algernon

Ed, this is a good subject. The first questions I would like to ask are your age, weight and height. Based on you doing SS, and have been lifting for a year, coupled with your current lifts I would say - NDTP = not doing the program. This statement leads me to believe you may not have a real clear understanding of the stress - recovery cycle of an organism, which in this case happens to be your muscles. Let's dispel a myth - Muscle Confusion (I actually heard Stef bring this up once, I cried briefly), the only thing that is being confused in this case is the lifter, because they clearly do not understand what they're doing. It's actually extremely simple, so simple in fact I would say that makes it hard for people to grasp. We want things to be complex when they are not. You get stronger by continually increasing the load, and allow proper time for rest (sleeping) and recovery (calories). These are the only things that matter. This is definitely possible, but usually under only two circumstances. You are either a novice and any stimulus will result increased strength and muscle mass, since your normal state is so under conditioned the worst strength program will give you results, which is extremely confusing for most people because the results are not continuous. And the second scenario is taking steroids - not recommended. It is very possible to gain considerable strength and size, while gaining minimal fat. When my serious strength journey began a few years ago I thought to myself, I'll gain the strength and then lose the fat, what I came to find out is I prefer continuing to gain strength and the extra fat is less important to me. Unless you are at an unhealthy level, who cares? I think for every goal it makes sense to ask why, why is this my goal?

This is an interesting discussion, these same people actually talking about their situations - https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/3zq3gr/most_americans_are_one_paycheck_away_from_the/ I would say this has absolutely nothing to do with just starting out. I had my first "real" job at 17, after about a year I moved out into my first apartment, alone. I always had at least 4 to 5 months worth of savings to pay bills, I drove a 15 year old truck with 200,000 miles on it and had a motorcycle. I simply didn't spend my money on stupid stuff, it's really not hard to live like that. Every single person I knew or worked with had a nice car and a payment. I didn't have my first car payment until I was 25, and the only reason I financed a car was because the interest rate on a 20k loan was about $1k over the life of the loan (7 years, ridiculously low interest). So I kept that 20K I had ready to spend on the car in savings. And the only reason I bought a newer car was because I travel for work and didn't want to risk a used car breaking down on my wife while I was out of town. Before that we drove a Saturn I bought for $1000 cash, and it had over 220K miles when I sold it. In my situation it was probably my excessive pride issue, where I don't like to ask other people for help (with money, anyway). That being the case I've never put myself in a position to need to ask family or friends for a loan/help with bills etc. Of course there might be some unforeseen catastrophe that can't be entirely avoided, you can't mitigate all risks, but you damn well can mitigate most of them. How many of these people do an ROI on their education? Sure there are some licensed fields you have to go to school for, doctor, engineer, etc., But a Business Degree, just because you don't know what you want to do with your life? Four years of full time school, while not working, equals losing out on that entire four years of income, plus promotion opportunities and workplace experience. So with an average wage of say $35,000 year, a person not going to school equals $140,000 after four years, whereas someone going to school and not working, taking out loans to pay for their school will have $125,000 for just the average tuition cost (of a private college), then if they have loans for living expenses add that on it, and add on the lost wages, what are we at, -$300,000 after college including the lost wages. So now they get out of school, and how much more do they make compared to the person that didn't go to school? What if they come into the labor force and actually make LESS than the person working already for four years, because that person has been promoted to a management position in whatever field they are in. I'd say there is definitely a risk of the investment never paying off. This isn't just hypothetical, I knew and worked with a lot of people that matched this exact story, about half of my department in my field had degrees and I made more money than all (just starting out with degrees) of them because I had significantly more experience. How many people consider these things? I'm not saying school is always a bad investment, I am saying this is something to consider.

