J. D. Stembal

In your opinion, how is fishing cruel? Also, I serious doubt lab grown fish could be cheaper than the real deal. How would this be the case?

How is it managed currently and how is that working out?

I forget where I heard this tidbit. It was probably one of the various MGTOW video on YouTube. You will more well received by women if you are doing an activity in the photograph. Women tend to be simply working the camera in theirs, trying to get the best lighting and angles and such. Also, showing off your body, like taking a picture of your ripped chest and shoulders is seen as male faux pas. This goes back to the Estrogen Based Parasites show, I believe, where Stefan argued that when women fantasize about men, they almost never picture them naked. They tend to picture men wearing uniforms of expensive clothes because these denote status. You can prove this by wearing dumpy looking clothes (t-shirt, jeans) to a public place where a lot of women congregate. Starbucks in a good example. Sit at a table and watch all the women as they come in. One in fifty of them might look at you for more than a split second. Most won't look at you at all. Do the same thing in designer clothes and you get a lot more eyeballs, smiles and hellos. I'm convinced that most women are programmed to look at the utility and status of a man before they see the person behind it. This is why in every city there is an underground army of homeless men, and no one seems to notice them. It's like they are invisible.

No one parks their car in a shady neighborhood with all the doors unlocked and the windows rolled down. For some reason, it's sexist to suggest that a woman use common sense with her feminine property. Was the class enrolling women only, or was the class mixed? How many women showed up on average? In my experience, most women are not interested in owning or carrying firearms, taking martial arts, or self-defense classes. What they want is a man who will be their ethical self-defense proxy, essentially an unpaid bodyguard.

She was one of those pesky agnostics, 95% certain that there is no deity, but only 5% certain she could live her life as an atheist without her friends and family alienating her. I explained to her that she was being a hypocrite by wanting to expose her children to the insanity of religion as a way to make them more well rounded people and that I would never have children with a women who doesn't embrace atheism. She then showed her true colors to me, insulting me, and calling me a crazy cultist. She even called into the show later in the month to tell Stefan that she was not "gung ho" about his philosophy, cloaking the implied accusation in a question about finding a good man. It would have been more honest for her to call in and tell him he's a cult leader because that was what she had been telling me, all of her friends, and my friends behind by back for a while.

Seconding. As soon as I hear the first advertisement, my donation will cease. The listeners should be driving the direction of the show. However, I appreciate book recommendations and the like. I seriously doubt there are any book sales kickbacks, but I could be mistaken.

I am a tea junkie myself and I brew kombucha as an alternative sugary "soft drink". There really isn't a lot of sugar in it, probably less than 20 grams per half liter bottle. I like it tart. Coffee rips up my intestines and gives me the runs so unfortunately I can't drink it very often. I brew a couple cups every few weeks. I am not surprised that there would be a lot of flouride in tea. Most people, including myself, brew it with unfiltered water. I had no idea that there is flouride in the plant itself. http://fluoridealert.org/issues/sources/tea/ Now I'm trying to figure out how to get the flouride out of my tea post-brew. I already ordered the RO-90 form APEC to filter my tap water. Pricey, but the filters last at least a year before you have to replace them. http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/ro-90-detail.htm

What is the definition of the word, balanced? You don't eat any meat or animal products. How can that possibly be called balanced? You are certainly deficient in saturated fats or do you eat at least one coconut every day? The closest correlation between biomarkers and heart disease is with triglycerides and high density lipoproteins. The latter is an inverse relationship, so you want a higher number for HDL. What raises your triglycerides levels? Consuming alcohols and sugars. What raises your HDL? Not consuming alcohols and sugars, and consuming more calories from protein and fat.

