J. D. Stembal

Humans most definitely eat other humans. It's probably not as common in the last two centuries, but it happens. Unless someone gives you permission to eat them post mortem, I could qualify this as a moral action. A quick Google search reveals in the first hit: http://www.themost10.com/most-cannibalistic-animals/. Cats do eat other cats. This is besides my point. In the animal kingdom, there are a lot of species eating each other, including humans, so for humans to also participate in the animal kingdom by eating other animals is a trivial matter in the scope of things. Non-human animals do not operate by the non-aggression principle and do not respect property rights, including the rights of humans. Therefore, it is not a moral or immoral action to eat them as a human. They are "beneath" universally preferable behavior.

Plus rep to you, RJ. I enjoyed the article.. I've been introspective about my family and the holidays a lot recently. For me the holidays, especially Thanksgiving, were spent with my maternal aunt's family who was very strict and religious. My cousin and I had to say grace, please and thank you for any request, and were pretty much expected to shut up when the adults were talking. I would get so bored during Thanksgiving, I would bring my own activities, like reading and drawing to entertain myself. I couldn't watch television, except for the football game. Until this day, I still feel completely disconnected with my family around the holidays. I also had a thought that the only reason children learn to put up with the holiday season is because they know they will receive gifts if they behave. http://www.amazon.com/To-Train-Child-Michael-Pearl/dp/1892112000 This book, mentioned in the link, makes me want to scream. I posted a relevant thread in this sub-forum that is awaiting moderation. Children aren't fucking dogs! Why are we treating them as such?

Since his channel was mentioned on the call in show last week, I thought it would be fruitful to discuss his recent parenting video. A lot of YouTubers are beginning to promote their own parenting ideas online. He's a retired military officer, and self-proclaimed constitutional conservative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J12eGSkrsvM He started off in an open and philosophic manner, discussing his family, but there were several issues that kept derailing the overall message for me. There were other comments that got me nodding my head, but I wanted to focus for now on the parts that made me wince. What are your comments, feelings and reactions to this parenting video? If you are wondering why I posted it here, my purpose was to raise awareness that Stefan isn't the only voice out there when it comes to preaching parenting practices. I don't mean to insinuate that Nutnfancy's approach to parenting is peaceful either despite posting the topic in the Peaceful Parenting sub-forum.

I will definitely check out Mist and Etherium, but seeing that prenuptial agreements are not always honored and will probably be honored a lot less in the future, I'm not sure how this platform will help men in the long run. Specifically, I see this as a possible platform for child surrogacy agreements, where the men have the ability to get their crypto-currency back if the surrogate mother decides to take the money and keep the child, thus defaulting on the contract. How is MGTOW a political action? I'm not disagreeing, necessarily, I just never thought of it that way. It's more philosophical than political, in my estimation. There's no way to vote in the polls to expand programs that benefit men. MGTOW is men voting wisely with their money by only entering into arrangements that benefit them, and avoiding circumstances which punish them.

I think it is terribly convenient for the police and prosecutor to have a guy that has been doing autopsies on the sly without a licensed pathologist present to save cash-strapped counties money. When it comes time for someone to take the blame for what happened in Ferguson, here is your scapegoat.

You just made a great case for why government should not be involved regulating the energy sector. Hint: government is subsidizing inefficient technologies and taxing the efficient ones, as I previously stated. They are also the one paying the scientists who told us that we will all be living underneath the oceans by now because we burned too much coal and oil.

It's damage control time now, isn't it?

My firm position is the Earth couldn't care at all about human welfare, so we should probably operate on our own self-interests. Mother Earth can fend for herself barring another planetary collision, then times will get a little rough for everyone.

I believe those are known as herbivores. They eat plants/fungi/bacteria instead, but they may still wander onto your property and eat out of your garden without dispensing compensation apart from their feces.

I stopped the video right there as the mystic funk started to choke my rational senses.

I was listening to the audio and imagined him as Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinny. He makes an important observation about the police and military, but gets the logical conclusion completely wrong. He says that cops that act like Darren Wilson should be in the military, not the police. What he fails to recognize is that the military was involved in Ferguson. The ultimate purpose of the military is not to protect the republic from foreign threats, but from threats that come from the domestic populace. His observations about the militarization of the police are correct, but his conclusion is based on not using all the information at his disposal (i.e. taxation is violence). You can apply the same logic to immigration policy. It's not there to prevent people from coming into the country. It's purpose is to keep them from leaving when the time comes.