I would simply challenge you to find something better to do with your time. How does the saying go? - If voting actually changed anything or made a difference, it would be illegal. If I thought voting made a difference, and my $1 in the powerball jackpot actually mattered, I would certainly vote for the most destructive person I thought could possibly win. I am hoping the good and virtuous people of this landmass called America can rise from the ashes like a Phoenix, which can only be achieved after the self destruction. This is not a rhetorical question, can you give me an example of a government ever willingly giving up power or authority? Something in a substantial way. Anytime I think of voting, I cannot help but remember this video - https://youtu.be/vb8Rj5xkDPk?t=11s

On the subject of donating, how long after donating does it normally take to get your little donate badge?

I love those type of interviews, Kokesh and Mark Dice do some good ones. My only request would be if there are any intelligent people to actually include those in the audio/video, it's very easy to portray an agenda with editing. Ask 50 people, 25 say smart things, make a video with 25 stupid people. Not saying there would be anywhere near that many intelligent people though.

Yes I already stated that. I don't understand your point? Do you know the process in which doctors prescribe SSRI's? What blood tests do they run again before prescribing these drugs?

You have to use the commonly accepted definition among people you are talking to, if you tell someone you just smoked a fag (be honest, what came to mind?), most people don't know that is slang for cigarette. Whenever we are talking about crime statistics, we are not referring to widely accepted governmental practices. Yes the government commits a crime in the truest sense through taxation (etc etc etc) and force, but when talking about crime rates most will not comprehend. If you only want to talk about America What is the population of blacks (Hint - 12%)? What percent of violent crime is committed by blacks? 84% What percentage of government organizations have blacks compared to the overall percentage in the country? Here's a hint. (Edit - Chart formatting didn't work) Source - http://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/reports/blacklaborforce/ Characteristics of employment - Blacks - Whites %Working in the public sector - 19.3 - 14.2 Doesn't this make the entire argument invalid? Wouldn't this statistic actually enforce the counter argument?

I'm not sure I understand your statement, but as I understand it most drug studies are double blind, the researcher and the patient have no idea if they are using the placebo or the actual drug. The statistical significance of the drug performing better than the placebo is what determines if the drug works or not. Everyone will give consent to be given the drug, but only half receive it. SSRIs have been shown to work in a way, the problem is mental illness has never been shown to be caused by a physiological disorder - are you depressed because you have a serotonin issue? They have no idea. If you are depressed maybe alcohol, cocaine or methamphetamine will make you feel better, is that in anyway treating the cause of the depression?

I didn't read every reply thoroughly so excuse me if this has been brought up, but I must say - - Are Russians inherently evil for disapproving of homosexuality ? - Where did you get this from? Is it worth having an entire debate based on a false statement? You must not realize "Russia is anti gay!" conversation was Western propaganda to hurt Russia. Please read the white paper created by Brian Heiss (a gay man, matter of fact), if you care to know the truth of this matter. http://gallery.mailchimp.com/d0e55f3197099944345708652/files/RussianLGBTLawWhitePaper.pdf

No response to the text, she knew it was sent to try and manipulate her. Yes I wholeheartedly agree, you definitely cannot change people, I've been down that road before! Isn't it cruel we aren't (most of us) taught these things as children? I suppose discovering this mid twenties is better than never. I can't wait to teach my children these things as they grow into adults, it makes me happy for them. I think perhaps one of the things that helped me a lot was the fact that I can remember being 1 and 2, and how I felt in a lot of situations. I think if every parent could remember being very young they might treat their children better.

