J. D. Stembal

Peachbrain, you are incredibly brave to confront your parents to find out the truth. I have recently written a declaration of de-FOO letter, but still have to mail it. I have no wish to see or speak to either of my parents again. Mainly, I am concerned that as they become more infirm that it will be incumbent upon me to act with power of attorney or be temporary custodian of their estate. I don't want any involvement in these matters. They can hire a lawyer or legal representative to oversee that. I have given both my parents chances to try to heal the past, but I don't have the emotional energy any more. Both of my parents are very deterministic, "That's just the way things are," therefore my objections do not really matter. My father is also a unbearable narcissist. I did not have grand children soon enough for his tastes, so he endeavored to have them for me. This is my suspicion, at least. I've been sucked into the guilt trip of getting to know my brother and sister, who are the product of his decade long extramarital affair, which I knew about since 2003, three years before my mother. The philosophical powder keg exploded in my head when I found out that they were belting my brother while my sister watched. My father still cannot tell me the reason he desired to have two more children with such a wicked woman. He freely admits that he married a psychotic. He needs to intellectually dominate and belittle people, and what better way to do it than with more dependents who are the children of a manipulative, emotionally-unstable and abusive mother. They also conveniently make his social security checks fatter. I've received these platitudes since then. "We still love you no matter what." (Apparently, they consider that I am a delusional led astray by cult ideologies.) "Married people fight a lot because they love each other so much." (I got this one throughout my childhood.) "This is how parents do things in Asia." (In reference to the belting of childen.)

I like the idea that all theists and statists are 99.9% atheist, they just have to give up the last golden calf to attain rationality. With theists, it's the fantasy of the deity, mysticism or spirituality, with statists, it's the utilitarian propaganda of the state which they ferociously worship. Choosing between the left or the right, the state and god, nihilism or conservatism is a false dichotomy, as I will chose neither. Similarly, I don't think we should be choosing between traditionalism or feminism with regard to the family. Indeed, they are different versions of the same social movement because women have always written the social rules. This is known as Briffault's Law. I don't share the theory that marriage and family values evolved through biological necessity for the sake of raising children. Marriage comes out of a post-agricultural evolution of women's fertility requirements. When it became possible to grow a surplus of grain instead of living at subsistence, collecting berries and skinning animals, it fundamentally changed the way that women viewed male-female sexual relations. It was now possible to establish a familial dynasty to hoard the benefits of the labors of men. Women have the eggs, and they write the social rules. In traditional marriage laws, the needs of the wife were paramount; husbands' and children's needs were secondary. Males and children are disposable and largely utilitarian entities for women. Men have evolved to play the role of the servant to the queen, since if men don't play along, they don't get any nookie. Before marriage existed, humans societies were overtly matriarchal, and males had little role in parenting beyond fertilization. The very idea of paternity in modern hunter-gathers is unthinkable. No one knows who the biological father is because everyone in the tribe fucks each other on a regular basis. The men go out and hunt wild animals and socialize together while the women and children pick nuts, fungi and fruit. The tribe raises the collective. Even in antiquity, males were the more disposable of the species, the tool in the proverbial woodshed. In my self-interest as a male, I have no desire to head back down the path of traditionalism, the former iteration of feminism. Nor do I want to go back to collective tribalism, which is now known as anarcho-communism. Until women cease to behave as egg terrorists holding our future for ransom, using their sexual monopoly on eggs as social currency, we will never be rid of the state, or be able to attain any standard of rational ethics.

I do not have any experience with the Church or Latter Day Saints, but my experience with Protestantism was very empty. You go to a building on holidays, sing songs, and donate money, but there was no sense of community. I didn't know any one at the church by name, and no one knew me by name. I believe my parents, who are predominantly leftist, went there because they were guilt tripped by their parents into exposing me to it. I was baptized by the Presbysterian church. I was also circumcised, which is another religious practice, but one not particular to Presbyters. I knew faith was nonsense just as most children find out that Santa Claus is a hoax. There is no sense of love between my parents, and no sense that they wanted to honor their marriage vows, except out of convenience. They likely got married because there was no other better mates available in their early twenties. My father took on a mistress when he expatriated to Southeast Asia in 2000, and sired two children in secret. My parents stealth divorced in 2012, not telling anybody, and my father married his mistress so that both of their kids would stay in the United States. If my father's mistress could not get a valid green card or visa, she would have taken only my sister back to Thailand permanently, separating brother from sister. People are welcome to believe whatever fantasies they wish, but I have no wish to associate with the irrationality of organized religion or endorse the state institution of marriage. Along with the brutal practice of circumcision, which comes straight out of religion, many Christians, especially Catholics, come out of a history of childhood violence to enforce rules. This is the very essence of the gun of statism. Do what we say or you die!

