algernon

The media is disgusting. Search Youtube for news clips on Kratom. They all received the same memo, "It's dangerous, unregulated, no medical use and causes people to commit suicide". What's quite amazing is the fact that every single media clip from all over the country I found had the same leaning, zero research, zero actual reporting, just repeating the party line. How many people did they interview that took it and allowed them to completely stop taking dangerous opioid drugs and help with their physical addiction and reduce pain? Zero. There was one clip of a mother so happy it was being banned, her son committed suicide while taking Kratom, of course no mention of any other drugs he might have been taking, or why he was depressed and suicidal to begin with, only the Kratom was mentioned, and the mother was able to place blame elsewhere and not on herself. What I find mind blowing about this entire thing is the fact that it doesn't even make you high! The propaganda since before I was born was Cannabis makes you high therefore = bad. Growing up in a religious household and in churches it was always said high = bad. Now no one even tries to do that, it's just "We're doing it for your safety". I have a friend who uses about 1g of Kratom per day to help with medical issues, there is no high, no impairment, it just makes the pain manageable. There are no side effects like other Opioid drugs, and no addiction. Of course the pharmaceutical lobby can not have this - http://www.aol.com/article/2016/09/19/a-searing-new-report-claims-opioid-drugmakers-spent-8-times-as-m/21475187/