I had a disagreement with my ex about teaching our children about religion just before we split. (We have no actual children. The discussion was pre-emptive.) She had the objection that my atheistic outlook was "too dogmatic and close minded" to present to our children. Apparently, it was even more dogmatic than her parents raising her Catholic, which she claims harmed her self-esteem and sexuality. I retorted that teaching logic and truth cannot be close minded or dogmatic. Just because god isn't real and religion is a sham doesn't mean you can't discuss it with your kids. Your child will eventually run into the concept of god and be curious and ask you questions. There is nothing close minded about being open and honest, nor does it violate the NAP.

I appreciate your attitude on parenting. Letting your children manage for themselves is incredibly empowering for them. I also agree that we should be educating them on how the food industry is perpetually barraging everyone, and not just children, with images of unhealthy processed food. It's great that you are having these discussions with them while to behaving like the usual dictator parent. Both of my parents can't control themselves around sweets or alcohol. Both bad habits rubbed off on me. I can't keep alcohol or candy around the house because eventually I would lose it and eat or drink it all.

My anger was very much focused on the people in the videos and not at Nathan. It's not as if he was pulling a "LifeGoesOnBrah" and saying something like, "These parents ace doing the best they could with the knowledge they had." I don't think he was trying to intentionally inflame anyone, but regardless, since we all had overwhelmingly negative responses to the video, we should probably try to hash it out. In his second post, Nathan said: "This shit won't change without getting angry first. That anger needs to be directed at the right target, though." We should probably decide where is the best place to direct our anger. I've got a couple questions. 1) Why are there so many people content to whip out their phone and record the abuse, but very few who actually attempt to interfere? 2) If parents know that everyone can record anyone at any point in time, why do they raise their children in this abusive manner? They have to know it's going to come to light at some point. Kids are smart. If I wanted to get an abusive parent in trouble, I would instigate their rage in public where they are likely to be stopped, confronted, or recorded. All the video are awful, but it was the video of the mom swatting her infant child in the car seat that really freaked me out. I can't watch it a second time.

I just thought of a new word. Femifascist.

Soon you will not have to see his posts. Ken, what would the value be in writing a book about logic and philosophy if most people already had the ability to use them?

Animals and plants don't have property rights. Only humans do. The theoretical gardener with the hoe isn't actually a Bengal Tiger is he? Then no one will care you killed him for a gardening tool. I could go out and shoot a moose this weekend, and no one will care unless I neglected to pay the state licence first for $251. Well, technically, it's past season to hunt anything right now, too. The point is that no one with any moral or legal authority cares about the killing of a moose, as long as they are financially compensated for it. The state is basically claiming ownership over all wildlife within its borders as if they were renewable assets or resources. This is how the state views its citizens as well. We are tax livestock; assets to borrow against. That, however, is a serious moral issue (stealing from people) whereas killing an animal is not.

Why do you find masculinism unnecessary? Are men's claims of abuse not legitimate? I also fail to understand how men speaking out against the abuse they have endured as children as well as teenagers and adults is an admission of weakness. In the face of all the disrespect, heckling and insults, speaking out about abuse is one of the most empathetic and bravest actions for a man. I don't think you understand what it is to be a man.

It's pretty obvious that this stern bathroom talk is a farce. The father's heart is not in it, hence the laughter. His wife put him up to it. Men are the proxy enforcers in the home (and the rest of the world) for women.

Let your fingers do the walking, Number Six. You can buy a bitcoin ATM from here: https://bitcoinatm.com/ Map of bitcoin (and Litecoin) merchants: http://coinmap.org/

It's not just deconstructing ephemeral concepts like partriarchy, oppression, intersectionalism (wtf does this word mean), and feminism. It goes much deeper than that. I honestly believe that women, by and large, don't like or respect men. We are simply tools for them little better than robots. There is no empathy or curiosity. No horror when you really start to understand how much men suffer at the hands of women, and in the name of women. In this scenario, I stumbled upon an article talking about how MRM bloggers have their underwear all bunched up over this WAM! group which is pursuing action in concert with Twitter to ban offensive channels and users, which is essentially censorship. I dare to bring up legitimate male concerns in the comments section, which is why we can't have nonsense like censorship leveled against us, and the response is, "Why are you here? This is a reproductive justice forum." Doesn't genital mutilation count? "This is a forum where women talk about women's issues. You are just here to derail the conversation with irrelevant man talk." I must have missed the Women's Only sign on the home page. Why don't I have a right to be here?