I'm really sorry to hear about your situation, and that these issues hit so close to home. I've dealt with other issues with people, and the progress towards something better being at less than a snails pace, I definitely understand that frustration, and even more frustrating when they say "I've made changes, I'm different than before! Why is it never good enough for you?"... Yes the whole microscope to measure it, that I can understand. Regarding this situation - Do they have the capacity for change? I have no idea, I think in general most people have the capacity but choose not to. I've changed considerably in the last 3 or so years, all of this stuff is relatively new in the grand scheme of my existence. It was only less than 2 months ago that we decided not to expose our daughter to the aunt, she was rarely around, maybe had only ever seen our daughter 2 times a year for a very brief period. She started coming around more to Grandmas house recently because the latest boyfriend was done putting up with her psychosis and trying to kick her out. It's also slightly different when you have a baby that you are constantly holding and can't talk or communicate, but as the child grows and becomes more aware that is really when you have to be selective of outside influence. I didn't realize how seriously fucked up the situation was until I started listening to Stef and doing other research on raising children, childhood abuse and how to deal with these situations. Society treats these things as "Oh, that's so unfortunate" without putting blame on the parents, of course. After having a kid and doing the research, I hold myself to an extremely high standard as a parent, and in doing so I hold other people to the same standard. Unfortunately that means I don't have many friends left, for the better I suppose. As I learned these things I challenged my wife to have discussions with her mom on how to help her sister, of course the mom just made excuses. After she takes her in off the street, helping her maintain her habits and destructive lifestyle we would say why are you doing that, it's only hurting her. The response would be, "but she's my child, I can't abandon my child" not realizing she already did, a very long time ago. I would like to say this is the first time they have transgressed against us directly, but as I think about it I realize other instances. Mid last year we had a get together and invited out family and some friends, my wife specifically told her parents not to bring her sister. They completely disregarded it went and picked her up and brought her. There was a few other instances a long time ago when we had a parties during Halloween that my wife invited her brothers but not her sister, and her parents told her sister we were having a party and she showed up against our wishes. I should have brought down the hammer of Thor after those situations but that was before I was deeply invested in self knowledge and philosophy, I let them slide. Now that I have a child to protect, and in a few months a second child - I cannot let it slide. Do I feel like I owe them something? Absolutely not. I would like for my daughter to have a relationship with her grandparents for her sake, it can be something special if you have good people, but at this point that happening will be entirely up to them, and their capacity for change. If the situation can be fixed the relationship can be beneficial for everyone, it's important to have good people in your life that can help you in times of need. Why am I still trying? This hasn't been a long arduous process, I thought previously the relationship was pretty good with the in-laws, obviously I was wrong since as soon as I set a standard in which they had to achieve, a very minor one at that in my opinion, they failed. If they do have the capacity to change, I think at this point in time the only thing in the world that can motivate it would be the ability to see their granddaughter. Re: Is it ignorance, cowardice, apathy? All of them I would say.

I think if we do an apples to apples comparison, non-political non-government committing crime, blacks commit more crimes than other races. We could also compare governments of whites, and governments of blacks. I am fairly certain based on things I have read of entirely black governments, you would find equal "legal" crime (taxes etc) plus the additional "illegal" crime, embezzlement, bribes, blackmail etc., You can find instances of cities with almost entirely black governments - Detroit for example - look at the shenanigans that went on there. Some (black) Dallas city official recently was convicted of bribery or some other scandal. You can look at the absolutely insane government crime rate in countries like DRC (The Congo), nothing gets done except through bribery. From things I would read it appears the entire government is corrupt, beyond the commonly accepted taxation practices of "legal" crime. It seems like you are trying to arrange a situation and create a comparison that is not equal.

It's interesting how people never consider why a religious text says the things they say. Pigs for example are not unclean animals, humans just keep them in unclean conditions. Before wire fencing it was extremely difficult to fence animals, so the pens would be extremely small. Pigs cannot sweat so they cool off by rolling in mud, it just so happens if you give them a tiny pen, they have no choice but to urinate and defecate where they drink and eat, and roll in mud, now you have a shit covered pig. In most feces there is a lot of undigested organic matter which pigs will eat if they are hungry, it just so happens human waste would not be in sewage systems but on the ground and pigs would eat it potentially being infected with human parasites. Now the pigs are carrying a disease that can make a human sick. Cattle wasn't forbidden (in certain societies) because you could secure them with a rope and collar and easily move them around, and being herbivores they only eat vegetation, which results in having a lower chance of being infected with contagious parasites for humans. Animals like sheep are docile and easy to herd. Ever seen someone try and herd a hog? Not going to happen. You can take Hinduism for example where cattle were forbidden but for different reasons than Pork for the Jews and Muslims, the original context of banning eating cows and bulls was because they were very important from an agrarian standpoint, if you slaughter your cow, your milk supply is now gone. It's just like if I slaughter one of my laying hens I have chicken for one night, but if she lives I'll have eggs for over four years, more than 1000 eggs over her productive lifetime (then I eat her). It's as ridiculous as if I were to write a farming manual on why you shouldn't slaughter your laying hen, then in a thousand years or so people started worshiping chickens based on ignorance and misunderstanding. My point in all of this is there are practical reasons why religious texts forbid eating and drinking certain things, but people are too ignorant and blind to do 30 minutes of research and learn why it was that way. Yes in a village full of people with human feces all over the place, I probably wouldn't be eating pork roaming the area either. Today on the farm, eating fresh grass, yummy vegetable scraps and no feces, the pork will be eaten and enjoyed. I hope this doesn't derail the conversation, I just wanted everyone to realize how absolutely ridiculous it is for people TODAY, to follow ancient religious texts food safety guidelines. "Thou shalt not kill" - Okay, obvious moral statement. "Thou shalt not eat pork" - hmmm, is this a moral statement? Lets look into this.