Synopsis: 'Kratom' is the word used for the leaf material of the Mitragyna speciosa tree. Kratom has a 1000 year history of medicinal use in southeast Asia and there are an estimated hundreds of thousands of Americans that use Kratom to treat their medical problems. Kratom is easily accessible and cheap. There is a new opioid drug in the pharmaceutical pipeline that has already had successful primate trials using the name 'MGM-16'. This new contender poised to enter the multi-billion dollar prescription opioid market is synthesized from two of the alkaloids found in kratom, mitragynine & 7-hydroxymitragynine. The media is reporting that the DEA will be banning Kratom in the USA at the end of this month by putting kratom on the schedule 1 drug list in response to the imminent public hazard that it poses. What the DEA is actually doing is making two alkaloids (mitragynine & 7-hydroxymitragynine) in to schedule 1 drugs using the DEA's 'emergency scheduling' provision. A provision that eliminates the requirement for a public comment period and reduces their enforcement timeline down to 30 days from the day of their announcement (which was August 31st, 2016). Interesting to note that although Kratom contains dozens of active alkaloids the DEA is only addressing two of them with this emergency action. The very two alkaloids that are used to make this new patentable pharmaceutical drug (trial drug name MGM-16). Conclusion: The DEA is acting as the militarized wing of the pharmaceutical lobby! It is currently engaged in a covert operation to keep the USA buying prescription opiods instead of using cheap and easily accessible plants. The DEA is preparing the US market for this new drug by outlawing the very plant material it is being synthesized from. Because of this there will be thousands of people with medical ailments in the USA unexpectedly forced off there medicine at the end of this month. ------------- Other things to note. Over the last 5 years the poison control center has received approximately 600 calls from people who had believed they overdosed on Kratom, the DEA is using this as part of their reasoning for the "emergency" scheduling. 600 CALLS, not 600 deaths, not 600 cases of brain damage, 600 calls. The side effect of overdosing on Kratom is not feeling well and then throwing up. Further info on the pharmaceutical connections. One name: Chuck Rosenberg Current position: Appointed Head of the DEA on 5/15/2015 Past Positions: - Was Counsel at Hunton and Williams (2000 - 2002) which have ties to Big Pharma (Source here: https://www.hunton.com/Life_Sciences/) - Partner at Hogan Lovells US LLP also known as Hogan & Hartson (2008-2013). This company here is very important to remember. We'll come back to it. (Source here: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-announces-new-acting-administrator-drug-enforcement-administration) It turns out that Hogan & Hartson does quite a bit of lobbying for Big Pharma. Source here: https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/rev_summary.php?id=70942 Now here's where everything ties together. This company "The Janssen Pharmaceutical Company" a division of Johnson & Johnson which is in the process of developing on what seems a synthetic version of Kratom named PZM21. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2016/08/40...killer-scratch As stated in the link above, Henry Lin is now principal scientist at The Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies, a division of Johnson & Johnson. Well it turns out that Henry Lin "H.L. (referring to co-lead author Henry Lin, PhD of UCSF) received a pre-doctoral fellowship from the PhRMA Foundation. Johnson & Johnson and PhRMA have been old clients of the lobbying firm Hogan Lovells/Hartson since at least the year 2000 as seen in the PDF below. See Melissa Bianchi (https://ebdgroup.knect365.com/digitalmedicine-showcase/speakers/melissa-bianchi) page 20, Donna Boswell (http://www.hoganlovells.com/donna-boswell) page 21, Irene F. Chang (http://influenceexplorer.com/individual/irene-f-chang/228d5db223e442ae824474b5763d110d?cycle=2000) page 22, Stephan Lawton (https://www.bio.org/media/press-release/stephan-lawton-joins-bio-vice-president-regulatory-affairs-general-counsel) page 31, Warren Maruyama (http://www.hoganlovells.com/warren-maruyama) page 33 and many , many more. https://www.citizen.org/documents/pharmadrugwar.PDF We also have Trevena Inc, which is also in the trial phases with their own Mitragynine-mimicking synthetic (similar to PZM21). And of course, Trevena has ties to pharmaceutical company "Glaxo Wellcome", which are also clients of Hogan & Hartson. More info on Trevena's Kratom like synthetic TRV374 here: http://www.trevena.com/TRV734.php Just check employees profile from Trevena and quite a bit of the worked for Glaxo such as Maxine Gowen (https://www.linkedin.com/in/maxine-gowen-2711259?trk=pub-pbmap) and Conrad Cowan (https://www.linkedin.com/in/conrad-cowan-2808849) So in a nutshell... Chuck Rosenberg (Head of the DEA) just very recently used work for Hogan & Hartson which lobby's for the pharmaceutical industry. Hogan & Hartson's big Pharma client list includes Johnson & Johnson, PhRMA and Glaxo Wellcome. The Janssen Pharmaceutical company (Division of J&J) is in the process of creating a synesthetic version of Kratom. The principal scientist for PZM21 (Henry Lin) works for Janssen Pharmaceuticals and also received a pre-doctoral fellowship from the PhRMA foundation.. which again are both clients of Hogan & Hartson, which the head of the DEA Chuck Rosenberg recently used to work for. And the cherry on top.. Hogan & Hartson tie to the FDA http://www.law360.com/articles/43211/hogan-hartson-adds-partner-to-pharma-practice https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/service/pharmaceutical-and-biotechnology-regulatory-law Here is the DEA proposed ruling - https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/08/31/2016-20803/schedules-of-controlled-substances-temporary-placement-of-mitragynine-and-7-hydroxymitragynine-into It's mind numbing to read. Apparently they don't have to have sources for anything, they just say - People abuse it (whatever that means) - It's dangerous (whatever that means) - Large quantities are imported Therefore It's dangerous, abused and tons of it are on the street, we need to ban it ASAP! Something else to consider, the DEA like any other government agency is a parasite, and once it grows it does not willingly shrink. There are almost 5000 DEA field agents in the USA, if something like Cannabis were to be removed from their schedule 1 list (the most dangerous level a drug can achieve) how many people would no longer be needed and lose their job? If 75% of their "work" is enforcing these "laws", once something is added, such as Kratom it can never be removed, they will add the personnel and infrastructure to enforce it. The prison industrial complex depends on it, the judges the courts, the DEA agents that get a paycheck for putting people in cages. They will not allow them self to be eliminated by removing their ability to enforce these things.

Hard to figure out what the truth is. The water issue is the fact the pipelines run over some major rivers, and unfortunately pipelines have a tendency to leak. Some things I've read said none of the pipelines run over the natives land. Who knows what the truth is, we do know whoever has the most money will win though, and unfortunately when you can print it, you win.

