J. D. Stembal

For Gender Dy-phoria to be a real and measurable phenomena, there would have to be hormonal, electrical or chemical indicators in the body and brain. Is this correct? I am very curious about what the test measures to give the positive or negative result. The reason I am wondering is because all mental illnesses in the professional diagnostic handbooks do not have measurable biochemical phenomena associated with them. It's only a behavioral checklist for a psychiatrist to fill out, which means that these disorders are a matter of subjective opinion when they are diagnosed. If there is diagnostic test for the condition of Gender Dysphoria, that means that it is more real than any mental disorder described by psychiatrists. Thank you for responding to my last post, iHuman. I'm still not convinced that the society at large plays the responsible role in not protecting and supporting people with alternative gender identities. If anything, diversity is celebrated above all else. I still think that lack of emotional support from parents plays a critical role and how the child handles pressure, stress, and challenges as a teenager and adult.

I don't expect this show to address peaceful parenting at all. I expect itt is more of a vehicle for people to vent the sentiment, "How dare this rich, bossy person tell me how to raise my kids!" or "Only I have a right to discipline my child!" Zach Quinto's character is obviously smug, saying he wants to destroy the family in court. I have a sinking feeling that this show will be used as a vehicle to paint the wealthy as legally vindictive bullies. At a deeper level, of course, he represents state power, but I don't think many people are going to pick up on that except for libertarians and anarchists. Parents don't want politicians legislating how they raise their children.

What is your definition of property? You did not actually define it. I am assuming you are a more left leaning liberty advocate, but I am not sure. While the wording is volatile, you are forced (expected) to own a few things in a free society. You must own yourself and your actions (and the products of your actions) at the very least. This is the underlying basis for the non-aggression principle, and the theory of capitalism. I've heard people talk about starting an ancom style commune, but I've never actually seen one in action. I've heard rumors about a few in the Rocky Mountains. There is a town in Southwest Colorado that is a community of artists, but I doubt they have total collectivized ownership. To do so, people would be limited in their individual choices. If they have ranchers feeding the town, one could not be a vegan, for example. A collective eats what they are given since there is no economy to drive free choice. Also, in a collective community where their is joint ownership of everything, women could not exercise autonomy over the production of new humans. That would also be controlled by a central authority. It is also a distinct possibility that once you become old and infirm, you will be ejected from the commune to die in the mountains since you can no longer contribute labor and are simply drawing resources until your death. If the commune did not do this, it would run the risk of becoming too old to be functional. See the success of Social Security in the United States, as an example.

Brilliant, sir! It is the initiation of the use of force (surgery) on an infant for no legitimate medical purpose. If there is a perceived medical necessity related to sex, let the child decide if they want to go under the knife after puberty. The pro-circumcisers will say that it is a birthright of their cultural heritage, or that it's aesthetically pleasing to women or god. Having undergone the procedure myself, I can state with certainty that the effects of circumcision on the aesthetic quality of my sexual experiences have only been negative.

Start the video at 51:40 for the causal medical inference between sugar and diabetes. While I appreciate Lustig's scientific data and presentation, he's clearly a Leftist in his views. He concludes that the health crisis is a result of the conglomerated food industry, and it will "bankrupt" our health care system. He gets that the food industry lobbies the federal government, but he doesn't identify government as the real problem behind our health crisis. I believe that ACA is a big step backward in public health because universal healthcare without penalty for preexisting conditions creates a significant moral hazard. Healthy people aren't motivated to stay healthy because they not only have to spend more on their grocery bills, but they are expected to pull the weight of the sick by subsidizing them through taxes. The sick have no incentive to change when they are simultaneously saving money buying all the subsidized carbohydrates off the aisle shelves while getting subsidized healthcare. Whatever you tax decreases, and whatever you subsidize increases. Healthy people will dwindle in number, while the sick will explode. Consequently, you have vegans such as Freelee the Banana Girl promoting the raw diet chalk full of fructose and carbohydrates, and they honesty think this is healthy. Check this video out. Then, in this video, she teaches you how to suck in your bloated and inflamed digestive tract. The cognitive dissonance is remarkable. Apparently, eating air causes bloating.

I find it refreshing that Peter Schiff was wrong about something for once. (He claimed last month that the EU was unlikely to start buying bonds.) In another recent video, he suggests that Canada will be next to join the QE game. Then that leaves the United States in the hotseat for QE4 and who knows when China will unpeg their currency to the dollar.

Distance is really trying on a relationship, especially one that may involve raising a family at some point. I don't think it's going to a be an issue of virtues so much as a difficulty to continue growing together instead of apart. People change a lot as they age, and you can't negotiate these changes very well over Skype. Foremost of all the issues with long distance, how do you manage to continue a sexual relationship if you and your boyfriend should want to initiate one again? If you guys have the virtues and are thrilled with each other, the big question is what are the costs of moving to the same city to live together?

Is evil identified by a vibe? Politicians, such as Clinton, who send thousands to their deaths get paid large sums of money for speaking engagements, autobiographies, and are routinely cheered by crowds. How is the cult of state science behind Tyson different?