At around 6 or 7 she was molested by the neighbors father, apparently her parents didn't find out until several years later when another neighbor brought charges against him, since her parents knew she would play with this neighbor girl and go over to their house that's how they found out. Obviously a huge red flag, not knowing something happened to your child like that until years later. I was told they put her in therapy and counseling a few times, but she would "counsel the counselor" whatever that means, and it didn't do any good - was their story. Obviously if one doctor isn't fixing the issue you find a new one, why this wasn't seriously pursued probably falls into the same category as why didn't you know something like this happened to your child for years? From what I've heard they have never owned the situation as a parent should do, and now that she is 25 they are enabling her poor choices, not allowing her to hit rock bottom and hopefully pursue serious help. How can the situation be amended? I honestly don't know, I just know my little girl likes her grandma and papa, and she likes going over there to play with toys and seeing them. They live relatively close and she would get to see them pretty often, her other grandparents live over an hour away and only sees them once every couple months. Thanks for the compliments. You are most likely right, though seeing their granddaughter is a huge motivator, as my wife was always their favored child, and our daughter is their only granddaughter, I am hoping the idea of having a relationship with her would motivate change. I think perhaps they are a bit delusional, and don't even comprehend the gravity of the situation. Her entire family deals with issues by pretending they don't exist. Each time her sister got pregnant by a new guy they wouldn't acknowledge that it was a negative thing, and everyone would talk to her like it's good. My thoughts on contacting them were to at least let them know how serious we think this is and then it would be up to them to fix it. I definitely have no second thoughts regarding our decision, I know it's the right thing and didn't make it without careful consideration. As a friend of mine pointed out, someone who continually lies, people will stop believing, and when that happens these fake stories of bad things happening are orchestrated to become true. So what is the consensus, don't reach out and wait until they contact us and then bring up the issues? The only contact my wife has had with her parents since Christmas eve was around the 1st of the year her mom texted her and told her they just got back from the doctor and he prescribed her dad a new drug, he's now taking 9 different medications. She completely ignored anything happened on Christmas Eve and then sent her that message to try and get pity. He's in his 70s and had a stroke last year.

