J. D. Stembal

Transgenders don't blame society... ...except for social stigmas, bigotry, hatred, and idiotic primitive small-mindedness and a laundry list of negative descriptive words you used in post #160, which I downvoted and encourage others to downvote because all it contains in emotional manipulation. What are these stigmas that are so damaging that transgender suicide rates are so high? I am stigmatized for being white, male and heterosexual. Does that mean society is compelling me to commit suicide? Don't you want to grant people free will? I have great sympathy for what happened to you as an infant. I was also operated on against my will to have my foreskin removed, which has had deleterious effects on me, and probably more than I realize. Please don't get on a soapbox and preach about gender identity being a social construct and then contend that society isn't being blamed collectively. Blame the doctors, blame your parents, but don't unroll this blanket out on which to lay all of the miseries of the transgendered and gender dysphoric on the rest of society. It's unbelievably lazy. What is your argument? What specifically casues transgendered people to be born? Is it a problem? What are some possible solutions?

When I draw my firearm, it means I intend on using it, so I can only assume that when police draw their weapon, they also mean to use it.

I hated when my parents did this to me, but they successfully spun their behavior into making me believe it was for my own good and health (almost exactly how the parents responded on Facebook). This was years later but my best friend came over for dinner once and wouldn't eat any of the vegetables. My parents didn't make him sit at the table all night until he finished his vegetables. For years afterward, both of my parents would praise me for not being a picky eater like my friend. They didn't actually teach me to eat what I like, just what is put on my plate. This is a recipe for an eating disorder. Only in recent years, have I been able to enforce my preferences with regard to food. I have found myself at social functions where the only thing I would eat is cheese and pepperoni. Everything else offered is loaded with carbs, which I usually avoid eating unless found in fresh fruit or vegetables. Everyone knows my diet has changed, and they can see that I've lost at least 45 pounds in the last three years, but they never ask me about my nutritional preferences when inviting me to their party. Nor do they ever offer any dish especially tailored for my needs, like you would for a vegan or vegetarian. A couple of times, just after I changed my diet, I would bring my own food to a party when I knew there was already going to be enough food there, just not much I wished to eat. The hosts would always act dismayed that I brought my own food, especially if I brought enough to share with others. Once, I brought chocolate covered bacon, and it was an instant hit, disappearing in the first half hour. The hostess was pissed because she had made so much food for her guests and my bacon was the first thing eaten! Now, I will eat before I go to a gathering or endure the event without eating. It's not very hard to resist the urge to eat when my metabolism is ketotic. I don't get ravenously hungry, or dizzy and distracted in a hypoglycemic state like I would eating the bulk of my calories in carbs. There are some days that I forget to eat because I'm simply not hungry. Intermittent fasting does wonders for eliminating abdominal body fat if you are male. Kahvi, what you wrote on Facebook was brilliant, especially considering the parents' reaction. I'm disturbed that parents feel comfortable posting pictures publicly revealing the manner in which they are tormenting children. It's like they know their tactics are wrong and they are seeking social proofs to outwardly justify the bad parenting. Good on you!

As an update, the video was taken down. Good work, FDR! I'm glad I didn't get a chance to watch it.

Any time this many people purposefully assemble in one area, it's for a sporting event, a violent conflict, or a politically motivated function. I am very suspicious of protests such as this. A real protest is a small group of like-minded people picketing in front of a business or courthouse with a coherent message, not a mass of humanity showing up in the same place at the same time. The only time I witnessed a throng of people of this magnitude was in Chicago in 2005 after the White Sox won the World Series. I wasn't a fan of the team, and I never liked baseball very much, but I decided to drive all the way downtown from the suburbs with a friend and pay $20 dollar for parking just to see the parade. I later heard that at least 2 million people were on the streets of downtown Chicago that day during the parade. It was almost impossible to get close to the street or see what was happening. Imagine what a group of people like that could do if a peaceful function turned violent? It's scary to consider. Conspiracy theorists suggest that any protest this large, peaceful or violent, are at least partially organized by government agents or psychological operations consultants. There is a statist agenda deep behind any 3.7 million man protest.