What the RBE caller in 2928 is describing is part of the tenets of the economy of Burning Man. For the week long event in the desert, Burners are encouraged to bring enough food, water, and supplies to be self-sufficient. However, it is entirely possible to survive through the event without spending a dollar except the $400 required to be admitted to the event. No one, except the official ice vendor in center camp, is allowed to charge money for any product or service. Everything has to be gifted at the event. Under 21 Burners cannot be given alcohol. Over-consumption is a very real problem at Burner events. Often, if you aren't an early bird and first in line, you will miss out on a lot of the popular cuisine consumed there. Also, there is the SWAG (stuff we all get) effect. People hand out cheap, mass-produced trinkets because they are encouraged to bring enough for their entire camp and whomever decides to visit them. I accepted many of these trinkets on the first day, some useful and some strictly ornamental, like bracelets and necklaces. By the end of the week, I had misplaced a few of them (MOOP, or matter out of place in Burner parlance), including the face bandana with a dust filter. I also misplaced one of my ex-girlfriend's walkie-talkies while dancing at one of the music camps. When people are given a series of gratuitous gifts in this manner, psychologically, they tend to not exact ownership over it. There is nothing special about an item everybody receives for free. The mind doesn't want to claim responsibility over the object. Everyone who proposes anarcho-communism as a functional economic and political ideology should visit their local Burner event at least once to see the shortages of food, the lines, and the inefficiency of a moneyless or tradeless economy.

How are there not enough pastures? Can you prove it? A free market would dictate that this cannot be. If there are too few pastures, the price of pasture raised cattle would go up, and more ranchers would get into the market by buying up more pasture land to raise more animals. You vote with your dollars so that ranchers invest more capital into ranching. Could it be that this land is already taken up by the agriculture of corn, soy, and wheat, which are far more destructive to the environment and subsidized by the federal government? Could it be because 28% of the land in the United States (640 million acres) is federally owned and managed? I apologize for my mockery. I was over-zealous in my tone. My assertion is that ethical veganism is an outgrowth of ideological Marxism, and feminism. The fact that it cannot be universalized should tell us that any campaign to oppose the consumption of meat beyond individual voluntary choices is following the slippery path toward authoritarianism. Regarding cow milk production, you are probably correct in your facts, but realize that dairy cows are rarely going to be allowed to roam a pasture and eat grass (they would have to be connected and disconnected from the milking machines), so they are probably fed mainly corn and soy, maybe wheat and hay. This adds to the water requirements of cattle because metabolizing grains requires a lot of water. People that eat grains hold onto excessive amounts of water weight. The simple answer is if you don't like dairy farming, don't drink milk. I consume a little dairy because it is a good source of saturated fat (yogurt and cheese), however, I like to keep it limited because it makes my acne break out. If we voluntarily milked healthy lactating humans for dairy production, I would consume a lot more of it.

Considering that I use intermittent fasting and a very low carbohydrate diet, I found this presentation by Thomas Seyfried very insightful. He doesn't actually talk much about what cancer patients should be eating, but some suggestions can be gleaned from the data he presents. Here's a shorter Q & A on ketogenic metabolism:

Why isn't the killing, torturing and farming of plants considered immoral? Cows don't eat grain (a highly genetically modified grass), they eat natural grasses. Buy only grass-fed, pasture-raised beef and you don't have to worry about sustainability. Feeding people is not a concern in the free market. The high water consumption of beef production comes from agriculture, and the growing of the grains. Stop feeding cows grain, and the problem solves itself. Next, are you are going to tell us that cow farts are causing global warming? Stop buying into leftist propaganda, and think for yourself.

I received my panic order today. 62 grain 5.56mm NATO rounds are still going at a premium. Even the biggest bulk orders of 1k-3k will cost 50 cents and up per round with shipping. The rumor is going around (among my friends) that this ammo ban will eventually be overturned, but I have not seen any official confirmation.

It is important to note that it is difficult to feel the various injustices others are feeling, so only worry about focusing on your own feelings to simplify the matter in discussion. In the recent UPB Animal Rights thread (and call-in show), we have been repeatedly told that consuming animal products shows a lack of empathy, is unjust, immoral or otherwise against the NAP. We have to be careful to determine whether or not the supposed injustice is real and rational or simply a matter of opinion (aesthetically preferable, not universally preferable). I would throw the word injustice out entirely because we would be forced to define what justice is before continuing. Real world justice is hardly equitable or efficient. I would describe the feeling of being wronged as powerlessness. If you can do something to remedy the situation, then you have an amount of power over it, no matter how small. If we are discussing our own childhoods, which is what the pro-animal rights FDR members are really describing when talking about UPB applying to animals, then defining the emotion as frustration over powerlessness is very accurate. Helplessness is close to defining the emotion, in my mind. Indignation describes something that makes you angry, but powerlessness implies that you have no way to personally right the wrongs endured.

Which story is true? Is this a white-wash? It seems to me that, philosophically, private police would be less aggressive and cost less. I'm sure if there were any empirical data proving that public servants are less competent or less effective then there would be a lot of political pressure to squelch this information.