Do you acknowledge that all animals, including humans, kill and eat each other, usually without remorse? You cannot qualify as an owner of property (i.e. your own body) if you can't abide by the non-aggression principle.

I have an alternative theory regarding the MGTOW movement. I don't buy into the anti-natalist and anti-consumerist arguments that Barbarossa and Sandman sometimes put forward. I don't want to straw man either of them, but the argument sounds something like this, "Since women are responsible for 80% or more of consumer spending, it is environmentally irresponsible to marry or start families with them." Ultimately, it does boil down to money, but the MGTOW proponents echo the sentiment that the world will run out of food, water and petroleum unless the human population can be checked. This is neo-Malthusianism, and it is devastatingly inaccurate. If we really were in danger of running out of petroleum, the price would be going up, not down. This would signal to the market that another consumer fuel was required, and thus, the price of another fuel would go up and then stabilize until we could no longer source enough of it. Prices of oil have been relatively stable over time when you price it in gold. http://www.macrotrends.net/1380/gold-to-oil-ratio-historical-chart If you look at the chart, one ounce of gold bought 18.72 barrels of petrol in October 1947. In November 2014, one ounce bought 18.11 barrels. While this ratio has fluctuated over time, it does illustrate exactly how the lack of a gold standard for the American Dollar is damaging consumer spending power. In fiat dollars, we spend 3 to 4 times as much for gasoline than we did 15 years ago. Now we need to take a look at the national debt, which will soon pass 18 trillion, yet interest rates are at all time lows. http://www.usdebtclock.org/ If interest rates reflected the true scarcity of money, resources and time, people would be able to make more informed decisions about starting businesses and a family is the same as a business, economically speaking. It's not too difficult to see why men are fleeing from marriage like rats from a sinking ship. Children are an expensive proposition, and marriages even more so due to the feminine desire to spend instead of save. Men have done the mental calculus and determined that they don't want to be stuck paying all the bills when their wives divorce them during the upcoming global depression that mathematically has to occur.

Not yet. I've gradually listened through chapter seven of the audio book. It's not a very easy listen. It makes me wonder how close some of the parents in the linked videos were to killing and eating their own children, or how many of them have been raped and molested behind closed doors. A little over a year ago, my girlfriend and I were sitting her friend's six month old girl. I remember her marveling at how good the baby smelled and that she wanted to eat it. This book has totally altered that memory for me.

We finally succeeded in down voting him below the threshold, and everyone is quoting him in their replies now? Some of my thoughts regarding rape: 1) Parents often rape and sexually abuse the children that they claim to love. 2) Men and women sometime fantasize about being raped. See point 1 above. 3) Months after my girlfriend raped me, I confronted her about it, and she claimed to have persuaded me into having intercourse because she was feeling unloved and unwanted.

Read or listen to the free audio book of Origins of War in Child Abuse. There have been a couple of parts so far that almost made me vomit. It's in the free books section on this website. These videos are terrible, to be sure, but hearing about the naked history of cannibalism, infanticide, torture and sexual molestation of children brings the baser nature of humans into sharper focus.

In all seriousness, it's very irresponsible to upload video and pictures of your kids to the internet, especially against their will. Your children have a right to have a minimal digital presence when they become teens and adults.

You have a good point. However, self-defense in an ethically justified action whereas immigration (the movement of humans globally) has no moral content by itself. Does promoting or restricting immigration have any moral value? It only takes on an amoral meaning when it is regulated by a federal governmental authority because that authority trumps all other property right holders who live under it. I could see a restriction on immigration or emigration as a violation of property rights because the state in question presumes to own the whole geographic region in order to oversee it. In theory, if Obama had decreed all immigration and emigration is henceforth deregulated, that would be a moral act. However, we can safely assume at this point that freedom is never the unseen angle of the federal government. Government never willingly seeks to limit its power. On the other hand, on the local level, property owners should have a right to form communities as they see fit, which means allowing or excluding people entry based on specific criteria. Deregulated, small-scale immigration between communities would be heavily scrutinized in some cases. For example, not many people with any other options would want to live in a community such as Ferguson. They would seek to live in a community where rioters and looters don't burn down local businesses.