Dealing with a situation with the in-laws and wanted some input on it, hopefully this is the right place to post it. About a month ago my wife and I decided it would be the best course of action to not associate with her sister or expose our daughter to her, our daughter being the biggest motivating factor. I came to the conclusion when I saw our daughter interacting with my wife's sister and giving her hugs, I was quite disturbed that out 18 month old daughter was showing her affection and thought to myself how can I make her understand you are affectionate towards some people and not others? Well the obvious answer is I cannot at this age, it's my job to not expose her to people she shouldn't be affectionate towards. After more consideration on why my wife's sister interacting with our daughter disturbed me it was quite obvious, which lead me to the determination that she should not be exposed to her at all, most likely ever. My sister in-law is diagnosed bipolar and a compulsive liar, when she was 16 she went to the police and told them her brothers molested her (Investigated and determined to be false). At 18 she became pregnant and married to the father, a short time later they divorced and he got full custody of the boy, she then found someone else to impregnate her and had two children by him. Mix in some prostitution and drugs, one child was given away (literally just given away to baby daddy's sister in another state) and now Grandma is raising the younger boy from that "relationship". A short time later "relationship" #3 comes into the picture, she is once again impregnated and has boy #4. Her drugs, social worker and CPS involvement, close relationship with the state continues. The state determines it is better to let a foster home raise this baby than the mother. So here we are, by the time she's 24, having 4 children and "losing" (forceful removal by the state) or giving them all away. Now don't forget about the different drugs, from cannabis to meth, and the occasional prostitution and possible fights with the pimp. It's hard to know what's entirely true coming from a compulsive liar, but the police reports are somewhat accurate I'm sure. In my opinion a developing brain should not be exposed to that type of person, is mental illness contagious? I don't know, but I know I prefer not being around toxic people, therefore I'm not going to expose my progeny to them. That and her very close and constant involvement with the state, which I want absolutely no part of. I discuss this with my wife and she totally agrees, it will make it more difficult as when I travel she will go and visit her mom and stay for dinner, but if her sister is over there which she often is, as she's continually homeless, she won't be going. My wife has this discussion with her mother, she doesn't agree with our decision but understands (so she says) that we are trying to protect our daughter. This was about 1.5 months ago. One week before Christmas the sister in law is at her moms house and the cops show up and her social worker, a few hours before when she had her regular check in with the social worker she told the social worker she woke up the night before and was standing over her boyfriend with a knife considering killing him. When the social worker shows up at her moms house, she basically gives her mom the choice, either she is going to be responsible for her or they are going to take her to the psych hospital (again). The mom says no she cannot be responsible and watch her, so the cops start to arrest her at which point she starts running around the house screaming, runs outside and then is cuffed in front of the house screaming. We were told she was going to be in the hospital at least 14 days (this was one week before Christmas). Here is the climax of the story and my issue. We were over at the in-laws Christmas eve, and my father in law gets a call, it's the sister asking to be picked up from the boyfriends house, she's coming over. We had been over there for about an hour, in the middle of opening presents, my little girl was having a blast, and he just gets up and walks out the house! Both me and my wife look at each other and are like what the fuck? Her mom gets up and starts doing stuff around the house nervously. I start discussing it with my wife right there in front of the rest of the family, we had no idea she was coming over and were completely blindsided. As we come to find out, every goddamn person there knew she was coming over, and her parents didn't tell us to try and blindside us, make it an awkward situation and get us to stay against our wishes. Ever been pulled over by a man with a gun in a costume, trying to extort money from you and hopefully not wanting to kill you? You know that surge you get, that fight or flight response that makes it hard to talk, you feel like you either need to fight for your life or run away? Yeah that's exactly how we both felt. It was an ambush. We were shocked too, we were told she had no chance of being there. So I tell my wife, "hey you know what we have to do, we don't have a choice." Especially at this point, there was no discussion (as normal with her family), no negotiation, they were trying to control us. Even IF I didn't think it was that big of a deal being around her (which I do), I could not respect myself if I allowed people to run over me like that. We discuss it with her mom for five minutes or so, reiterate our point and make it clear we are leaving if she comes over. She argues that mental illness isn't contagious, it's okay for a developing brain to be exposed to toxic people. I use the "If you were in a room with a person vomiting blood, you would take your child out of that room wouldn't you? Because they are sick! This person is SICK, she cannot be around our daughter". Every argument was completely disregarded. We tell her we are leaving, she calls up my wife's dad and says "Don't bring her sister here, if you do they are leaving". He says "She's not going to make me choose between my children, I am bringing her home". We get up and walk out, right as her dad was walking in with her sister, my wife says to him "I can't believe you would disrespect us like that" and he says "I can't believe you would disrespect me like that", a total canned defensive offense attack. No level of genuine communication. And we left, this was Christmas Eve and my wife hasn't talked to her parents since then, and they have not tried to reach out to her. Which is typical of course, any uncomfortable issue or problem needs to be ignored, that's obviously why her sister is so incredibly fucked up. Obviously the biggest issue of the whole situation is they railroaded us, or tried to at least. It was a test and they lost. This was at 11am, they easily could have arranged for her sister to be over after we had left but they were trying to coerce us into being "one big happy (fake) family". Let's just pretend nothing is wrong, it can be just like when everyone was kids! There's obviously a huge trust issue now with her mom ever watching our daughter again unsupervised, does she spank her when we aren't there? Does she feed her things she isn't suppose to eat in which we asked her not to be given? Does she yell and scream? Who knows. We were thinking of sending them an email, outlining all of the transgressions and stating our perspective once again and seeing how they respond or try to amend it. They obviously don't think they did anything wrong as it's been two weeks and no apology or communication. A phone call or a personal confrontation would result in yelling, screaming, crying and zero logic. At least with written communication you can read it, allow your emotions to take control of you, and hopefully when that powerful internal drug wears off, they could be reasonable. Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? TL;DR - In-laws are crazy. P.S. please excuse errors, this is first draft and I'm going to bed.

