J. D. Stembal

We know the truth; religion is violent, manipulative and irrational. Indoctrinating children in religion is evil. I admit that I am incredulous. Perhaps I am projecting my childhood experience onto you. I was baptized by the church and circumcised by a pediatrician. Both are clearly religious rituals. I may have not been successfully indoctrinated in the faith of Christianity by my parents, but I was certainly harmed and socialized by it at a very early age, a time that I cannot actively recall. I don't remember talking to my parents about God. I was told that Santa Claus was a real person, so in an indirect way, I was indoctrinated to believe in a falsehood, but it backfired. Children are natural skeptics. I doubted the validity of religion, and so I knew I could not trust my parents with philosophic or religious topics. Our parents lied to us. From the OP: Your stated goal is to make ethical proofs more palatable to irrational people. What if the religious don't want to give up their faith? That's their decision. Let them have God if they want, but they cannot have NAP and UPB at the same time. Religion precludes philosophy entirely. Are you making an appeal to consequence and authority in reply #22? Will we go to hell if we do not join with organized religion? How is the cure that you propose any better than the disease? Have you heard of the Crusades, the Inquisition, Palestine, and Holy Wars? It would be much more principled to stick to our guns of philosophy than to use the bugbear of the State to scare people into aligning with Jesus. God and the State are the manifestation of the same evil, involuntary servitude, or slavery. See Stefan Molyneux's The Story of Your Enslavement to follow the evolution of slavery to the present day. Christians trumpet that they were responsible for the end of slavery, but bible scripture actually endorses it as a religious virtue. Ephesians 6:5-8 is an analogy. We should be servants to Christ as we are servants to our secular masters, which is the State. Libertarian Christians should be singing the praises of the Federal Reserve, since this is the financial tool through which we were turned into modern serfs. Serfdom to Christ, and our secular masters, is "doing the will of God from the heart." We pay the masters, and in return, we receive love from a non-existent entity. It's ironic that you invoked Proverbs 13:24 as an example of interpreting scripture since this is how many parents transfer religion and the State to their children. If children don't believe in God, beat them and they will submit to your power. In Christian thought, childhood is a form of servitude to a master who doles out equal parts love and wrath. It may have not been true of your parents, but it is true of the majority. Children are born rational and must be broken by faith. It was true of my parents, who can scarcely be labelled devout Christians. I couldn't find any statistics on Christian spanking rates in the U.S., but this Ontario website (http://www.religioustolerance.org/spankin3.htm) discusses spanking from the viewpoint of the "open-minded" religious conservative, and suggests that excessive spanking is abuse. However, this misses the point. The reason so many Christians spank is because their children are not willing to believe in Jesus or his ethereal father. There are biblical scholars who claim that using the rod as physical discipline is just one interpretation of scripture, but I contend that it is the only interpretation of holy scripture that makes sense. Consider the violent history of the Christian world, and the willful genocide of humanity by God in the tales of the Old Testament. I recommend Lloyd Demause's The Origins of War in Child Abuse, particularly Chapter Nine, for descriptions of how Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Aztecs have used savage abuse to instill violence and fear in the next generation. This is the pedigree in which we were raised. http://psychohistory.com/books/the-origins-of-war-in-child-abuse/chapter-9-bipolar-christianity-how-torturing-sinful-children-produced-holy-wars/

What did your parents tell you when you questioned the existence of god? I cannot believe you simply neglected to broach the subject because it had no relevance to the family. If your parents did not endorse their respective religions, what do you seek to achieve by endorsing religion to the philosophical FDR community now?

Firearms prevent crime even if you do not own one, but the effect is more pronounced if you do. Children should be taught how to handle firearms safely, for this reason, since they are likely to find one eventually, perhaps while playing at a friend's house if not in your own home. Obviously, a toy gun is not a real firearm, but a facsimile. A child of four or five would understand the difference if you take the time to teach it. This is a prime example of lazy leftist parenting. I don't understand how firearms work, and they're unsafe, so I'll be damned if my kid even plays with toys shaped like them. My father kept three handguns in the house while I was growing up. He tried to show me how to use one of them while he was shooting at targets with his father and brother. I didn't have ear protection on and was scared by the noise, so I refused. He should have showed me the unloaded weapon when I was younger, and told me about all the safety precautions that gun owners use, but he's a lazy leftist parent. 1. Use eye and ear protection. 2. Never point a firearm at something you don't intend to shoot, even unloaded. 3. Unload your weapon before you hand it to someone or clean it. There are more but these are the important ones.