Yeah, since 1992. Myself and others were tweeting about circumcision and the physical and financial rape of men last November, and getting reamed by feminists and their toadies who thought the notion was bigoted or absurd. This was around the same time that feminist bloggers were calling for censorship of men's groups on Twitter because of *offensive*. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/why-everyone-tweeting-november-19th-161226147.html#tM4lTFG

What are you eating? Eggplant "Pizza"

Which study was that? It sounds vaguely familiar. Exercise doesn't cause weight loss singlehandedly. A change in the endocrine balance of the body causes weight loss, which comes about through better diet and sleep. This is why you see the same fat people laboring on treadmills week after week and they're not getting any thinner. The three somatotypes aren't useful illustrations in fitness or health. Yes, everyone is unique by virtue of our DNA, but you can change how your DNA expresses by changing your habits, activities, and behaviors.

You are pretending very hard not to care when your motives appear to be to stir the pot. Why does it matter what our responses are? You start a thread, and you sometimes get replies. That's how forums usually work. Why are you here?

Are you a troll?

See you next Tuesday. I'll be there to take out the trash.

Try an experiment. Attempt to make eye contact with as many people around you as you can, and take notes on who looks at you and sees you, and who looks at you and quickly avoids seeing you by looking away. I've started doing this and I'm finding that a lot more strangers want to talk to me. You don't have to start or carry on conversations with everyone because no one has the time for that. It's easy to see how many people are closed off in public which doesn't exactly demonstrate individual lack of empathy, but a general measurement of people's willingness to empathize or be curious. This may help put your feelings about empathy in perspective. I've also noticed that women are far quicker to avert their gaze where men are more likely to not ever look at me directly. I am male, just to point out.

When I was a teenager, an older student tried to convince me and some of my friends that he was an immortal warlock who could cast spells on people. I wasn't convinced at all but nobody was willing to call him out on the charade as it was quite apparent that any Doubting Thomases would get cast out of his clique. People tend to fear social rejection more than they fear irrationality.

These videos smack of - Daddy, please look at me!

Stop hanging out on Reddit, for starters. In a sense, anarcho-communism already exists within the modern family unit. Every parent gets to play dictator over their own children, spanking if he desires, while no other adult outside the fiefdom is allowed to instruct the parent on how to rule over their children. My childhood girlfriend was viciously pummeled and sexually abused by her father. Everyone, including her mother and elder brother and sister, willfully ignored the signs that something was amiss. Police and child services intervened on at least one occasion that I can recall, but nothing happened except that the girl was institutionalized, probably accused of fabricating false stories. She revealed the horrors of her family history to me, but I was forbidden to speak of it. She didn't want to go back to the mental hospital. To this day, I feel haunted about my complicity in the demented family drama. I couldn't have been the only one she told. Why didn't anyone intervene? Sometimes, I wish I could forget. Last summer, I ran into an old high school friend that knew her. He specifically asked me about her, "So-and-so and you dated, right? Did she have a fucked up home life?" Apparently, even people who spent short amounts of time with her could tell something was wrong. This interaction stirred up the memories in my head, and I reflected on the tragedy again. To tie this back into the on-going ancom vs. ancap debate, one of the common objections to libertarianism or anarchism is, "Who is going to protect the children?" I would answer this question with another question. Who is protecting children now?

Does the army fellow know you, and that the child is your progeny? Does he believe the child is his? I suggest that you inform him of the truth once you have genetic confirmation. How did you find out and why did it take four and a half years?

I want to hug you. That is so wonderful for your son! I used to joke about wanting my foreskin reattached when I was younger, but I have since realized exactly what was taken from me - my sexual enjoyment. Sex has often been unfeeling for me, quite literally. The nerves in my penis will go completely numb when over stimulated, causing me to lose erection. At other times, sex is a painful ordeal, especially with certain kinds of latex and non-latex condoms. I have resorted to faking orgasms on more than a few occasions while wearing condoms. I figured out that buying the over-sized condoms helps make the sexual experience more comfortable. Somehow, the extra material acts as a friction cushion, or a synthetic foreskin, as it moves around. Technically, it probably makes the condom statistically less effective at preventing pregnancy and disease transmission, but why have sex at all if it is going to feel uncomfortable?

Consuming animals isn't a right, nor is it a question of morality. It's an aesthetically preferable behavior. Without the caloric density of hunted or raised animals, humans would never have evolved past the intellectual capacity of the great apes. We would not be having this conversation about ethics if it were not for our omnivorous habits, and social behavior. If someone cannot countenance eating anything with a face that happens to look vaguely human, free will dictates that he can choose what he eats, and he may choose not to eat animals. I choose not to eat grains or legumes, and prefer to eat animal products on a daily basis. In doing so, no person or property is being violated, therefore it is not an ethical matter for UPB. For the sake of definition, animals are not people, but people are animals.

I don't understand what any of this has to do with atheism.

Considering that I was genitally mutilated at a hospital by a doctor, it's not difficult to understand my perspective. Maternity wards in hospitals also push other Medieval practices, such as: Prescription Drugs Immunizations Infant Formula Caesarean Sections Low-Fat Nutritional Advice In addition to the above, they are also hotbeds of disease. As of 2007, two million patients were infected per year, and ninety thousand of them died. http://www.hospitalinfection.org/press/010107aarp.htm Having a home birth doesn't mean you wing it with a medical text book. You hire a professional midwife.