The Body Keeps the Score by Bessel van der Kolk M.D I found this book profound. It covers pretty much everything - the origin of trauma, the history of treatments, how the DSM is basically corrupt and the drugs are largely ineffective and used incorrectly. Different types of therapy such as EMDR, IFS, yoga, body massages, talk therapy used with common SSRIs, talk therapy used with LSD, neural feedback training and therapy. It goes deeply into how the brain is physically effected by trauma through the use of brain scans, and how certain parts (logical, thinking part) of the brain literally turn off during a traumatic event, or how when someone hasn't dealt with the trauma their brain enters the same state it was when originally experiencing it the first time. This explains why people who have panic or anxiety attacks in benign situations can't logically prevent it. Their mind is stuck in the past and something triggers them to feel how they originally felt when experiencing the trauma. It delves into the physical manifestations of unresolved trauma, and how people with traumatic histories are unproportionally effected by things such as autoimmune disorders, when compared to the non-traumatized population. I found it particularly interesting because it covered a lot of things I've researched in the past, specifically with HRV (Heart Rate Variability) training, how it works and how it effects your brain. When you look into HRV training and people talk about being in a "coherence" state, it sounds a little bit like voodoo until you actually understand how it effects the brain from a physical perspective and then it all makes sense. It covers so many things Stef has talked about it makes me wonder if he's read it. Brain scans, ACE scores, reactive attachment disorders in children. The list goes on. At 464 pages, or 17 hours worth in audio form there is a lot there. I would recommend anyone interested in psychology or therapy to check it out. At some point I intend on reading the book, as generally when reading something I'm able to retain it better, but listening to the entire 17 hours while working outside gave me a really good first impression.

I've had this argument with people before and it seems there is a bit of misunderstanding on the subject, especially regarding the difference between sympathy and empathy. I agree with Drew on this one, and it appears a dictionary definition can clear up some of the confusion. em·pa·thy ˈempəTHē/ noun noun: empathy the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. sym·pa·thy ˈsimpəTHē/ noun noun: sympathy 1. feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune. Regarding feeling what your child feels, yes if they are sad you can feel sad, that does not mean you let it show or you let it effect your decisions, after all they have the immature brain and need the direction, but that doesn't mean you can't feel what they're feeling and still take care of them appropriately. Having two young children I regularly experience their emotions, but my brain is mature and can handle it. I thought I'd add this link, I've read a few like this and it seems to be pretty consistent on differences between empathy / sympathy. - https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201505/empathy-vs-sympathy

I heard her make that comment and instantly thought of the below video, for two reasons. OKC appears to have been directly linked with the Clintons in some aspects, and it was definitely an inside job. Inside job not necessarily meaning they (The Government) planned it, but if they didn't have a direct connection in planning it, they knew it was going to happen. Also it had some interesting Joe Biden information I didn't realize, such as him having direct involvement to writing what would be the precursor to the Patriot Act.

This is interesting, you call it "hoarding" which is generally perceived as something negative, and is listed as a psychological disease. I am not sure if then you are saying don't be prepared, because if you are those that aren't will try to take it, but if you aren't prepared then you will just be left alone? I've seen some statistics that the average food storage per households is around 3 days worth of food. Which isn't hard to believe it's that low because anytime there is a big winter storm in places like the North East, the grocery stores get cleaned out from people stocking up. Considering the entire grocery store model is on the JIT (just in time) inventory management, any supply chain disruption means the stores are empty within a few days, no "hoarding" necessary to cause that. Food storage is one of the easiest, cheapest and least difficult ways to prepare, but is often the most pooh-poohed. Is it the stigma with being labeled a crazy prepper? Why is it so ridiculous to have some "food insurance" in case of (fill in the blank) happening? Canned food lasts years, then before it starts to expire you can eat it... and buy more. Is that so ridiculous? Economic collapse doesn't call for food storage? You are aware of what's happening in Venezuela right? Google: Venezuela Food Lines