Trust me I see your point, before having kids (thankfully) I was pro spanking, because that is how I was raised. Through my learning and understanding of the state, that government equals the initiation of force I came to the obvious conclusion that was wrong and universally applied it. If I say it's wrong for a man in a costume to initiate force against me, how can I say it's right for a parent to initiate force against a child? The position begs the question, and most people will just go in a circle refusing to answer the question. Re: Violence being the only way to achieve the goal - "It worked for me, I turned out good", "another tool in the toolbox". And the circle continues.

The argument is made that it's not right to do it your spouse because they have free will, and you have to do it to a child because they need the guidance of the parent, which is to make sure they grow up to be a productive member of society, and spanking ensures that happens. Their brain is not fully developed so they cannot understand reason, but everything understands pain, that is why spanking needs to be used sometimes. It is just another tool in the tool box, it's not always needed but in some situations it's necessary. /barf I was more interested in the grammatical discussion regarding spanking equaling hitting, and the argument that it is equivocal to say that.

There is an exchange between Desp and Sparefilms, starting at post #66 on this forum - http://forum.bulletproofexec.com/index.php?/topic/4058-peaceful-parenting-stefan-molyneux/page-4- regarding spanking equaling hitting. Sparefilms makes the argument that is equivocation and ambiguous, If you have a lot of time you could read the entire thread, it's very lengthy and some people make ridiculous arguments for the justification of hitting children, but I am more focusing on the aforementioned exchange. Thoughts?

Stoic, you should follow up at some point in the future and ask if the gifts were of any use, or if they helped her out. I like to ask friends what they think of videos after I send them, just to see if they watched or remind them about the videos if they forget.