We are swimming in our mecosystems at all times, so it's sometimes difficult to sense the emotional difference between I and you. We often treat other people as extensions of ourselves. This is a pillar of statism. What is good for the goose must be good for the gander. How do you feel when your neighbor is playing his stereo loudly at 2:30 in the morning? You are likely seeing his behavior as blatantly disrespectful because he is an extension of you within your own mind. How could he possibly decide to act in contradiction to your wishes? The self doesn't automatically make the connection that your neighbor isn't a part of you and has his own identity. He exists in his own mecosystem and likely sees you as an extension of his own consciousness.

This discussion was briefly touched upon in last Saturday's show. I cannot remember the exact content of the discussion, but I can give you my thoughts. Preferable does not mean the same as preferred. Preferred implies that the preference has already been made for you. Preferable implies that the choice could happen for you in the future, which leaves the voluntary aspect of UPB more clear to the reader. If you call it Universally Preferred Behavior (or Universally Suitable Behavior), it comes across as an ethical edict that everyone must follow rather than a choice that all people choose to make for themselves.

You are talking about the glycemic load, I think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_load The reason why vegetables often have a very low insulin response is because there are so few actual carbohydrate calories in them. They are mostly water and plant fibers. http://www.weightlossforall.com/carbohydrates-vegetables.htm Take a look at this list and compare spinach and mushrooms to a yam. There is at least one order of magnitude difference in carb content. Now compare it to wheat flour: http://skipthepie.org/cereal-grains-and-pasta/wheat-flour-white-industrial-protein-bleached-unenriched-3/ Two orders of magnitude difference between spinach and wheat. Remember the old USDA food pyramid with 6-11 servings of wheat or corn and 3-5 of vegetables. This is why Americans got so obese during the last generation. The government propagandized us into doing it by exploiting our child naivety in public schools. Obesity is a government program.

In another public trans story, a young man put his foot up past parallel while the bus was still waiting to load at the origin, and the female driver spazzed out on him yelling "FEET ON THE GROUND AT ALL TIMES!" I got an instant flashback of riding on the big yellow public school buses. It was Sunday evening, so there were six people riding the route other than me. Clearly, they must be educating the drivers about the evils of manspreading.

I'm not sure about sitting. Most times you can't reliably find a seat on public transportation. I took the bus the week of Christmas because the snow was a little too intense for driving. One evening, I got yelled at by three different women because I refused to stand on top of another man to make more room. (They made a move to shove me, but didn't push that hard.) I was also carrying a twenty five pound bag. Did I mention I was standing? No one offered me a seat so I could stow the bag underneath. One of the girls referred to me as Mr. Green Bag. They spent the remainder of the bus ride until their transfer bad mouthing everyone who wouldn't move because they commanded, as if this was a mass transit faux pas. It sounds like an excuse to act like a bitch to strangers. The only words I spoke to them were "No, thanks," (In reply to the command.) and "There is plenty of room over here." (Gesturing behind me towards the back of the bus where they eventually migrated.) If they had asked politely, I would have moved anywhere for them, but I didn't tell them that. Some secrets have to be discovered for one's self.

(FDR edit) Oh, Nicholas, if you want to get a feel for the zeitgeist of the late 60s, watch Born on the Fourth of July or The Doors. Are there any documentaries about the anti-war movement in the 1960s? Like Nicholas, I was not yet alive during the Vietnam war. I don't think I've ever seen or heard of one documentary, but it the protest movement is featured prominently in many dramas. http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?genre=Anti-War+Film&decade=1960 I found one on Youtube that is a student project.