Yes I tried Natto at a Sushi Bar, personally I found it disgusting, as well as all of the other adults at the table. Interestingly my 1 year old (at the time) daughter loved it. I believe it's an acquired taste, super stringy cheesy like stuff on the outside of rotten/sour tasting soy beans. Regarding K2, I researched it extensively after my wife was diagnosed with pre-periodontal disease. After looking into periodontal disease and one statistic says 50% of adults 30+ years old are in the "pre" stage, I knew something was wrong. After modifying our diets (mainly hers, I went along for the ride) to include less healthy "whole grains" and much higher amounts of grass fed butter, as well as supplementing with high doses of K2 her gum problems, as well as teeth sensitivity and the beginning signs of additional cavities ceased and reversed. This is the first time in her life she hasn't had any teeth sensitivity. Growing up I had a few cavities even though my mom was obsessed with "healthy" foods and instilling oral hygiene in her kids. Before starting the K2 regime and diet changes I had some sensitivity in a few teeth, and what I felt like might be a cavity in a molar, afterwards all sensitivity went away and what felt like the cavity has not presented itself - this was 4 years ago - neither of us has been back to a dentist since. The problem with diet discussion is it's extremely susceptible to the newest fads, remember when fat was bad for you? Fat made you fat. And cholesterol, oh my god don't eat those egg yolks! Looking at dietary cholesterol completely ignores that 80% of the bodies cholesterol is made by the liver, and higher cholesterol levels have almost no bearing on dietary cholesterol intake and means there is a problem somewhere else. Interestingly a friend of mine has always had high cholesterol levels, he races bicycles and even at 8% BF and a 50 bpm resting heart rate he had high cholesterol, he was eating his healthy whole grains and lean turkey, no eggs, just the whites... I was insane for suggesting a high fat low sugar high cholesterol diet of egg yolks and grass fed beef. Once the Paleo diet fad caught on he decided to go that route, his blood test results are the best they've ever been in his adult life. The vegan diet being the best diet always makes me scratch my head, you can take any animal and figure out what it's natural diet is, and if you deviate from that they become less healthy, is it suggested that the natural diet for humans excludes animals? Would anyone suggest wolves would do well on a diet of lentils and kale? Are chickens as healthy if you prevent them from eating bugs? Do bovine eat other bovine? Not unless it's ground up in a slurry and fed to them - then you can get mad cow disease... I thought this video was interesting for many reasons, but I specifically liked the part about the chocolate in the diet study, I remember reading the headlines about that a while back -