How is reverting to late 18th Century thought pragmatic? If we join with Christians to usurp the state, we will likely restore a monarchy with a self-proclaimed incarnate of Jesus as the figurehead. Why does the cause of anarchy need practical assistance from irrational people? Is there evidence of a religious movement forming a stateless society? I contend that it is practically impossible to raise children peacefully and endorse religion at the same time because children are rational by nature, and require repeated manipulation and abuse to be convinced of a deity. Therefore, logically, a religious community can never be peaceful to their children while believing in a god, or achieve a stateless society while believing in a god. Eliminate the superstition permanently by not endorsing religious beliefs in the family.

From the McGovern committee wiki: *This is the first appearance of the word "complex carbohydrates" implying that they are somehow healthier than simple carbohydrates. Whole wheat bread (69), for example, has a higher glycemic index than sucrose (65) despite any fiber it may contain. 2009 - 26.7% of American adults are obese with a BMI of 30 or more. In 1980, 15% of American adults are obese. 2008 - 1 in 3 American adults are diabetic or pre-diabetic, or 81 million people. In 1980, 5.5% of American adults are diabetic. In 1994, the American Diabetes Association recommended that Americans consume at least 60% of their caloric intake from carbohydrate. The incidence of diabetes doubles in America in a ten year period from 1997 to 2007 by the CDC's records. From 1980 to 2011, incidence of adult diabetes in America more than triples. The American Diabetes Association encourages diabetics to consume 135-180 grams of carbohydrate per day. Low carbohydrate intake lowers blood glucose while high carbohydrate intake elevates blood glucose. You can test this with a blood glucose meter, as I have. The ADA actively promotes high levels of carbohydrate consumption in sick people that probably fell ill from following the McGovern committee's nutrition recommendations, released in 1977. In a randomized study published in 2004 by Stern, Iqbal, Seshadri et al, participants who were restricted to 30g of carbohydrate per day for a year lost an average of 11.2 lbs and decreased their hemoglobin A1c numbers (a measurement of long-term carbohydrate exposure) by 13.5%. Higher carbohydrate consumption correlates with a higher incidence of diabesity, which is the precursor for other metabolic diseases. For example, in a Japanese study of 1000 participants over age 60, diabetics were twice as likely to develop Alzheimer's disease over a 15 year span compared to the non-diabetic cohort. (Kiyohara, Nov. 2011) Please see this reply in another thread where I provide various graphs on American and world diabetes and obesity rates, grain and sugar consumption, which incidentally, also contain glyphosate. (I'm still looking for soybean data if someone wants to help me out.) https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38646-upb-and-animal-rights/page-3#entry399221 The low carbohydrate ketogenic diet is clearly not a fad. It has been the diet of our ancestors for millennia. Agriculture was only first developed between 10-15 thousand years ago depending on the region of the world. Dwarf wheat, one of the first GMO crops, was first developed in Mexico in the 1950-60s. If you zoom out and look at the entire history of diet and nutrition, the last forty years of disease has been a nutritional anomaly promoted almost entirely by state propaganda. "We're going to run out of food; spend taxpayer money to grow more of it, more cheaply!" "We've got all this grain and the price is dropping; find a way to get it in more foods to increase consumption!" Of course, we don't have the whole picture as yet, but the evidence so far for the carbohydrate-metabolic disease connection is extremely profound. I encourage you to provide your best counterargument, so I that can better substantiate and craft mine. This information is only a very small portion of the total that exists. Citations: David Perlmutter, M.D., Grain Brain, Little, Brown, and Co. September 2013, p. 85-87 William Davis, M.D., Wheat Belly, Rodale, Inc. August 2011 (from the paperback edition June 2014), p. 100, 102, 111 Various pictures pulled from the internet, many of which are USDA and CDC data. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Select_Committee_on_Nutrition_and_Human_Needs http://healthy-living.org/html/glycemic_index_table.html (Glycemic Index Table)

You are an asshole and belong in the ground is a great way to not actually have a productive discussion. You fell for a troll. Jacqui, j'accuse!

