algernon

Why are you assuming she's attractive? Strip clubs are very dark for a reason. Stripper != Attractive. Do you find it liberating because it's like the fat kid standing at the desert station in a delicious buffet, and they have the willpower to not try and eat anything? The question specifically stated stripper, because someone being attractive or not does not say a whole lot (I know sometimes it can) about their character, them being a stripper does. Of course we were given no information on her character, just that she's a stripper. Using the stripper bit of information you can only assume she is the norm, and not the exception - she likely has some serious issues. I worked with a guy that regularly hung out, and dated strippers, a majority of them were prostitutes as well. I'm not sure how many virtuous prostitutes are out there, but maybe they exist.

You can be friends with whoever you want. You want advice if you can have a "real" friendship with someone we know nothing about and the entire basis of the advice coming from her being a stripper? If you have been around here a few minutes, and listened to more than a couple shows you are going to know what the advice is. Have you found a mentally healthy, well adjusted individual that is not dealing with some sort of childhood trauma that is a stripper? Are you by chance dickknapped and unaware?

You cannot compare the two because a boy's foreskin doesn't shrivel up and fall off after a few days. Here's a reason, it makes handling and taking care of the baby more difficult, I would imagine a risk would be there of pulling and forcefully detaching the cord causing bleeding. The placenta starts to decompose and stink after a couple days. And you have this one - If you don't want to alter the natural birth through the application of tools, bite it off like every other animal does. Do you think monkeys wrap it up and somehow attach it to the child, and sprinkles herbs and flowers on it to try and disguise the smell? And what point in the evolution of humans did it become more natural to stop biting it off, and start wrapping it up and attaching it to the baby for a few days to a week? Here is an excerpt from a lotus birth website - The lotus birth tradition is surrounded in mysticism. The logical case they make for it is the additional blood flow and nutrients, which is achieved through delayed clamping and cutting. They also say it forces the mother to stay in the house and bond with the baby, since you can't take baby and placenta with you easily to the store. That can easily be achieved by... stay with the baby and bonding, without the placenta attached.

If they are using that argument, could the same argument be made that you have no moral obligation to feed your child?

I'm shocked, I don't even know what to say. Not quite what I was expecting... I think you might be relying a little bit to much on other people to validate you. So you made a mistake and from your perspective were trying to do something good to help someone else, a mistake that backfired. According to you the motives were good, you just went about it the wrong way. As it has already been said, you weren't doing it to manipulate or use the person to your advantage. You're inexperienced and went about it the wrong way, if someone doesn't want to associate with you after you realized the mistake and tried to make amends, so be it. I must ask, do you want to beg for admittance into a group that does not want you? Why would you want someone that does not want you? I would hardly say this is the last bastion of virtue on the planet. Emotions are good and can help guide you, but they can also drag you around and get out of control, I think you may need to reel it in a bit. Sorry if this sounds harsh, I know personally it has helped me for a calm voice to say "hey, what are you getting worked up about? Calm down". Say a couple is in a bad relationship and treat each other poorly, they break up and through self knowledge become better people. They should probably never be in a relationship again with each other, but that does not mean they can't have a relationship with anyone. You made a mistake, they made you aware of your mistake and "unfriended" you, upon reflection you agreed it was wrong and won't make the same mistake again (hopefully). Time to move on.

Well it contains two arteries and one vein, surrounded by Wharton's Jelly. The logical conclusion we must come to is once a vein/artery no longer transfers blood it's job is done. Once being exposed to the cooler temperature of the environment it collapses on itself after a short period of time as well. It's essentially a few pipes that carry blood and empty out, there is no apparent logical conclusion to leaving it attached, neither does any other animal in the wild do such a thing. I would be happy to hear an argument for leaving it attached, but at this point - "well since we don't know we should", doesn't make logical sense to me.

Welcome Paul! I'm also from North Texas, just north of Denton actually. That's great you have so many kids, if every anarchist could have 8 kids freedom would be just on the horizon! I hate to break it to you, but going to church doesn't really mean the religious gene won, there is still hope The yelling part is unfortunate, at least you are aware of it and can work towards correcting that. I know some things with me, when my daughter does something my instinctual reaction is to treat her how I was treated, I remember growing up being told "Don't you tell me 'No'!". No is a pretty important word, a child is expressing their wishes amd my daughter being almost 2 says no a lot, I still have this urge to tell her not to tell me no, completely institutionally. Same thing with spankings, my parents would really get upset if we did something dangerous, and if we did something that we had been told not to do, such as play with a electrical outlet we would get spanked. Of course my daughter wants to stick things into the outlet, it does look like a lot of fun, I had this strong instinctual urge to spank her after telling her several times not to do it. Luckily I became aware of peaceful parenting before having children, and have done a lot of research so neither I nor my wife has ever spanked or hit her, but I still feel the urge appearing, especially in frustrating dangerous situations. Of course logically it doesn't make sense, why would you hurt your child who you are trying to prevent from getting hurt? Well the apologist would say your spanking is going to hurt them less than the possible electrocution of sticking something in the outlet, but at the end of the day the dangerous situation with a 2 year old is just a failure on the parent, and perhaps that is also why it's so frustrating. I wonder if your urge to yell is similar. I wouldn't worry too much about the genes, genetically at some point we were all probably savage warriors, you being aware of the shortcomings will allow you to change that - you can control your genes through epigenetics. Even if there was a "yelling" gene, you focus on cessation of yelling and the gene is turned off.