Libertarians are always willing to accept your money to in order play winless political games. The real reason none of the libertarian political action ever worked is because half of their families would be out of a job in a minarchist state among other people. Libertarians discovered that playing the political game was far more profitable then actually doing anything. If Barry Goldwater managed to get elected to the presidency, he would have been ousted by force within weeks if he actually attempted to run the Federal government like a business. Nowadays, liberty political action groups and anti-establishment media are such an entrenched (anti)statist business model that there is no way they actually want to bring about the change they claim to desire. How would Alex Jones afford to keep eating like a welfare queen if the Tea Party got into the White House and slowly dismantled the Federal government from the inside? There is no chance that AJ would be rooting for them. He would have nothing to provoke his trademark haughty cry of "I'm sick of it!" Incidentally, watching Rothbard speeches on Youtube is how I found Stefan Molyneux's The Story of Your Enslavement. On a related note, in the Men's Rights Movement there is a schism or debate between the traditional conservative activists and the sometimes left-leaning Men Going Their Own Way. The older, more traditional voices from the A Voice for Men community are marginalizing the MGTOWs as do-nothing whiners who aren't promoting activism or political action, while the MGTOWs who are typically the younger members of the MRM, eschew political action instead opting to promote their lifestyle as individual ethical philosophy, not as social justice or political agendas. In contradiction, they criticize the traditional conservatives as dinosaurs that still erroneously believe that politics can ever again be a male pursuit when, in fact, it has been drowning in gynocentrism since the feminist movement first got underway nearly one hundred years ago. Of course, there is at least one false dichotomy in there somewhere, but the efficacy and truth of philosophy and first principles will eventually out and resolve the dispute. I mention the schism in MRM because I believe it mirrors the familiar battle lines Shirgall mentions between the old right wing and new left in Rothbard's time.

If they aren't just fooling around playing Devil's Advocate, run far away very quickly. You are likely dealing with an ethical vegan that has no understanding of the First Law of Thermodynamics who supposes that eating animals is wrong because it makes Mother Earth weep. You could argue that someone's existence is a potential threat to you if they have the lawful right to threaten your person or property such as a cop or reserve soldier. Simply eating is not a gun unless you can prove that the food is stolen.

If you can't think of any answer, you probably shouldn't be dating as of yet. You are asking your prospective spouse how she envisions your relationship. The questions usually revolve around familial roles, money, children, religion, and philosophy. I would date a woman who desires state interference to be removed from our daily lives and human interactions. I would date a woman who has a rational relationship with her family, or none at all. I would date a woman who is not only willing to have a male child rearer, but welcomes it. You may have differing criteria, but those are mine.

No where in the article does AP specify the race, gender, or class of the families. That's very uncharacteristic for mainstream media.

Regarding Sex at Dawn... (fake edit) One of the most relevant sections of the book talks about life expectancy and child mortality of Paleolithic and Neolithic humans. It is often erroneously thought that no one lived past twenty or thirty as hunter gathers, but that's simply a side effect of how life expectancy is calculated. Our species now lives no longer that early humans did. On average, we live longer, but that's mostly thanks to medical science and philosophy decreasing child mortality. I want to stress the philosophy part because it is hard to say how many child deaths were the result of parents simply eating the kids, or deeming them "evil" and leaving them in the woods to die alone. The authors also discuss a common tribal belief that adults do not consider children to be full-fledged humans until the age of five or six when they are old enough to start learning how to hunt by the males. They think that this is to make the pain of child mortality more spiritually bearable. During that six year period, where children are under the mother's supervision almost exclusively, they are conveniently not given human status. When the men are supervising hunting activities, then the children's lives have meaning, but if they should die under female care, then they aren't yet human, just as the fetus is not considered to be complete living person before birth. I find this to be a chilling discrepancy, and also find it equally chilling that we've extended this trial human status to 18 in most countries all the while forcing men out of families at a greater rate. Tribal hunter gatherer societies granted women a wide birth to abuse, maim, kill and eat their offspring. We aren't so keen on cannibalism any more, but you can certainly see that with modern feminism, it is almost unthinkable to blame a woman for killing her own children. Look at the story of Andrea Yates. No one can believe that a sane woman could drown her five children. There is a part that also discusses child abandonment in France during the industrial revolution, but Sex at Dawn strongly avoids the characterization that child care-takers, mainly women, were ever intentionally abusive or murderous toward children.