In honor of our fellow oppressed Californians, I will resume beating off in the shower regularly, like a teenager. Freedom is happiness! Tyranny is death to the male libido! I thought this was a humorous typographical error:

Religion is the mortal enemy of philosophy. We should be actively railing against irrationality, not embracing it. Twisting the NAP so that Christianity doesn't violate it is approaching the problem entirely the wrong way. Give up your gods and embrace philosophy, not the other way around. Ostracize those who cling to irrationality.

I thought you said you already watched the video I linked. I eat mostly meat, nuts and low-glycemic fruits and vegetables. In this way, I avoid glyphosate, all GMO crops, and elevated blood sugar levels which contributes to the incidence of all of the diseases of civilization: cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease and stroke. I know this is the way I was meant to eat because by most empirical measurements I am healthy. For instance, my fasting blood glucose is 55 mg/dL. Most people consider that number abnormally low, but I do not have a diabetic condition.

You contradicted your first syllogism. Why are humans required to be empathetic when empathy is not a universal? Refer to my previous replay that mentions how savage certain E. Coli strains are to human well-being. If empathy is universal for all life, why don't we require bacteria to show us empathy? How are you measuring the success of organisms? Why do you contend that humans are the most successful species? In terms of biomass, single-celled organisms are way more successful than us. There's not even a contest.

I took Stefan's call for a Dating Q&A to mean, "What questions do you ask before you date someone?" Here's a quick and dirty summary of what I would suggest asking. Obviously, you don't have to pose the questions as baldly as I have here. "How many sex partners?" "How many kids?" "How much money (or debt)?" Obviously, you avoid men and women who have children, debt or have lived the personal lives of amateur porn stars. After getting these big ones out of the way, you can worry about negotiating voluntarist ideals, and all the rest.

I have no idea, but if gender dysphoria is real phenomenon it must be measurable. What causes it? If child development is a factor, as I am theorizing, then feminism has definitely affected gender dysphoria to some degree because feminism affects the family, usually to the detriment to the father and the children. I'm not sure how we would measure this correlation because we have no evidence that dysphoria actually exists empirically and we don't know what causes it.

Why don't we put Escherichia coli O157:H7 (the most virulent strain) in prison for exploiting and murdering humans and causing the tremendous suffering of humans, especially children and the elderly? If there is no logical answer to your question, what is the real purpose behind asking it? Did you pose it intending it to be a riddle? When asking illogical questions, don't expect answers. Expect more questions.

Can you provide any explanation or evidence for this assertion? If we were omnivores in the past, should we not be omnivores in the present? What is the extenuating circumstance that gets us off the nutritional hook for an effective survival behavior that has persisted for millions of years? Why should we start caring about eating animals now? The rest of your reply conflates eating meat with dog fighting. I'm not sure how to address this because it's a non-sequitur. Why should humans care if a member of another species suffers? We should be concerned about our own species first, which is suffering to a greater degree than any other animal. No wild animal populations, including the ones that eat meat, are one-third diabetic, pre-diabetic, and obese. This is the current suffering of the human species, at least in American adults, and there is a strong correlation between optimal health in humans and the amount of dietary fat consumed. Animals are the most concentrated sources of fat, ergo eating meat is preferable to eschewing meat if you are concerned about your health in the long term. Is it absolutely impossible to achieve health while avoiding meat? No, I don't think it is impossible, but it will be a difficult balancing act. You might eat your weight in coconut oil in a year to consume sufficient amounts of saturated fat, for instance. I will take the easier road, and welcome the caloric density of the helpless, lovable and furry animals. Save the humans and forget the other animals. They will take care of themselves while we are slowly killing ourselves. Your loyalty is admirable, but misplaced.