When I imagine what someone would be willing to do in a free society, I have to think what I would personally do. In a free society there would be no superstitious belief of government as it exists today, which gives people in costumes supernatural powers to carry out the will of God. So you have to ask yourself, in a free society would men ever break into a house and risk being killed, or killing someone else for a plant they have in the house? Absolutely not. I actually had the unfortunate experience of knowing a cop that would regularly arrest people and put them in a cage for cannabis, yet at parties his wife would smoke. So without his authority of God (Government), he would have never cared about the plant. "I was just following orders". Going back to the child abuse question, would I ever forcefully remove someone's kids because they indoctrinated them? Of course not. Would I risk my life because they spanked their kids? No. Would I risk my life because they kept their child locked in a closet - yes I think so. If people in a free society act in such a way that they own every action they carry out, and not believe it somehow belongs to someone else - "I was following orders", then you have to imagine only the more serious aggression against children would be dealt with. Everything else would be left up to social pressure and ostracism. Something I have wondered - I believe humans are naturally logical - would a child raised absent of indoctrination, after becoming an adult, one day in the library thumbing through books and finding a bible for the first time, would they believe it suddenly to be true? That would be hard to believe. It takes years and years and years of constant exposure and peer pressure to conform the developing brain. I've seen parents spend a lot of energy convincing children Santa Clause exists, absent of any evidence or reason they slowly begin to accept it due to their respect and admiration for their parents, until one day it comes crashing down! An older child spilled the beans, gives the children the evidence, the presents were from the parents all along! Of course parents will eventually admit it was all a "fun game". Is religion any different than Santa Claus carried into adulthood?

It totally makes sense to wait until the cord is no longer pulsing and transferring blood, once all activity has ceased, why wait for it to fall off.... while carrying a placenta around with you? It's not doing anything. Our midwife made sure to wait with our daughter, as standard practice with them which we found out after we mentioned we wanted to wait. I think it took about 15 to 20 minutes or so.

jpa, have you listened to this yet? - https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46215-youtube-myths-and-facts-about-antidepressants-robert-whitaker-and-stefan-molyneux/

Groups have the right to ostracize for whatever reason they choose, maybe they don't like your haircut, or your fingernails are too long, these aren't moral judgements. You said they deemed it evil, and after you considered it you disagree. It sounds like it might have just been a preference, but since you aren't comfortable saying what it was we can't really comment on it. Personally I would never refuse to engage someone because I was told not to engage with them, I would have more of a problem with the person telling me not to engage with another person, than the person I'm being told not to engage with. Sorry if that was confusing. Even if you did something extremely inappropriate (dick pics?) it sounds like you've learned from the situation and are attempting to correct it (no dick pics please). There are situations and people I wouldn't want to engage with, habitually toxic people with no intention of correcting their actions, and perhaps if someone warned me of them I would tread lightly, but perception can be skewed, I think it's best left up to the individual to make the judgement call. I was raised extremely religious, and I do get a feeling from certain people here very similar to the church / christian "holier than thou" people. I would say people who can reject the religion of the state and force, are interested in philosophy and enjoy engaging through text on forums are more intelligent than the general population, some times egos and self righteousness can get the best of us. Stay humble my friends.

Congratulations on taking the red pill, it can be hard to swallow. Have you looked into peaceful parenting and Bomb In The Brain? I think a lot of us wish we could change the past, but since we cannot, changing the future for our children is the next best thing.