I think if you start to look at all of the facets of diet, nutrition and exercise from a historical, biological, practical, and farming standpoint you can reach a more logical conclusion than using biased studies. Animals are significantly better at converting plant based nutrients into a usable form for humans, than humans are at consuming the plants and receiving the nutrients. You can get significantly more nutrients per acre using animals on perennial plants than trying to grow those plants for human consumption, most of which are annuals. Most people make the automatic and reasonable conclusion that something like a "whole grain" is significantly more healthy than it's non "whole" counterpart, having all of those nutrients and all. What is being left out is the fact that many grains contain anti-nutrients, phytic acid, which most people have never heard of nor is it talked about. Consuming these anti-nutrients is actually more damaging than consuming the non-whole counterpart, as phytic acid binds to important nutrients and cause deficiencies in the body. Historical preparation techniques such as fermentation and sprouting largely eliminates the phytic acid, which has been mostly lost on modern society. And they were consumed in moderation as they were labor intensive to farm, harvest and prepare. To circle back around to farming, in order to grow large amounts of cereal grains to feed a large amount of people, you need a significant amount of inputs in a monocultural system, which is inconsistent with nature as nothing grows in a monoculture. You are looking at heavy machinery with a great expense and upkeep, with a significant amount of hydrocarbon input, hydrocarbons to fuel the machinery, and create the fertilizer, hydrocarbons to bring in the fertilizer, and harvest and ship the grains. Then because you have a monoculture system it is extremely susceptible to disease as you've removed all competition in the environment to keep the disease from spreading. See the Gros Michel banana as an example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gros_Michel_banana- now we must use pesticides and insecticides to save the crop. As a slight aside, many vegans make that choice because they don't want to eat anything with a "face", yet they are completely inconsiderate of all of the animals that are chopped up and churned into their grains during harvesting, I guess bunnies, mice and whatever other animals happen to be in the field don't count as having a face. Comparing the arteries of vegans to those of people who expose their bodies to chronic inflammation and unnatural stress doesn't prove anything. There is nothing healthy with prolonged cardio, just because someone runs a marathon does not mean "healthy". I know you wouldn't consider a powerlifter who can squat 900lb and weighs 300lb "healthy", why are we looking at marathon runners? Menaquinone (K2) is one of the most overlooked and under consumed nutrients I've studied, which is primarily found in animal sources fed a traditional diet. You can get large amounts of it from Natto, which in my opinion is disgusting, and is not consumed in western cultures. From my research a large majority of oral problems and bone loss problems is from a lack of K2 in the diet, and is not from a lack of calcium as the vitamin commercials would lead you to believe. K2 can also decalcify the arteries and remineralize teeth. You aren't just what you eat, you are what you eat, ate. How many of these studies looked at the sources of the meat, fish and eggs, and what their diet consisted of? Traditional cattle farming is in feed lots (unnatural), feeding cattle feed with antibiotics (so they don't get sick and die from the disgusting conditions) which also increases "feed efficiency", fattening them on grain and corn, which would eventually kill them if they weren't slaughtered soon enough. Here's something to think about, the PH of the stomach of cattle is much higher than that of humans due to their diet. There is bacteria everywhere, without bacteria we would all be dead, we have more bacteria in us than cells in our entire body. Cattle have salmonella, when you slaughter cattle it is possible to get some feces on the meat, it happens, if you under cook it or eat it raw you could be consuming some salmonella. Interestingly the salmonella in the intestinal tract of cattle die off in humans because our PH is lower, except when cattle are fed grains, their PH changes and the bacterial content inside them also change, aligning to that closer to a human. Now you have salmonella in cattle that can live in a human stomach, and make us sick. A lot of these studies are like the in vitro studies of workout supplements, "It'll increase testosterone by 500%!!!!", except when studied in vivo, they are 100% ineffective and do nothing. All of these things matter and it goes much deeper than, plant only, vegetarian, omnivore diet. Generally those who go from a SAD diet (standard america diet) to a vegan/vegetarian diet feel SIGNIFICANTLY better, for a short period of time, months, maybe a year, until they gradually decline unto a weak, sick state. Let's talk a minute about calories. Who cares? Calories is just a measure of energy, it has nothing to do with nutrition or health. It's all marketing. Fat / Skinny is also very skewed and is a poor marker of overall health when it comes to someone that attempts to be healthy. A skinny couch potato who only eats one small frozen dinner a day is probably slightly "healthier" than a fat couch potato who eats 3 frozen dinners a day, but just looking at it from that perspective isn't very helpful. You could have someone slightly overweight who eats a healthy diet and does a considerable amount of physical activity compared to a skinny person who eats a very poor diet and is sedentary, in this scenario who is healthier? How are most of these nutritional "studies" done? These are recollection studies, "What did you eat for breakfast 5 days ago? How much salt do you think you ate on Monday?"...

You're right, I was thinking of how it is generally used and that's probably inaccurate.

How does this argument become so pervasive? This argument for spanking is the same statist make for the roads... "But who would build the roads without government!?" It's really quite simple, if your child dashes out into a busy street, YOU have failed them. If I threatened to beat you for running into the street, should that be your consideration for not doing it, or because you had the understanding that running into the street might cause you physical harm from the vehicles zooming by? If as an adult you had no consideration for the vehicles, and your only concern was not being beat by myself, then you would probably not run into the street if I had effectively made you fearful of my presence. What happens when I leave and you are no longer afraid of me beating you? Well you would run into the street, why not, the threat has passed? The consideration should not be because of the parent, it should be the understanding of the harm that can come from running into the street. One might ask what if the child is too young to understand the dangers of running into the street. Well that's your job to keep the potential of harm distanced from the child. Put a land mine in your living room, and every time your 8 month old baby crawls towards it beat them - that would be a bit ridiculous wouldn't it? Remove the mine. Do your job as a parent and keep your 2 year old from running into the street, and TEACH THEM why they shouldn't, when they are 3, 4 maybe 5 or 6 they will understand the dangers of it, and then you won't have to worry because they have understanding regardless of your presence. A parents job is to help a child become an autonomous person, spanking does nothing to further that and only inhibits it. If someone considers them self a Christian they are followers and believers of Jesus Christ, and should use his examples. Was there ever an example of Jesus using physical force against another human? Much less a child? The only example in the Bible of Jesus ever becoming angry was due to the money changers and merchants in the temple, and he drove out the animals using a whip, as common practice to direct animals. You have a few ambiguous passages in the Bible, and people use that as their entire parenting philosophy regardless of Biblical evidence to the contrary, and significant modern evidence of the damage it does, and how totally ineffective it is.