http://www.fathermag.com/news/Case_for_Father_Custody.pdf (Just search the document for relevant parts on the institution of marriage. Do not attempt to read the whole piece!) Many, in traditional conservative circles, have argued that hypergamy is the evolutionary force that propelled civilization. I know some in the MGTOW community would disagree and cite Tesla and the Wright brothers, but by and large, you would have to debunk the institution of marriage and its role in promoting the industriousness of disposable men who like having access to teats and wombs. If deep down in our lizard brains, we understand our wives will leave us and take the kids if we cannot provide resources, isn't that an incentive to keep providing resources? Or is it a deterrent? Does it promote risk avoidance in men? There are so many more great questions I haven't thought of yet. My beef is that the state is now so intimately tied in with marriage that there is very little trust left in the jar. No man wants to rock the boat in a marriage for fear of a John Woo movie erupting from the baby's crib. Try convincing your future spouse that you want no marriage license and no birth certificates, no circumcision and no religion, no public school, no politics, no state, and no feminism in the family. She will most likely label you as insane, as I was. It is well established that hypergamy comes out of the biological necessities of pregnancy and child rearing, so by definition, it should also have no moral content. Is there a required resume for motherhood? I'm more than reasonably sure all you need is a turkey baster and a homeless man to fill it up (also, some food to barter for the sperm). Don't paint yourself as an idiot. I'm sure your fear and distrust is well-founded. As a man, I know why this would be the case. It's because mom didn't tell you what to expect from women, and you were not prepared, just as I was not prepared. My sex talk was my mom tossing a book at me while I was doing homework, and running away. You want to know how my mother responded when I told her that I was raped by my ex-girlfriend in this past year? That is more information than I want to know about you. Literally, I was brushed off with a TMI by my own mother.

Stefan briefly mentioned that this movie was full of leftist propaganda. It sounds like a must-miss. That's too bad because I really liked A Scanner Darkly. Maybe it's Phillip K. Dick that I am admiring.

Have you tried linking, discussing, or posting any class eugenics material on here? (Diversity, as a political platform, is a euphemism for ethnic cleansing, particularly of wealthy, heterosexual, white men.) That would be certain to draw a negative response, even on FDR. "What do you mean whites are being racially exterminated?" In biology class, my freshman year of high school, I remember my teacher lecturing that in a few generations, if demographic patterns continue, there would be no more white people left in the United States. I had no earthly idea what he was talking about at the time, but I realize now that he was speaking off the cuff about class eugenics. I'm still not sure if he was promoting, detracting, or speaking completely neutrally about it. I would be surprised if a teacher could discuss a topic this politically sensitive in a public school today without facing a stiff penalty. Personally, I think borders and immigration is ludicrous. I once dated an illegal immigrant, and had to make my peace with how I felt about visas, passports, green cards, aliens and borders. Just like marriage licenses, birth certificates, and Social Security numbers, they are manifestations of an irrational state. Unlike Alex Jones and most libertarians, I truly want the borders to be open. However, they aren't really open. They will let people in, and give them money and ID cards, but they won't be so willing to let the people who want to leave out. In the next ten years, you will start hearing about a mass exodus of economically oppressed people trying to leave the continental United States, and being detained or jailed if they don't pay the piper. People already leaving or planning to leave, but they are typically the upper class. Peter Schiff is hosting a Puerto Rico cruise in an attempt to promote his friends and clients to move to the income tax exempt territory. There is a financial consulting company called Global Escape Hatch (I think Stefan interviewed one of the founders) which is helping people plan around totalitarianism. All the other people without the means or desire to leave the US will end up being left in the lurch when the borders close down for good. How is this policy enforced? Do you find the restrictions valuable? If the policy can be enforced over the internet, I have trouble finding the value in it. Philosophy and reason enforces itself. Not many women post on here, and there is no such restriction. I would think that the public restriction against gays and women would actually motivate people to get around the restrictions to see what all the fuss is about (the men's club syndrome). I could be gay, and just not letting on. *GASP* P.S. Don't let the negs get you down, MMX. They can mean that you are acting foolish and people don't like your posts, or they can mean you are ackwardly pushing forward some hard to digest philosophical concepts. I think it's more of the latter and less of the former. This forum might be about philosophy, but not everyone will accept a total free market of ideas. The subset of ethical vegans on FDR was the first obvious example of anti-rational thinking that I noticed. It certainly will not be the last.