I saw this some time back and thought a lot of people here might appreciate this study - http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf I have read a lot of those pseudo-profound statements and it always confused me, because most people pretend to understand it and act like its, profound. In actuality it means nothing. Here is the abstract to whet your appetite -

Since you have experience from a certain side of it, I'd be curious to know, have you seen many cases of people needing these drugs, receiving the therapy they need and then successfully being weened off and not relapsing? I ask because I know many people who are on these drugs, and none of them have ever stopped taking them, and none (as far as I know) are in therapy. Of course this is just anecdotal but the statistics speak for them self - I've read some scientific studies in the past and I wish I saved them, but the basic premise was there has never been any scientific evidence of a neural chemical imbalance in depressed people, which I think is obvious because if that were the case, a simple blood/saliva test could determine if you need an SSRI, just like with insulin for diabetes or thyroid hormones for hashimoto's / thyroiditis. Something else to consider, if it is a neural chemical issue, is it the cause of the effect? Are your chemically unstable because you are depressed, or are you depressed because you are chemically unstable? Someone with a high stress job or other voluntary forms of continual stress can have a very profound hormonal effect, and undoubtedly neural chemical effect as well. Is it really any different than self medication through drugs or alcohol? I know of several people who manage their depression with wine (and some with wine plus SSRI.). Could the case be made that it's a proper form of treatment to become a "functioning" alcoholic? In case that term is ambiguous, these are people who drink continually throughout the day to maintain a certain level of less than sober but still functional enough to carry out most of life's tasks, some even drive, have a job etc.. Just to be clear these aren't moral questions or judgements, I would simply like to explore the validity of this form of treatment. I've read a lot of evidence for both sides of the argument, and I'm far from convinced these are a good idea. Of course quitting cold turkey is irresponsible and never recommended by a professional, but professionals are giving these mind altering drugs to less than stable people, and then expecting them to follow through with compliance, which is already a problem for most people with any drug. ~31 million people on SSRIs, seems a bit excessive don't you think? I would say start with following the money trail, that's usually a pretty good clue.

I think you are right in an aspect, as SSRIs can be beneficial with other recovery protocols to help someone, the biggest problem is they are normally the sole method of treatment, with no plan to ever be weened off of. They are also not without side effects. Many individuals realize they aren't working and decide to quit cold turkey, that is when the psychotic breaks happen.

What handicaps might a child suffer from, that doctors could tell definitively would happen with a vaginal birth and be prevented with a C section? I'm not saying they don't exist, it just seems like a stretch for the basis of an entire argument. If anything else less than certain is assured, wouldn't forcing a C section be the same as a pre-crime? There are risks associated with either natural births or C sections, the evidence seems to point to a much greater risk with a C section, shouldn't the mother be allowed to make that choice? This argument might be valid if the doctors were God, definitively knowing the outcome, but unfortunately they are wrong quite a bit, we shouldn't treat them as god.

I don't accept your conclusion that the starving mans actions aren't immoral, because if they aren't immoral then the person defending against that force is immoral. So which is it? If you say neither are evil then why are we having this discussion? With almost every life form the urge to replicate our DNA is very strong, if humans didn't have a drive to have sex we would cease to exist in a short order. What if I'm a male no one wants to have sex with me and they are dooming my genetic line to extinction, do I have the right to rape someone? The urge to replicate and ensure our offspring live on is so strong we would willingly give up our life for their survival, as many parents would tell you. This is something more important than food, therefore if no one gives me an apple I am allowed to take it, and if no one gives me a child I am allowed to take that as well, is that right?

I've been following Wim for quite a while, he is very interesting. He has a book on Amazon, it's a very interesting book to read, but I have to warn others its very poorly written. Even after the poor writing style and grammar/spelling mistakes in the book, I'd still recommend it. I've been meaning to set up an ice bath... I just don't want to, it's cold.

As mentioned previously I think we always need to consider death the final outcome in these situations. If two people are trying to kill each other, can we say they are both morally justified? I can't think of a scenario where that would be possible, as it's contradictory. If I have food and someone else wants it, in my attempt to defend my food it escalates and they end up dead, was I morally justified in my actions? If it goes the other way and they kill me, and someone says their actions were just, that means they have a greater claim to my property than I do. I've had these arguments ad nauseum and I'm curious where this "starving to death" argument comes from, is this a socialist argument to justify theft? Someone dying without medical treatment, if the doctor has a moral obligation to help someone, that means the person dying has more of a right to the doctor's life than the doctor does. How can a moral ever be a positive obligation, because at that point it is arbitrary, can we have arbitrary morals? Do you have a moral obligation to feed your children? Yes because you had the negative obligation of not creating children you were not planning to feed, and since you chose to create another life, they would perish without your care. It would be the same situation as if you burned down the neighbors crops, you now have a moral obligation to feed them due to your actions. As far as I understand it, morals are and can only be things in which you cannot/should not do, not things you must do.