My references were to competitive professional sports such as NFL, NBA, MLB, or the Olympics. These are the organizations which actively seek out and attract the absolute best. I'm sure at lower level organizations as you get more towards the average on the bell curve you could have trans men competing. I used to play low level softball, and there were plenty of women that were better than me and other men on the team, but once you get towards the right side of the bell curve they wouldn't have been able to compete with men. Regarding the "assuming this is accurate", what is responsible? Evolution. There are other interesting differences between men and women when it comes to training. You can't train men and women the same, if you look at powerlifting competitions you might have a man doing near his absolute max on a deadlift, the bar is moving slow and he barely makes it... Add 10lb to the bar, he lifts it up and the bar moves even slower, it's a real grinder but he completes the lift. Now you have a woman, she is lifting towards her max on the deadlift and the bar moves slow but she completes the lift, add only 5lb to the bar, it's glued to the floor, she can't move it at all. With men, expression of strength is more linear, and women parabolic, what might appear a less than maximal lift due to bar speed is actually near 100% of the capability of a woman, these are things not effected by hormones. From my experience most people use the term sex and gender interchangeable, though I suppose over time as all words do change meaning, gender might be more widely accepted as the cultural idea of the sexes, and sex as the biological term. When a baby is born people ask "What gender is it". The baby has no preconceived notions what it wants to be. I'm not sure if I would consider bodybuilding a "sport", though bodybuilders might disagree, my analogies were in reference to direct competitive sports. Though will you ever see a trans-man win Mr. Olympia or Mr. Universe? Let me ask you this, if you took a NBA team and every single player 'transitioned', do you think it would be a fair competition for WNBA teams to play against them?

Standing, planted vertical jump, here is a short video demonstrating it using a Vertec - You measure the highest point you can reach planted, and then the highest point you can touch while jumping.

Please elaborate on what type of "contract" you're referring to then. If you're using a word which has an understood meaning, differently than everyone else who uses it, we aren't going to be able to communicate very well with each other. In law a "contract" has a very specific definition and meaning, you might want to use something else.

Other than the obvious possibility of cheating, by deciding your TRT doses need modification to be in the "proper" (e.g., best range to be better than everyone else) you also have to consider the fact that something like the vertical jump is a measure of athleticism, the reason being is the vertical jump cannot be trained to any considerable degree. If you have two athletic people, or at least reasonably fit, whatever their vertical jump is now, regardless of the amount of training it will increase very little. The vertical jump is a measure of explosiveness, the ability to recruit muscles quickly, you cannot train it. The average vertical jump for men falls between 16 to 20 inches while it is around 12 to 16 inches for women. A good vertical jump is one that's over 2 feet for males and over 20 inches for females. As you move towards the upper end of the genetic pool for athleticism these numbers diverge further, here is an example from the University of Lincoln records page- Mens Basketball Ross Buckendahl 37" - 5/2/01 Womens Basketball Tanya Upthegrove 26.5" - 10/13/94 You can search and find many male athletes with 40"+ verticals The average female college basketball player has a vertical leap of approximately 19 inches, compared with more than 28 inches for the average male player. Hormones will not change this. You cannot chop off a few bits here and there, take some hormones and change this. You cannot change body proportions and muscle dispersion. You cannot change neurological recruitment speed of muscle fibers. Gender is a biological term, it is not an idea or thought process. Some animals possess the ability to switch genders when it's beneficial for survival of the species, humans do not possess that ability, and medicine isn't capable of facilitating it (yet, anyway). I really don't care about sports at all, never watch them and don't care. The sports organizations can do whatever they want, if it becomes standard practice to include men in female sports, who wish they were born women, I think what we will start to see (if there are enough trans women out there who are natural athletes), is women slowly displaced by men, in female sports. You will have the NBA, and then you will have the Trans-WNBA, bye genetic female athletes. There is a reason there are no females in the NFL, and there never will be. Taking exogenous testosterone will not change that. You will never see a trans man legitimately compete in a male sport.