You are a parenting genius, but every day parenting should also be like this. I don't understand why parents don't get this. Kids are forced into schedules that are busier than most adults. Aside from public school, my brother (9) and sister (7) have Tae Kwon Do class at least twice a week, soccer league in the fall (brother), Language All-Stars - a program for exposing your children to conversation in many different languages, Chinese classes and tutoring, and my brother also plays the viola. At some point, my sister was doing dance or ballet, but I'm not sure if that's true any more. Then my dad laments to me about how he doesn't have enough money to send them to day camp during the summer. Apparently, it costs a child's weight in gold to attend the local day camp. I asked him how it was possible that all these activities were voluntary decisions by the children. He replied that besides the language lessons (and public school and the associated insane amounts of homework), every other activity the kids picked themselves. I find this difficult to believe, and on top of it, if one of the kids decides they don't want to go any more, he still forces them to go because of the investment involved for buying the requisite equipment. It sounds like a bait and switch parenting tactic that involves absolutely no negotiation after the initial choice is made. "Does hockey sound fun, Junior?" "Yeah, Dad, the players get the to skate around the ice rink so fast!" "Ok, we'll get the equipment used, so we can save some money in case you don't like the sport." ... "Dad, I don't want to play hockey any more." "Junior, you have to keep playing until you wear out or outgrow the equipment we bought. It's expensive!"

It's difficult to say. I will speculate that he pissed a couple members off in the thread about tattoos and childhood trauma because since then nearly all his posts have been negged. (Disclaimer: Correlation does not mean causation.) I don't think it has to do with MGTOW or hypergamy or the Rollo Tomassi blogs he links, because I would be getting negs, too, for posting Sandman vidoes. Maybe I'm the next target? You could be right, though. It's possible that we have donating members who are feminists.

Can hypergamy or evolutionary biology have any moral content? We need to explore this question before going down the road of discussing female nature. I don't know if violence against children is borne out of tribalism, religion, or biology, but I think we can all agree that it exists and that women contribute a key role in promoting it. As Mr. Molyneux says (paraphrased), "If we can convince women to stop dating assholes, we would have a more peaceful society." If we only limit our scope of discussion to biological determinism, we run the risk of letting violent people off the hook for their actions, just like the feminists do with their theory of the patriarchy. It is important to consider our animal origins, and our close proximity to the instinct to kill and eat babies, but only after all parties involved accept free will. MMX, have you read Sex at Dawn? It would be very insightful to read it after OWCA for a comparison especially with consideration for the question of nuturing. Feminist ideology tends to paint our tribal past with a rose-colored hue while glossing over our shared history with the animal kingdom. Evolution doesn't care about the moral content of the four categories of property rights violations. Many parents punish their children because they claim their children are possessed by a demon or animal spirit. How can we begin to convince people that although we have a very violent history as a species, humans are not evil in nature?