A lot of people view children as unruly animals that must be broken in order to fit in to society. Their excuse is children aren't developed enough to use logic and reason like an adult, so you have to hit them since they understand that at a primitive level. Of course the excuse is always made it doesn't really hurt them, since it doesn't leave a mark or any physical damage it's acceptable means of behavior modification. Of course these are generally the same parents who yell at their kids while telling them to stop yelling. I have to admit my mindset was somewhat similar until fairly recently, as I grew up in a spanking household. Like most kids I was told “I hit you because I love you”, of course the propaganda from my parents and everyone I associated with was, it's okay if it's on the butt, and as long as it's not done in a reactionary manner, like in anger or retaliation. You know… your parents NEED to hit you or you'll turn into a piece of shit like those other unruly kids who parents don't hit. Of course correlation is not causation, and I think we all know they were bad kids not because their parents didn't hit them, but because they didn't raise them or care about them at all, usually leaving it up to the state. With that mindset firmly planted in me for the longest time I had accepted it was okay, kids NEED to be spanked, for if they aren't they will surely be misbehaved brats. I think we've all been around those kids, the ones that are loud and obnoxious, don't listen to their parents when they ask them to do something… But then I started making more observations and came to some realizations. Once I no longer accepted the state as justified and realized I cannot agree with it using (the threat of) force as a way to control people, it would be entirely hypocritical to have kids and operate in the same manner. Once the connection was made I instantly changed my programming. Following that realization I had to start making other connections and correlations to children's behavior and attitudes. If spanking isn't an option, which it could no longer be or I would be a complete hypocrite, what options are there? Then I started noticing more and more intricacies of children's behavior and how they are raised. I think they are a really good mirror of their parents or their environment, at daycare or school or whoever their primary caregivers are. A small example would be I have a friend with a 2.5 year old daughter and a 1 year old son. The little girl was over at my house and she had picked up something off of the window seal which could have been easily broken, (my house isn't exactly baby proof yet). She found it intriguing and wanted to play with it, I got down on her level and told her I was going to need to take that, she might break it and she could hurt herself, I would get her something else to play with. When I reached for it she slapped my hand. I did end up taking it and putting it away, she pouted for a second and then played with something else, but I thought it was really odd that she specifically tried to slap my hand. I told my wife about it and she picked up on it right away. Apparently the little girl's mother will tell her not to play with something that's left on the floor (Like her brothers pacifier) and when she picks it up to play with it, the mother will take it and slap her hand and tell her firmly “No!”. Once my wife mentioned that to me I instantly remembered seeing it happen, and saw the mirror image of that being displayed in their daughter. Of course what's going to be played out, the little girl will end up hitting her brother when he takes something of hers, since she's be taught you are to be slapped when you take something from someone, and she will hit her brother. Since hitting is wrong of course she will be spanked. What a mad world.

I've been told this.. "You'll see when you have kids" in which instance I like to use "Before I was married I knew I wasn't going to hit my wife, and now that I'm married I don't". I was having this discussion with my brother in law, who mentioned he spanked his daughter for hitting their dogs. I pointed out the hypocrisy in hitting someone because you don't want them to hit, he tried to use "Well she's small and doesn't understand logic" (She's 2), and then he says "She gets spanked to show her how it's not nice to be hit, so she won't hit the dogs". I kept pointing out the hyprocisy and then he did the "Oh I can't wait for you to have kids, you'll see how tough it is"... Then he goes on to mention how spanking is just one of the many "tools in the toolbox" for discipline, and how every child is different. Try talking spanking at a party, in Texas... It'll be like flies on shit (The anti spanker is the shit, obviously). Some how people think it's a virtue to hit your kids around here. They always post on FB "I'm such a good person because I was SPANKED, THANKS MOM AND DAD". Disgusting. Maybe I need to stop saying things at parties, it's alienating our friends (though I don't care that much), and it seems to bother my wife when 15 people are arguing against me, it's amazing how ears perk up when you say "Maybe spanking is wrong?". No one has a basis for morality or ethics though, so it's confusing for them.

