J. D. Stembal

Apparently, only the privileged in America can afford luxuries such as not voting. *rolls eyes* I find it quite ironic that America used to have a poll tax to dissuade people from casting votes, or encourage them to put a lot of thought about who received their vote.

Can someone explain why Murray Rothbard is depicted on a bottle of sriracha? I laughed but I'm not entirely sure why it's funny.

This meta study indicates that lower fat consumption correlates with lower total cholesterol, especially LDL, but completely ignores triglycerides. Why do you think that is?

Eggplant pizza mark II (minus cheese, plus tomato paste) Liberal use of garlic salt, salt, pepper, and turmeric is evident. This is after about 20 minutes of 425 F in the oven at 9100 ft above sea level. Don't ask me about the barometric pressure.

If the woman is engaged, and spending time with another man behind her fiancee's back, the odds are that sex is consensual. Also, she knows that she can't go to the police to report any supposed crime, because then her fiancee would find out about the affair. Logically, since she knows this all of this ahead of time, she would never put herself into a situation where she would be raped because that would immediately call her loyalty into question with her fiancee when she starts answering questions for police. However, if at such a time, the fiancee finds out about the extra-relational hanky-panky, that's when MMX becomes vulnerable to false rape accusations. Pulling the victim card would be her last ditch option to keep the relationship going. I agree, though, that MMX needs to be very careful with this affair.

I apologize for the mistake. I had intended to write "It is clear that humans are omnivores, not herbivores." Either way, I understand that you don't agree with the statements. Obviously, in my own mind, I equate vegetarians and vegans to a kind of human herbivore. As a vegan, have you ever consumed grass? Humans are omnivores, not carnivores, to be clear on my position. This reply above presumes that I am arguing that humans are carnivores. I did not point out our canine teeth. No man is going to jump on the back of an animal and bite it. Humans use tools to hunt. That's where our superior mental dexterity among the great apes comes into play. I've seen the same animal comparison chart before, but I don't understand what this information proves even if we suppose it is accurate. For instance, human molars are far from flat, and the jaw can move in such a manner to produce a shearing motion. Also, while eating meat, not much chewing is required. Extensive chewing is required when we eat plants. Why can't humans consume meat while having a long digestive tract? Peristalsis appears to work well without any plant fiber, at least in my experience. I would like to introduce a short article by Loren Cordain where he describes why we are not evolutionarily adapted to eat grain - the seeds from grasses - and legumes. http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/grains-leg/grains-legumes-1a.shtml#intro I realize we are drifting far from morality and UPB, but I have already made a tight case against the morality of veganism in this thread while connecting it ideologically to Marxism and feminism, and I have not seen an earnest rebuttal of my points. Currently, I am seeking to provide even more traction for my arguments by introducing the concept that humans aren't evolved to eat most of the plants that we consume in the modern world - corn, soy, and wheat, all of which have been genetically engineered. There is an obvious correlation between the consumption of these products and human disease. World Grain Production: World Obesity Rates: US Corn Consumption: US High Fructose Corn Syrup Consumption & Obesity Rates: US Per Capita Wheat Flour Consumption: CDC Diabetes Rates in the US: CDC Obesity Rates in the US: I've got data from Canada, too, but I've already assaulted you guys with a ton of charts.

How do you enforce such a decree?

Why get upset about -2 reps? Look at some of MMX's longer rants in the feminism threads. He's got a couple -5 and -6 posts over there and he put a lot of effort into them. I was never curious about my IQ, nor was I tested, before I saw this thread. I'm helping Sal9000 achieve her wish for FDR IQ statistics, and we were encouraged to provide them anonymously or not. What do we care what the numbers reflect about individuals here?

I did not introduce the concept of proportionality to the discussion. Should I have? If men with guns show up because I am polluting (like they did when I was having a bonfire), and I ignore them or tell them to take a hike, what's going to happen to me? What's the best case scenario? What's the worst case scenario? I've seen many replies, yet no one has attempted to answer my original question. "Is ethical self-defense justified to stop pollution?"

How does fortune and genetics relate to the other? You essentially changed the words around and said the same statement as before. What does luck have to do with health? Why will some people never achieve health no matter what they do? That sounds like an issue that stems from a lack of choice or biological "unluckiness", yet you agree that health is a choice, and a matter of free will. Which is it? What exactly are the factors that are out of your control with regard to your health? Is that not another appeal to biological determinism, like nature rolled two d10s and botched it? Why was health so difficult for you to attain? Does that have some relevance to the statement that "lucky ones are able to support and treasure good health"?

