if I'm correct. So your essentially raising the bar from childhood environment to environment & brain defect or moving the goalposts whatever it's called.So there isn't any misunderstanding how are you defining brain defect? The rest of my response will be a little delayed cause I'm going to the gym. Not sure if that needed to be known or what but its out there anyway.

All these responses were pulled straight from my text which you failed to see. I can't be editorializing cause I'm not presenting the news to anyone so that can't work, adjective accusations or possible truths from observation, you have twisted many of my statements out of context or outright ignored them or my questions to you.This was my response to the first question: Well I asked him not you but thank you for responding. It could be justified in self defense or in saving the person from oncoming danger. But my question applies to the that's too be kicked out of the house, I faultily included the tossing around. Also you said if the child created the scenario wouldn't it be the parents failings, isn't that fundamentally false? The child created the scenario not the parents. For instance the parents leave sharp objects on the floor & the child cuts his foot that is a scenario created by the parents that caused the child harm so that is there fault. Now let's say the child chooses to go outside when there is ice on the sidewalk to play & the parents told him they would prefer him to stay inside but he continues outside, slips & bruises himself. That is a scenario created by the child & it is his fault he got hurt.This was my response to the second question: It's one thing to say I'm comparing apples to oranges but it's another to show me how i am. It's very interesting to see how you took my hypothetical scenarios that I used to show that children make decisions independent of their parents & turn it on me & make me look like the bad guy. I never said that tossing children was right & when you use abusive to describe my statement I think you are falling into a sort of appeal to emotion fallacy with that by using a highly sensory word.This was my response to the 3rd question: That's not something that falls under your approval as to what purpose my question served & even if it did the simplest layman would recognize that it wasn't an abusive statement.I excluded you yes, did I apologize for it yes now please quote me exactly on how I tried to defend it cause now it seems as if your simply poisoning the well. The way I see it is if your above 18 & you still live with your parents you need to respect them & their rules & if you don't then they can kick you out cause your legally an adult but before 18 is to me not necessarily immoral but vile. Here is my scenarios, let's say the person is 18 & living with there parents. The 18 year old one day decides to drink & gets drunk with his friends, when he gets home he goes on a drunk rampage & starts destroying stuff & babbling curse words at his parents who decide to tell him that he has to move out when he is sober. That is justified in my eyes. Here's another let's say another 18 year old lives with his parents. He is given chores by his parents to do in place of charging him rent or making him pay anything. He decides to stop doing the chores & the parents tell him he needs to or he is breaking there agreement however he continues to disregard the agreement & they're requests, so they decide to tell him he has to move out. That is justified in my eyes. Also I thought we clarified in the beginning that I did not mean to ask about the tossing around as that wasn't my main concern cause I know nothing could be done by the child to warrant that. Yet you keep bringing it up for whatever reason even though you thanked me for the clarification... did you forget or something? I've answered all of your questions it's you weren't reading what I was saying instead you were stuck on the tossing around part & calling me an abuser. Oh my... This is a serious question are you even reading what I'm saying & please be honest? Seriously it's getting annoying to have to go back & explain something that could be understood by anyone & is spelled out plainly.The scenarios I gave weren't for the justification of kicking someone out of the house I specifically told you they were for your statement that all the child's problem accrue to the parent & I showed you how that's not the case in every situation. It doesn't apply to the kicking out of the house topic because that topic was discussed after. What holes do the scenarios contain exactly, I remember you said the ice but that is not a controllable variable especially in colder climate. List the holes please.

That's not something that falls under your approval as to what purpose my question served & even if it did the simplest layman would recognize that it wasn't an abusive statement.I excluded you yes, did I apologize for it yes now please quote me exactly on how I tried to defend it cause now it seems as if your simply poisoning the well. Also I have to commend you on the fact that you are a master manipulator of words & statements which leads me to believe you were on a debate team or a natural born debater either way you have chipped away at my statement through the use of emotional sensory words & quoting out of context or distorting the context. So your not familiar at all with Ted Bundy & his situation yet you call my statement on the state of his childhood false. On what background do you base that on?, do you have empirical evidence to disprove my claim on him? Omg *sigh* that's really frustrating off of what you just said I feel like your not really trying to understand what I said just trying to discredit me. I never said that & let's agree to have some level of integrity. That scenario was not for the child getting kicked out of the house all you need to do is go back & reread not skim. I used that as a retort to your statement that all the child's problems stem from their parents & I specifically laid out two scenarios for you to show how not all problems are caused by the parents. It's weird cause earlier you understood it perfectly but now you twisted & mangled it what happened Alzheimer's or Amnesia. Which one is it? <- Sound familiar. You keep switching up the words but alright. Ok so two things 1) it seems to me you have once again fallen under the psychologists fallacy as my debating friends call it. 2) You had 18 years as an adult & so what your telling me is that all the decisions you made within those 18 years stemmed from your parents that literally makes no sense it took you another 18 years to become responsible for yourself. Most of the things you listed your parents forcing you to do are not able to be done when you reach the age of 18. Interesting scientific fact psychopaths lack a sense of responsibility, not calling you a psychopath but if your theory holds true than humans are psychopaths for different ranges of time. Also I assume that you are in the free will camp, well the theory your backing would definitely fall into the determinist camp cause moral responsibility is apart of free will, determinism basically states it isn't the individuals fault all these things were placed on them it is there environment. Also I would like to throw in our childhood may shape us but it doesn't dictate us do you agree?