It made me sad. It's already difficult enough talking to adults that have been brainwashed by the media and false information infiltrating every aspect of their life, imagine trying to speak reason and logic to a child that was indoctrinated in this type of system. When you have the neural plasticity of a child formed into rejecting reason and logic, being completely brainwashed during their development, after they grow into an adult, how will you reason with that?

So if I create a contract with someone agreeing to their terms, and also include my unborn children in the contract, are they contractually obligated to follow through with these terms they had no choice in agreeing to? If I vote for a school bond, something that doesn't mature for 30 years, are my children contractually obligated to pay for that in 20 years once they're an adult and earn money? What about if I never have children, can I go ahead and include your children in a contract? How about this, I will move into a new mansion, and the terms of the loan with the bank will be your children will work for them for 20 years as indentured servants once they are physically capable. Now of course it would only be fair that they will get to use one of the rooms of the mansion if they choose, if they choose not to, that does not absolve them of their contractual obligation to pay it off though, mind you. And if they don't like it, they can run away and hide. There is some very specific things that must be met for a contract to be valid, originating in common law, and a blind, one sided contract made with the unborn certainly does not qualify. I'm sorry but a "social contract" is just mind-fuck BS that propagandizes people to accept their enslavement.

Legitimate authority does not exist, I would suggest reading this book - https://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Rose-ebook/dp/B00UV41W2U/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1465653521&sr=8-1&keywords=the+most+dangerous+superstition

So after 2 years of HRT you stop taking everything?

http://www.news9.com/story/32168555/ohp-uses-new-device-to-seize-money-used-during-the-commission-of-a-crime What I find interesting is politicians think they need to pass some more legislation to prevent the police from doing things which are already expressly illegal under the constitution. Every time something like this happens it just reaffirms more and more the constitution is completely useless. If they pass a "constitutional carry" law saying you don't need a permit to carry a gun, they are once again saying the constitution does not apply.

Regarding nutrition I would recommend the better baby book - https://www.amazon.com/Better-Baby-Book-Healthier-Smarter/dp/1118137132/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1465574690&sr=8-1&keywords=better+baby+book The biggest complaint is it's so extreme, but like anything else it's dose dependent, so if you're unable to follow everything and just a portion you will still be way ahead of most people. Unfortunately doctors know very little and recommend even less on nutrition, if you're taking a prenatal and going for a walk every now and then they're happy. This really helps bridge that gap (P.S., Use a midwife, not a doctor). Regarding parenting, I've found this book insightful - https://www.amazon.com/How-Talk-Kids-Will-Listen/dp/1451663889/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1465574805&sr=8-1&keywords=how+to+talk+to+kids+so+they+will+listen

Interesting the traffic at an intersection debate was brought up. You can be held liable for an accident by giving incorrect information to the driver. And example would be if you stop short of a driveway, and wave someone out that is trying to turn left, if they are then an accident due to you directing them out into traffic you are liable. Another example would be if police are directing traffic at an intersection, and due to officers negligence directing traffic into each other, they (or their employer) are held liable. This can be applied to almost any situation in life, to say the lie (or negligence) of another individual is of no consequence to the actions that are taken is incorrect. I hand someone a drink and tell them to drink it, that it's safe, yet I know it's poisoned, am I not liable? Well I didn't force them to drink it, they made the conscience decision. I am an employer and tell my employees to work in a building I know is full of dangerous gasses and fumes, am I not liable? Some time back I read a story of a catsup company who shipped out catsup contaminated with Listeria, the CEO was informed that the tomatoes might have been contaminated and he said to ship it anyway, someone died and he was found liable in court. No one forced anyone to eat the catsup. There is the legal precedent of Good Faith or bona fide, Honesty; a sincere intention to deal fairly with others. Good faith is an abstract and comprehensive term that encompasses a sincere belief or motive without any malice or the desire to defraud others. It derives from the translation of the Latin term bona fide, and courts use the two terms interchangeably. If you are working with someone in good faith and cause an accident, you would not be morally responsible but still legally responsible for an accident caused by your negligence, if you are lying and not working in good faith, you are morally responsible. My example of the police directing traffic, if they are negligent and cause an accident it is different than they are lying (saying it's clear to proceed when it's not, and they know it) and cause an accident. Actually it does, this was not a passenger but a close comparison. http://yournjlawyer.com/index.php/2009/04/waving-a-car-into-traffic-prior-to-crash-results-in-liability/