If you have money, you can get away with almost anything around women. Listen to a couple Tom Leykis shows and you'll get the picture. If you don't have much money, and you come across as arrogant, intimidating, or otherwise emotionally undesirable, most women won't look at you twice. I'm not saying you actually posses these qualities, but you displayed in your post pride in your physical, intellectual, and sexual powers, which may give women the impression that you are full of it. I wish more men could be loud and proud about being male without being ostracized, but unfortunately, proudly displaying your man-ness is not very well accepted these days. These are the qualities that our feminist dominated society is trying to filter out of the gene pool. Couple all this with a lack of material success, and it's not very mysterious why you are having trouble getting a date in this environment. Again, I will point to Tom Leykis as a reference for his comments on the topic. He contends that no matter how much money a woman makes, she will still want to marry up. Men who marry more successful women are almost universally derided as deadbeat husbands or gigolos, especially men who endeavor to work in the home as full-time fathers, teachers or caretakers. NAWALT! There is a campaign to downvote you into oblivion. I cannot prove it, but it seems that way. Usually, I feel compelled to read your posts, even when they are long and difficult to follow. I prefer the shorter ones without dashed lines. If your detractors manage to get you below the -25 threshold, I will quote every one of your posts.

I'm not sure about the philosophy and the credentials of the instructors in this instance, but in the case of the class my brother and sister attend, both teachers are former Olympic contenders in TKD, so they take it very seriously and there is no atmosphere of fun or play like what you mentioned. Perhaps you could strike a balance between the two and have a great atmosphere for learning. I've watched by brother and sister do their belt forms while the instructor and teenage assistant identify and correct problems in the forms. They also have agility and footwork conditioning exercises with ladders. This is where the most yelling and cajoling occurs with the male instructor. He sounds precisely like a drill sergeant. They also do sparing exercises where the student who scores the first point wins and faces the next contender, often staying in the ring for a while if they are one of the better students. Most of the kids seem to like the sparring, but others will just cower or run out of the ring. It doesn't look very violent on the face of it, but perhaps some of the kids in the class have negative reactions to violence because they experience it in the home. My concern over the TKD enrollment is that I believe my siblings are acting out violence that their mother has instilled in them for years. I've mentioned it before, but nine months ago I caught their mother belting my brother before bed while my sister watched. It really pissed me off and I credit this as my moment of awakening to self-knowledge. My father used several excuses for his wife, including cultural relativism, when I protested the abuse. Both children were raised in Thailand when they were very young. My sister was very sick for a while as well, and I'm not certain of the circumstances. I suspect neglect in involved. Dad told me he put a stop to the corporal punishments, but I don't trust him for obvious reasons that I won't go into now..I'm sure there are other forms of abuse being used when I'm not around including yelling and ultimatums, which occurred in my childhood. Over the holidays, I cut off all contact with every member of my family because I didn't want my parents to use my brother and sister as emotional hostages to manipulate me or others, which they have tried to do on a couple of occasions, subtly and overtly. This is the trial separation while I explore my internal family. Stepping in and shaming the abuse made me a target. I didn't think about it at the time, but my dad told me that he didn't realize that I cared so much about my brother and sister. Why should I care just because they are family? I didn't choose them as siblings. In fact, I didn't even know my brother existed until he was 18 months old. The reason I spoke out about the belt is because seeing two children harmed made me see that I was also harmed. It's not that I love my bother and sister, but that I don't want to see any children subjected to parental coercion. I explained my emotions to him, but I don't think he really heard me. It's all just an emotional mess where my father attacks when cornered and my mother drinks, hides her emotions and forgets. It's a toxic environment, and I told him so. Of course, it's not that Tae Kwon Do class is causing the strife. The class is just one symptom which illustrates the disease to me. I believe in the legitimacy of ethical self-defense, so saying that TKD causes kids to be violent bullies is like saying that guns kill people.

You need to comply for your own safety. This sounds like a perfect motto for allowing fascism to take hold of your throat.