I thought that it was interesting that on the Mopad, Jewish people are not considered to be whites.

This is the shortest MMX reply I have ever seen. How are you feeling? That is one cagey exit strategy to break up with a live-in boyfriend the day before his birthday. Your latest post, in conjunction with your previous posts, has all the trappings of a propaganda piece. I will elaborate. This makes no sense, and you should be very concerned about it especially since she doesn't want to talk about it. It is an ex post facto whitewash. If it is true that all five women were after the same man (highly unlikely), the other four would be very happy for her and try to live vicariously through her happiness. It is more likely that she shunned her friends when she began seeing her ex-boyfriend for some as yet unknown reason. I would talk with one of these former friends if you are able. The above also contradicts an earlier observation of her: With the real status of the four other women in question, this theory also has a shaky foundation. How long was she living with the ex? It is more likely that the sunken loss fallacy applies to boyfriend, unless she paid for exactly half of everything while living with him. What are the chances she was selling herself to the man for subsidized rent? Why would she date anyone to which she was only 1/4 attracted? This also casts doubt on the likelihood that four other women were attracted to him at the same time. If she likes dating an unattractive man while living in his apartment, why is she remotely interested in dating you? It is likely that she needs more time to think about it, so she can 1) find a new place to live 2) find a more suitable man to date. I would also like to re-introduce into the discussion that she spent one whole evening with you making out when she was living with another man. Also, check this out from reply #19: Are you being honest with yourself? From where I'm standing, it appears as though this girl fits precisely into your dating history. I could be wrong, but there are already at least three red flags waving in front of your face. I don't see any evidence that this relationship is based on character. There's also the very long discussion about her citizenship to consider. I will speculate without any evidence that the reason she started flirting and making out with you is because her ex-boyfriend had no interested in marrying her or having children. Please don't wander too far from this thread! I think you are swimming in barracuda infested waters.

If you are having these conversations with parents or parents to be, immediately flip the onus on them to provide proof that public schools are efficacious for child development and learning. Of course, the answer is that they rarely are. I went through one of the top rated school districts in the U.S. and I developed few, if any, critical or worthwhile life skills there, or an ability to think for myself. Since I was very studious in the beginning, so therefore I was bullied incessantly until I stopped being studious. There were glimmers of hope and a few spectacular teachers, but at the end of the twelve years when I had the diploma in hand, I had to start all over again, and what value did I receive for my time there? I can read, add, subtract, multiply, divide and speak English. Couldn't I have learned all that in four years in the home without having to swallow the state propaganda along with it?

I have elaborated on the same point several times already, so this question makes no sense to me. Can you tell me exactly what is unclear about my position? I am rebutting the argument that pollution is the same as initiating aggression, not supporting it. I am taking the con position in the debate. Clip from Fox News on Yahoo - http://finance.yahoo.com/video/why-does-epa-want-crack-213554973.html The EPA funded a study on the carbon emissions from barbeques. In the future, could a SWAT team storm into my condo and kill me over the charcoal grill I sometimes use?

The goal of going public with a stock offering is to raise capital for the company. Nowadays, it is more commonly a mechanism to foist overpriced stock on unsuspecting people, so the capital investors can cash in on their investment. It's all voluntary, mind you, unlike taxes, so there is nothing ethically wrong with this behavior. Take the P/E ratio of Facebook before and after the 2012 IPO. It was estimated at 83 in 2010 - http://www.quora.com/What-is-Facebooks-price-to-earnings-ratio. If I remember correctly, it only fell below 70 in the months following the IPO. Today, it trades around a ratio of 74. That is an astronomical ratio! Compare that to Google (26.6), and Apple (17.3), two more established American tech companies. Peter Schiff on two recent restaurant IPOs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjpsS3hK3ikt=19:00

There ain't nothing wrong with that child, it just needs to be beat. In the spirit of universality, I would love to apply the principle on this woman. There is also an apology video referenced in the comments. I wonder at the odds of BSNA.