I'm having a difficult understanding what appears to be an argument, but I'm really not quite sure. Are you making an argument for or against something?

I usually post this video when it comes to voting, this aligns to my perspective pretty well - You cannot change a corrupt system by participating in that system. That does not mean do nothing though, quite the opposite. I spend a great deal of time trying to educate people, what if everyone in your town or community was educated and stopped voting, stopped participating and stopped following the rules of the corrupt system? It would have to change, BC Canada is a good example. Open rebellion of the cannabis laws meant they had to legalize it, people lost respect of the law, often openly defying the drug laws and smoking cannabis in public. For the system to continue appearing legitimate they had to decriminalize it. This is slowly happening in the states with cannabis, as many areas people have lost complete respect for the drug laws, and many individual states are legalizing it. Stop subjugating yourself to other masters, you are your own master. Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner, in actuality it needs to be 10 sheep and 11 wolves voting, the sheep refusing to vote and saying they don't care what immoral decry the wolves decide on, they will not comply and will defend them self. Voting is participating and giving consent of the outcome. Look at all of the bills congress keeps trying to pass, TPP and other trade things the public outcries about, large internet companies run campaigns to shut it down, and it gets delayed for a while, they just keep renaming the bill, putting parts of one bill into others, and vote after vote the people care less and less about it, until it eventually passes. Has an enormous overbearing state ever been voted into a smaller state? Has a totalitarian government ever been voted into a free government? Remember, you only get to vote for the options they give you... Romney vs Obama? Two options of the virtually same person. Even if Ron Paul was elected, would he have been able to turn the federal government into a small less overbearing police state? He might have been able to shrink it marginally, until the next election and the metastasis continued. The US government started as the most free place on earth, the problem was people accepted the validity of authority and force, and here we are today. "Let's just vote on a 1% tax, no one will notice the 1% it's so miniscule, and it will save THE CHILDREN." Who could have a problem with a 1% tax, it would have virtually no effect on anyone, and could help so many, the problem is ACCEPTING the validity of a tax. So I would have to ask, what meaningful change do you hope to accomplish through voting?

I absolutely hate this "share" thing parents do. I can't stand it when the force their kids to "share" and when the remove things from their kids with their brute strength. I came to the logical conclusion of peaceful parenting through universally applying my knowledge of illegitimate authority. Once you realize what the state does through force is immoral, you have to apply it to all aspect of your life and remain consistent. If you give a child a toy, that is THEIR toy, if you believe in property ownership (which most people don't), you have no right to force them to "share", it's theft. Taking the toy is not "teaching them to share" as most parents would believe. If my two year old wants to play with a toy another child is playing with, I will try and help her negotiate with the other child for the toy, if they refuse that is their right. If their parent comes along and tries to remove the toy and give it to my daughter I ask them not to do that. I've had many people comment surprisingly "You're negotiating with a two year old?" and some said it even mockingly. Yes two year olds can negotiate, not only that they also remember things well. I'll occasionally ask her for something like a sip of her juice and she'll say "no!", then I remind her "I gave you a sip of my drink, you like it when I share with you, don't you want to share with me?", she'll think about it and usually let me have a sip. Sometimes not, which is perfectly fine. I still have this cringe moment when she tells us no if we ask her to do something, not because I care she's saying no, but because as a child I would get in trouble for telling my parents no. How dare a child have a preference and say... NO. Of course children are adaptable and we would just reword NO into something else, like "I don't want to", which to illogical parents is some how different than no. But alas, it was just NO that was the bad word.