I think people need to realize that vaccines are a product like anything else, and generally the more a product is "sold" to you, the less you actually need it. What better of an industry to be in than medical, where the learning curve is steep and the trust with professionals is high. Create a product and convince people they “need” it, and it's a guarantee sell. The universities write the text books, the pharmaceutical industry has extensive ties to faculty at the medical schools and the universities, every doctor now is taught a certain way. If you want to realize the true efficacy of vaccines, you need to read the actual medical studies and understand it. Sometimes the conclusion of the researcher is completely different than what you or I would conclude, and additionally the stories written about the studies will be completely different than the researcher's conclusion. Then just like the article mentions, for every 1 positive study, there seems to be 1 negative study, which no one ever mentions, that has to be found and evaluated, and taken into account. While you're researching those angles, you also need to keep in mind correlation does not equal causation, and if the introduction of a vaccine that just so happens to eradicate a certain illness, at the same time in history that water treatment became mainstream, sanitary conditions improved drastically, and horses no longer shit in the street… Maybe the correlation of the vaccine being invented and the eradication of the disease is not accurate. Then of course you have to take corruption into account, and realize vaccines such as the flu shot have purposefully (or accidentally, as the manufacturer reported it) contain the live and active virus, so people will become sick with the flu, in order to spur more people into purchasing (usually VIA insurance) more flu shots. Nothing sells vaccines better than fear. Let me give you a small example – My wife being pregnant with morning sickness was given a prescription of Zofran (Ondansetron) which is an anti-nausea drug prescribed to cancer patients, and doctors prescribe it “off label” for morning sickness. Doing a bit of research finds this - Pregnancy Animal reproduction studies have not shown evidence of harm to the fetus or impairment of fertility with use of high daily doses of ondansetron. Additionally, a cohort study of over 600,000 pregnancies in Denmark found that ondansetron administration during pregnancy was not associated with a significantly increased risk of spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, major birth defect, preterm birth, low birth weight, or small for gestational age.[8] Ondansetron is in pregnancy category B in the US. Sounds pretty safe right? Your baby isn't going to be small or have a birth defect but how does it work though? Ondansetron is used to prevent nausea and vomiting caused by cancer chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery. Ondansetron is in a class of medications called serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. It works by blocking the action of serotonin, a natural substance that may cause nausea and vomiting. Okay, so it blocks serotonin receptors Serotonin or 5-hydroxytryptamine is a monoamine neurotransmitter. Biochemically derived from tryptophan, serotonin is primarily found in the gastrointestinal tract, platelets, and in the central nervous system of animals, including humans We have a developing fetus, everything is coming along nicely, and now we introduce some neurotransmitter antagonists into the mix. What does that do to the development of the child? They've done plenty of studies to know it doesn't kill it. Does it mess up the chemistry of the brain, does it create some sort of neurotransmitter imbalance? No one knows, but what they do know is it crosses the placenta and the fetus is exposed. If your fetus is going to die because you can't stop vomiting would it be worth taking Zofran? Probably… If you're uncomfortable and the nausea is an inconvenience is it worth taking? You decide. My point in all of this was, doctors say Zofran is perfectly safe for your baby, just like vaccines. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16584287 RESULTS: Ondansetron was found in all samples. Drug concentration in fetal tissue was significantly higher than that in the amniotic fluid and similar to that in the coelomic fluid. The median (interquartile range) fetal/maternal ratio was 0.41 (0.31-0.52) and there were no significant correlations between ondansetron concentrations in each compartment and gestational age. CONCLUSIONS: A significant amount of ondansetron was present in all embryonic compartments. The developmental significance of this drug exposure requires further investigation, i.e. whole embryo culture. And when recommendations for drugs are made, this story needs to be considered. Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2009/jan/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/ No one knows the total amount provided by drug companies to physicians, but I estimate from the annual reports of the top nine US drug companies that it comes to tens of billions of dollars a year. By such means, the pharmaceutical industry has gained enormous control over how doctors evaluate and use its own products. Its extensive ties to physicians, particularly senior faculty at prestigious medical schools, affect the results of research, the way medicine is practiced, and even the definition of what constitutes a disease. -snip- A few decades ago, medical schools did not have extensive financial dealings with industry, and faculty investigators who carried out industry-sponsored research generally did not have other ties to their sponsors. But schools now have their own manifold deals with industry and are hardly in a moral position to object to their faculty behaving in the same way. A recent survey found that about two thirds of academic medical centers hold equity interest in companies that sponsor research within the same institution.6 A study of medical school department chairs found that two thirds received departmental income from drug companies and three fifths received personal income.7 In the 1980s medical schools began to issue guidelines governing faculty conflicts of interest but they are highly variable, generally quite permissive, and loosely enforced. -snip- In view of this control and the conflicts of interest that permeate the enterprise, it is not surprising that industry-sponsored trials published in medical journals consistently favor sponsors' drugs—largely because negative results are not published, positive results are repeatedly published in slightly different forms, and a positive spin is put on even negative results. A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies were published.8 But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome. It is not unusual for a published paper to shift the focus from the drug's intended effect to a secondary effect that seems more favorable.