How do you define romance? How does your boyfriend define it? What is the context surrounding the rough patch in your relationship? What are the virtues that you share? You don't have to provide an exhaustive explanation or any explanation here, but these are questions you need to discuss again with him. The situation, as you describe it, does not make too much sense on its face. A couple, who love each other for their virtues, probably aren't going to voluntarily decide to stop the romance. What, if anything, has changed in your lives since you started dating?

Anyone who has tried drinking straight from a "pure" mountain stream and gotten sick with giardiasis can attest to this fact. Humans and many other animals do not have to drink water as the requisite amount of it is retained from digested food in the large intestine, assuming homeostasis has not been disturbed.

This reminds me of the overt anti-commercial and gift-giving tenets promoted at Burning Man and the regional burns. Capitalism and free markets are inherently male, destructive and rapey to women and the environment, while everything good in the world is understood as motherly and giving. This trope is so obviously identified as female chauvinism now that I'm surprised people keep trying it. You find this brand of male and crapitalism hate tactics in otherwise worthwhile reading like The Vegetarian Myth.

Crony capitalism is not the free market, so adequate definitions are lacking in this attempt at an argument. The author resorts to ad hominem several times. No rebuttal is required. I am amused at how he considers Theodore Roosevelt a "different kind" of Republican (read: good Republican).

I wonder why Buddhist spirituality and Leftism have such a great affinity for each other. I've come up with two points. 1) In Buddhism, desire or craving causes suffering because of the impermanence of satisfaction, therefore desire is not a permanent solution in life. Desire, in the Buddhist teaching, often gets conflated with greed and consumerism, which are often cited as the more negative characteristics of capitalism by the Left. 2) Buddhism, as a religion, is completely different from Christianity conceptually and morally, which is often seen as the philosophic and moral bulwark of the Conservative Right. Being mystical or Buddhist is less authoritarian and "churchy" than being a Christian, while containing just as much irrationality and hocus pocus. Does anyone else have any other ideas, or comments regarding these observations? Oh, and plus rep for the hamster avatar.

Offer state-subsidized community college for the poor while simultaneously sabotaging middle class college savings accounts. This is a brilliant move for an evil dictator to make.

Guy eating Chipotle makes me feel... gassy.

I will reserve my love and respect for the .01% rather than an abstract concept which doesn't exist.

People protesting circumcision are now considered anti-Semites. I didn't see that one coming.

Does it seem reasonable to attempt to have a car dealership closed or boycotted over an $8 tip?

You are assuming a lot that you did not disclose in the original life boat scenario. All you said is that a neighbor had a fire in their backyard. You asked how it differed from poisoning a person's food. If the smoke blows over, you will be able to smell it, but it will dissipate such that you aren't choking or suffocating. No, it won't damage your lungs, and you could close the window if you don't like the smell. Or you could ask the neighbor to not burn stuff in their back yard. I brought up ethical self-defense up to and including lethal force to demonstrate that pollution cannot ever be a threat that justifies self-defense. Pollution is an aesthetic choice, not a form of aggression. Would you restrain or kill your neighbor over a fire in their back yard? I've had the police called on me for having a bonfire. Someone in the 'hood thought it was acceptable to have men with guns sent over to tell me to put the fire out. Essentially, they felt justified in possibly having me killed over pollution. Do you think that my neighbor's response to my pollution was ethical?

Reason and the state is like oil and water.

You have a right to defend yourself from someone trying to kill you. If you don't like smelling the smoke from your neighbor, that is an aesthetic preference. Do you have the right to take the life of your neighbor over a combustion reaction?

The latter is a violation of the NAP and the former isn't. Poisoning food is not called "pollution" either.

Of course, I can't dodge collective female guilt. That's because it doesn't exist in reality and I do. What I can do is try to find a sane woman to date. If that's not possible, then I can look into other options, like child surrogacy and the male family unit, for procreation and child rearing. In any relationship, why does someone have to be guilty? I acknowledge that it exists, but I don't understand why it has to exist. If I don't want male guilt (or white guilt) in my life, it won't be in my life. Women need to understand that if they insist on behaving irrationally, men will refuse to commit. If it gets bad enough, men will give up on relationships with women and use the free market to promote true equality within the family. It's already starting to happen.

Did your girlfriend try to make the argument that since all people pollute a little bit (minimal aggression), it's acceptable for the government to steal from people a little bit in order to clean it up while completely ignoring the fact that the U.S. government does the exact opposite and is the biggest offender in the world when it comes to pollution? I have heard the above argument before. Pollution is not a form of aggression. It can't be. It is categorized under aesthetic preferences such as "I like chocolate." Does your neighbor sometimes play his stereo very loudly on the weekends? Mine does. Can I knock on the door, kill him when he answers it, and turn off the music? No, I can't. His music, while pollution, is not aggression. Likewise, if I see a smoker throw a cigarette filter on the ground, can I kill him for littering and if he refuses to pick it up and put it in the ash tray? No, because littering is not aggression. However, if I see a man getting beaten in a parking lot, I am justified in engaging the aggressor(s) with deadly force, if necessary. Ask your girlfriend how she is logically able to determine that pollution is aggression. What is her definition of pollution and aggression? She is likely misunderstanding the scope of the non-aggression principle. Has she read Universally Preferable Behavior?

Whether the study is accurate or not, Portal 2 is an astounding game when played in co-op mode.