If the way you are raised can affect your cognitive development, it stands to reason that it is probable that upbringing can affect hormonal development. The following has no specific relevance to gender identity, but I have at times been confused about my sexuality, and very promiscuous. I have a hunch that being genitally mutilated against my will as a week-old infant plays a significant role in it. Also, when I was two months old, I was abandoned by my parents so they could continue pursuing their careers. I don't have many memories of my father prior to age five or six. He went to night school for his MBA in the intervening years after my birth. My mother told me recently that she used to keep me up past 11PM so that my father could see me before I went to bed. I know this is anecdotal evidence, but I've never pursued a full-time job where I was asked to work before Noon. That's really eerie. The circadian rhythm is regulated by hormones, namely cortisol and melatonin, so I was hormonally imprinted by my parents to have an irregular sleep schedule. I've mostly got a handle on it now, but sometimes I still struggle to fall asleep even if I'm extremely tired. Weight lifting, D3 supplements, and tanning have been helping, but it's as if my body is still waiting for my father to return home thirty years later. I am curious about the bio-markers that indicate gender dysphoria because if we can identify them, then we can determine what factors contribute to the condition. I hypothesize that gender dysphoria stems from a disruption in the brain's hormonal development at a very early age or in the womb. There is also a psychosocial element reinforcing gender confusion, where feminist-dominated propaganda actively shames men for their sexuality and gender identity. The male species is constantly groomed to be something other than what it wants to be. You're too nice. You're too mean. You're too strong. You're too weak. You're too passive. You're too aggressive. Women are also propagandized from an early age, such as in the theory that women are silent victims of rape culture, when in fact, they have always been in charge of sexuality. Women are the sexual gate-keepers, and men are the swarm of flies that congregate around the piles of feces, hoping to score a piece of coprophilia.

Wouldn't there be a lag time between an introduction of a new toxin into the food supply and the general onset of the symptoms of disease? It took 24 years for Minimata disease to show up in the Japanese population exposed to mercury. That's nearly a generation of eating contaminated seafood before mercury levels bio-accumulated to a level significant enough to cause health problems in people. Incidentally, the symptoms of mercury poisoning showed up in children and animals first. I also doubt that glyphosate was used in 90% of crops in the 1970s. Whether the data indicates correlation or causation, it should be clear by now that avoiding industrial ag products like corn, soy, wheat, and sugar is preferred behavior if you wish to stay healthy. Humans were not meant to consume any of these foods before the GMO strains were developed, so it's a bit of a moot point to offer incredulity at the findings.

People in this thread are currently converting ideas within their brain into electrons that travel through the either for all to see. How are we still uncertain about whether or not humans have free will? Wow. The primary requirements to exercising free will are reason and language. Free will also requires a secondary ability to to be curious in the face of adversity. If you make loud sounds, most animals will be alarmed and move away from you. This is not so with humans, who will usually investigate the cause of the unusual sound before deciding what to do. Humans have the ability to operate within their fight-flight-freeze (lizard) part of their brains as well as their frontal lobes, which are used for reason. The function of the lizard brain is not to think, it is to communicate to your body sensory data that scares the shit out of you. Have you ever seen a wild animal seek you out and try to attempt to communicate or reason with you out of curiosity? They can sense that you are a predator (or prey in some cases like shark attacks), and they don't require reason to act. It's a base animal response to stimulus. Pets and livestock don't count within the context of this discussion because they are domesticated and dependent on humans for food and confined.

This mind-blowing video presentation is buried in the above link.

Don't be too passive, but don't be aggressive. Don't be too nice, but don't be a dick. Have confidence but don't come off as arrogant. Women need chemistry to get turned on. Shave, bathe and wear nice suits. This article reads like it was written by a man-shaming feminist.

Change this sentence around to "I keep thinking there is someone out there who is more like me," and you've already got a lot more possibilities. The choice of the words can be implies that they are being compelled to act like you. Other than that, you haven't provided much information on what troubles you about your girlfriend. Having not much in common is a vague phrase. It could mean that you don't like the same television shows or music genres. Do you have virtues in common?

What was the purpose behind falsifying this data? Are you insinuating that there is racism inherent in the recording of our IQs since gender and ethnicity is also requested?