Should the father have a say so in what the mother eats during pregnancy, how much exercise she gets and if she takes the proper vitamins? What if the mother refuses to eat anything except fast food, that obviously wouldn't be ideal for the fetus. What about smoking? I knew a guy whose wife smoked during pregnancy, as her mother did with her and "she turned out fine". Does a judge order a diet change? I think if we are going to keep things consistent we have to look at other aspects, which to me seems obvious the father wouldn't have a say so in rather she has the C section or not. How would the father have equal say as the woman, if she doesn't want a C section and he says she should, who wins? Of course the answer to this for the father is, impregnate someone of quality. In regards to the actual story, they are trying to expand the power of the state, because 2 or 3 babies die from the mother refusing to have the C section? Do they not know? This sounds very arbitrary. If it is 2 or 3, what percentage is that of the total births? I don't know about Rotterdam, but in the states C sections are big business and is a giant scam, almost 50% of births are from C sections, where as it being medically necessary is in the single digits percentage wise.

Could you give an example of what you might consider a mood swing? "Mood swings" might mean different things for different people.

I would also agree with losing the straps. Why are your hands so narrowly placed that they are on the smooth portion of the barbell? Unless you have barbell with an unusually wide portion lacking knurling I would bring your hands out, they should be about shoulder width apart. I pulled over under for most of my lifting and started noticing some pretty visible asymmetry in my back, I would strongly suggest doing all of your pulls with a double overhand until it starts to slip (oh, and GET CHALK), then use a hook grip. If you start with a hook grip now, it will be bearable when you are pulling 400 and 500. Oh, and get chalk, that cannot be stressed enough. The easiest thing to do is pick up one of those rock climbing chalk balls, it's chalk inside of a sock basically, very clean and seems to last forever. Jake, the reason I asked about novice is because I wanted to make sure I hadn't missed anything, but based on the information we've been given I do not feel comfortable making that determination. Strength standards are extremely arbitrary and really don't mean anything, you have some people that have never lifted weights and could be considered in the intermediate or advanced stage, yet still be able to make "novice" like gains with lifting. This is a really good article on the subject - http://startingstrength.com/articles/be_novice_rippetoe.pdf The reason I bring this up, I'd hate for someone to not train like a "novice" and leave rapid gains on the table, because they think they are beyond that stage. Follow a properly designed program with adequate rest and calories, and add weight like a novice until you can no longer recover, then consider an intermediate style program.

Based on the information presented how did you make that determination?

Some of those are a lot of fun, some not so much. Apparently I need to somehow figure out how to capitalize on my ability to plan ahead! Memory is about what I expected it to be, middle of the road. Though I think memory is one of the more trainable ones.

Hi Ed, Unfortunately there is a pervasiveness of misinformation regarding Rippetoe and his program. There are experts all over the place making arguments against claims he's never made. Taking GOMAD for an example, it has never been recommended for someone at a healthy weight to do GOMAD, it has always been the severely underweight younger male. My brother was a perfect example, at 18, weighing 130lb at 5'10" and struggling to pick up a 5 gallon bucket of water, he needed GOMAD. You at 24, being 5'6" and 170, no one would recommend that. You do need enough calories to recover, and gain weight, you do not need to be drinking a gallon of milk daily though. I've been interested in fitness and strength training for well over 15 years, it wasn't until the last 3 to 4 years I was able to actually fully comprehend what it took to achieve constant results. I have read almost every program and opinion out there, I came to the conclusion on Rippetoe being the best due to the philosophical approach he takes on it. If someone wants me to do something a certain way I want to know why, and he is the only person that can consistently explain that. There are two things that it takes to be a good coach, having achieved a level of success doing the thing you are coaching, and being able to explain why you do it the way you do to other people. Those genetically gifted, being the top athletes in their field rarely make a good coach, they are good athletes because they are dedicated, can follow instruction and have the genes for it, that does not mean they can teach. I wasted a lot of time following the advice of the guys that could bench 500lbs, or deadlift 800, unfortunately because they can do that, does not mean they know how to teach other people to do it. If someone says to do something a certain way, just keep asking why, if they cannot explain why I would suspect they do not fully understand themself, which is not good advice. I would recommend reading his latest book on the subject of programming, Practical Programming for Strength Training 3. Of course you need to have a good grasp on proper form as found in Starting Strength. I would also suggest to either find someone local that knows the program to critique your form, or post form check videos. Countless number of people think they have the correct form and once reviewed are very far off base. A few years back I went to a Starting Strength seminar and it was well worth the money and the 3 days it took. Not only do they teach you the lifts and the reasoning behind everything on an anatomical level, they teach you how to teach it, if you cannot teach someone else what to do, you do not fully understand it. By the way, you're the same height as Ed Coan, one of the best powerlifters, ever.