Why do you have to stay together? is it beneficial for both of you? You can also split up now, pursue self-knowledge and confront your family, and resume the relationship later. You live in different cities, so it doesn't make sense to stay together even if you were not needing to pursue self-knowledge. To be very honest, I don't think students should be pursuing long term relationships in high school or college with friends or sexual partners. I have taken a look back at all the people I dated and befriended in school. They were complete nut balls and I was one of them. Most of us were into recreational drugs or alcohol, more than a couple were rabid feminists, and I can't think of one of us who wasn't at least a little bit leftist. I've gradually cut off contact with all of those people over the years, but I never really knew why until listening to FDR. You should probably write down all the positives and negatives to staying together. When I first started donating to the show, I knew I needed self-knowledge, which ultimately led me to confront both of my parents in person about the child abuse I endured. Originally, I wanted my girlfriend of 15 months to be there to support me (she also had never met my parents), but she copped out at the last minute because her own parents picked the same week to drop in on her. Having to face my parents alone, I chickened out of having the discussions that I needed to have on that particular visit. When I suggested to my girlfriend that she confront her own parents while they were in town pestering her to get married, she refused to do so saying that she already had the necessary discussions with her parents while she was a teenager. It was a lie to get me off of her back. It was then very clear to me that she wasn't really serious about helping me or herself. Is your girlfriend really your supporter, or is she going to be a liability? You have to determine this fairly soon.

This is a really well researched video. I remember many of the family sitcoms from the 1980s, and not preferring to watch them. I almost never watched the Cosby show, or Family Ties. The one I watched regularly was Growing Pains. It has occurred to me that I preferred Growing Pains because the traditional roles of the parents were reversed, and the father worked out of the home. In the Cosby show, there was almost no yelling at the children, and no hitting. I picked up on that and contrasted it to my own family and deemed it unrealistic. In Growing Pains, the children were more dysfunctional and the parents were distant, assertive and authoritarian comparatively.

I don't understand what you are not understanding. Are you suggesting that precious metals don't have value? Why do cows and toilet paper have value? Also, I wouldn't rely solely on Bitcoins. Successfully exchanging BTC requires a functional internet. There is no guarantee that it will continue to do so, locally or globally. In extreme circumstances, the government could choose to order a cessation of internet traffic to prevent cyber terrorism. http://rt.com/usa/homeland-security-internet-kill-switch-742/ http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/02/03/internet.shut.down/

No, the worst case scenario is that governments steal money from productive technologies and bestow the reaped rewards on inefficient technologies. It fact, this is what is happening with the Green movement, which heavily subsidizes wind and solar, two of the most expensive and wasteful energy technologies ever conceived. Why does the government give money to farmers to grow more corn than we need so they can produce ethanol to put into gasoline, which damages your engine and produces no net energy? Using ethanol as a fuel costs more energy to produce than it yields in a combustion engine, so buying 10% ethanol gas is almost exactly like taking 10% of your income and setting fire to it to heat your house. This practice is so widespread that if you want to buy ethanol free gas, if you can get it at all, you have to drive out of your way to pay about $1 more per gallon to get rid of the ~10% ethanol additive.

Another animals rights appeal... with all the joy of a wall of text. How you define "rights" is not how most people define the word. Plenty of leftists claimed that ACA was necessary because health care is a right, never mind that it is inefficient and steals money from people. What some people define as "rights" come at the expense of others, namely the suckers expected to pay for those rights. Now that my father is 64, he's all about single payer subsidies to health care. This is the same man who voted for Ross Perot in the 1990s. People are motivated to use the political system to garner goodies for themselves at the expense of others. Explain to me how the lion acts with integrity when it eats a gazelle while it is still alive? At least humans strive to kill and cook their meat before they eat it.

Was I supposed to see the bikini clad woman, because she totally threw my count off.

No one has the control over the value of anything. Gold, silver, palladium, iridium, and Light Coins are simply worth what someone will pay or exchange for it. The only reason government-issued dollars have any real value is because it is unlawful to refuse to take them when doing business. Since everyone knows dollars are inherently worthless and you have to use them, practically no one trades gold as a form of currency. People are reluctant to cash in or spend the the things that have actual value, like gold. This is Gresham's Law in action.