I apologize for getting testy about lucky genes. I do find it bothersome to hear about illness being framed as unlucky for the reason that about 90% of disease is preventable. I understand a child can be born with a genetic disorder, but more often than not, it could have been mitigated by the parents. Genetic screenings, and a healthy, stress-free environment for the mother can go a long way in preventing congenital defects. Also, as Stefan has pointed out, every year a woman waits to have children, her eggs are a little more likely to produce chromosomal defects. I'm very sorry to hear about the severe gluten intolerance. I'm a fair bit more tolerant to wheat gluten than you but it has still taken a toll on me and my family. My father had a heart attack at forty-seven, and he absolutely loved his pasta and bread. I also have a love for pasta, bread and pizza. I can eat a whole pizza, and have a 50/50 shot at the runs the next day, but I try not to eat any wheat. It can be very addictive. There are people who have severe reactions to it, and there are people who don't have overt Celiac symptoms for decades only to be stricken with Alzheimer's and other severe symptoms later in life. You are in the former category, and I am in the latter. Maybe there are others who can eat wheat their whole lifetime, and not suffer any of the auto-immune effects. I wouldn't want to take the chance, however. I think it would be instructive for you to look at your situation and health from a slightly different perspective. Perhaps it's not you that was born genetically deficient, but the wheat that is nutritionally and biochemically toxic, and not safe for human consumption. Your body is more reactive to the consequences of consuming it. Therefore, you remove it permanently from your diet, and you can be healthier in the long run than other people who don't have a severe sensitivity to gluten. Regretfully, you or your parents could have identified the cause of the problems much sooner. I know a guy who is overweight and in his mid-thirties, and showing symptoms of gluten sensitivity. He gets bouts of diarrhea after eating foods contaminated with wheat, most notably Buffalo Wild Wings, and has a skin rash not unlike dermatitis herpetiformis, the skin condition you mentioned. In the long run, will he be more healthful than you? I'm not sure that he will because he isn't yet bleeding from his colon, or forgetting where he left his wallet. He does not have a perceived urgency to change his diet. He made soap from scratch and claimed that it helped his skin rash, but is still eating wheat! *facepalm* I found this video in a link from another thread: It mostly focuses on glyphosates and autism, but there is brief mention of gut flora, the gut-brain axis, and celiac disease. I hope you find it as stimulating as I did.

Sockeye was on sale... fuck yeah! This image has been spoilered for graphic tastiness. Two pounds, greased up with olive oil, baked in the oven at 325 F for 25 minutes garnished with spices, parsley and yellow onions.

At the risk of causing a stir, I would also suggest to supplement your nutritional needs with the sexual. If you encounter a young, attractive woman during the course of the day, such as the cashier at the bank, flirt with her. Check her body out. Obviously, if you are married or in a relationship, this flirtation is going no where sexual, but it wouldn't hurt to use the interaction to jump start the flow of man juices, so to speak. You certainly aren't harming the woman or your marriage by talking to a stranger or checking her out. Don't listen to the feminists. Women absolutely love getting the once over with some friendly chit-chat (as long as they don't perceive you as lower status than them).

It is entirely possible that most people with below average intelligences never get tested. Perhaps this is the parents' doing. They didn't want to confront the fact that little Timmy may be closer to the mean than they are. Perhaps the larger community also does not want to see evidence of superior intelligence. A great case in point is your first response in this thread conflating honesty and courage with narcissism. I found it more than a little amusing that you accused members of narcissism and questioned us about the negs you received in the same message. Stefan has postulated that he thinks most FDR collaborators and listeners are at least clocking in at 120. There are going to be a several 119 and under people around, too, but not that many. The data we are collecting on the Mopad will probably bear this out. Already, we have two extreme outliers on the bell curve (70 and 165). I also don't think Pepin's benchpress analogy holds water. A bodybuilder has every right to take pride in his physical achievements. In general, lifting heavier is an empirical sign of a greater level of physical achievement. Just pride doesn't reflect narcissism at all. However, IQ is largely an empirical measurement that we have no control over. It has to do more with how our parents nurtured us when we were children, income level, and some level of genetic variability that is also out of our hands to influence. Therefore, when someone blurts out how high their IQ is and lords it over people during conversations, it's almost like bragging about how great your ethnicity is, and taking pride in something that has absolutely no merit.