Xu Xiangyang modeled the philosophy of his military-style exercise school on Mao Zedong's "Long March" with his communist party after fleeing from Chang Kai-shek's Kuomintang army. Completely ignoring the nationalistic overtones, what is the ethic, if any, that Headmaster Xu instills in his kids, and what are the long-term ramifications of leading stubborn donkeys to water to drink? Is the "Walk School" a political retraining camp disguised as a tough love summer camp for child delinquents? I found this documentary very difficult to watch. It is child abuse from start to finish, just to warn you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpPKYYJAFiY

Would you consider DurianRider exemplary of veganism? Does he appear to be healthful? Why do you care who wins a cycle race up a mountain? Is this, fundamentally, the definition of health? Did you know that the human brain is 70 fat and 20 cholesterol by weight? Where does the vegan obtain those nutrients by eating thirty bananas per day, and no animal products?

To add insult to injury, the sex that men earn is overrated. Do you know how much finagling it takes to transact a pleasurably slow tongue bath from a woman? Paying a professional would be more cost effective. Sex usually ends up being more of a chore than a blessing, or an expression of love, although I'm certain this is because my parents amputated the end of my penis. The only achievement of feminism is that women asked the state to enforce all the perks of having a biological monopoly on the eggs while keeping none of the responsibility or judgement of how to use them ethically or efficiently. It can only be considered an achievement from the woman's perspective, while men and children will continue to pay the costs well into the future.

I fail to understand why this is supposedly an insurmountable problem. Perhaps you can elaborate on your position. She is an oft-quoted feminist vegan. Her ideas are representative of vegans. Search for "books on vegan feminists" and the first hit is The Sexual Politics of Meat on Amazon, followed by numerous blogs by other vegan feminists. I admire that you are attempting the "Not All Vegans Are Like That" explanation. If only that were true. See my previous post on why veganism, feminism and Marxism exploit oppressed classes to further their agenda. In the case of ethical veganism, the oppressed classes aren't people, and cannot advocate for themselves. Who asked us to advocate on their behalf? I'm slow cooking a three pound elk roast right now, and I have to admit my stomach was growling when I was handling the raw meat. Physically, it was not difficult for me to kill the chicken once I watched a video on Youtube on how to best do it. Emotionally, it was difficult because I was very close to the chickens. They are wonderful creatures. However, I don't allow emotions get in the way of consuming them, or their eggs. If I am understanding the NutritionFacts video you linked, human are supposed to only eat fruits, vegetables and fungus because other species in Family Hominidae almost exclusively consume them? Fourteen million years separate all the living great apes from a common ancestor. Countless proto-humans have lived and gone extinct to lead to us. In than span of time, our extinct ancestors increased the brain to body mass ratio for language and logic, improved manual dexterity to develop tools for hunting and gathering, and most importantly, evolved for bipedal motility so that we could leave arboreal habitats to chase wild herds of game. Plants don't move very fast, so it is unlikely that we would have left the more traditional forested ape habitats for any other reason than to eat meat, thus supporting the development of the other biological characteristics that differentiate us from the other great apes, like intelligence. The human brain is 70 percent fat, and 20 percent cholesterol by weight. How could this feat of evolution been accomplished without eating the best sources of fats and cholesterols, which happen to come from animals?

It applies to both groups of people. Everyone has free will, and the freedom to choose. How does this question relate to pollution being a form of aggression?

I've only seen whites and latinos at my local Starbucks. Can we still have racial conversations? I wonder how they would go. Why are your people having so many children? Why are your people having so few children? ... I like eating your people's ethnic foods. Yeah, Chick-Fil-A is pretty good, isn't it?

I did not make any such assertion or suggestion in this thread. Others did, however. Read the thread again. I am arguing that pollution cannot be in the same moral category as the big four because it is a choice to have pollution or to not have pollution. Otherwise, I agree with you about motor oil and keying people's cars. Rain, not so much. Involuntary manslaughter is a sub-category of homicide, which still applies even if the guilty party did not have specific intent to kill.

Have you read the whole thread? The argument that is being made is that pollution is a form of biological aggression and thus a violation of the NAP, which means that environmental pollution is in the same moral category as rape, theft, murder and assault. The only problem is that no one has yet endorsed killing someone over pollution no matter how severe (nuclear waste was mentioned), so how can pollution be an initiation of the use of force? It cannot be in a category all of its own. It's either a moral violation or it isn't. If you can't justify the use of ethical self-defense to stop pollution, then it isn't aggression. Pollution is in the aesthetically preferable category. I like mercury, you like smog.

You have not answered the question, though. If I find you dumping waste (pouring your used motor oil on my lawn), can I use self-defense to prevent the crime by killing you as if you were raping, or murdering someone else?