This scenario doesn't generate any profit in the long run due to the inevitable reprisals that will be leveled against you. It also doesn't guarantee any profits in the short run. You cannot assume that the guy with a hoe won't trade his hoe for a sword in response to your imminent attack, or he may hire a mercenary with his remaining $5 to defend against your attack. He could do both and then you are in trouble. If you agree to trade instead, you both save $5 without having to risk dying or taking the trouble to kill the other, a violation of the ethical principles of non-aggression. The $10 value (hoe plus $5) you were expecting to gross through conquest shifted to the inherent costs of war. You quickly find yourself in a position to be lucky to stalemate and return home with your life. Thus, in this way, violence ends up costing more than peacefully trading for the goods you need.

The Gold and Silver promoters like to say that they dollar could be revalued overnight. People could wake up overnight and $1000 old US dollars equals $1 new dollar. I don't know if this is a realistic estimation of future events, but how else will we shake the enormous debt and pay all the unfunded liabilities. It's not possible. The Federal Reserve will have to raise interest rates through the roof, which will send the world tumbling to the largest economic depression in modern history, or we default and revalue the dollar and Americans become dirt poor overnight. Which one do you think they'll pick? I'd wager on option two.

How is planetary genocide profitable? If you are suggesting that peaceful programs such as the moon landing are unprofitable, why fund them? How does using science and technology for war make the research any more profitable? Take the Manhattan Project, for example. It cost $30 billion in 2012 dollars. http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/05/17/the-price-of-the-manhattan-project/ At least 220,000 Japanese died in the nuclear blasts, and subsequent fallout. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Bombing_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki I don't think anyone has an estimated calculation of the costs the blasts incurred in property damage. It's frustrating that there are so many nuclear apologists on the web that attempt to calculate how many total lives the two bombs saved, presuming the war would continue indefinitely without an invasion of the main islands. This is entirely false. Japan was falling apart and morale was terrible. Japan surrendered with the condition that the Emperor stay in political power, but the US refused the terns. They had already spent $2 billion on four prototype bombs. They had to have a live test detonation on civilians to show off to the Russian who were also looking to enter the war against Japan. Do the benefits of offensive nuclear technology outweigh the costs? How does nuking the entire surface of a planet as an invading alien species make any profit sense whatsoever?

Very true. You have to be comfortable carrying the firearm so that you do it every day. I have to admit that sometimes I just don't want to put on the holster. Belt, custom IWB holster, and loaded piece comes in just under three pounds. The grip sits tucked behind my right kidney. I can push it up towards the hip but it sometimes prints. I replaced the grips with wood so it doesn't snag my shirt while concealed. It's a doubt in my mind rather than lack of comfort. I need more range time and rounds through it to feel right about carrying it. I wouldn't ever draw it unless I knew for certain I could hit what I needed to hit. The reason I brought up the halo effect is because Ken is making an argument that violent societies are better able to protect themselves. I think the opposite is true. Societies that are allowed to protect themselves are to less violence. Burglars don't break into houses when there's a chance people are home with a loaded weapon.

That's a funny scenario, but it doesn't accurately examine the point of non-aggression. A person who is against property rights would assume that someone asks for money because they have a legitimate need for it. The person with the wallet full of money could very well decide that the beggar needs the money more than she does. This doesn't violate any principles of non-aggression as it is completely voluntary. However, people who argue against property rights usually condemn the wealthy as selfish because wealth is a zero sum game. The person you are debating with would simply deflect your request by claiming that you have no legitimate need for their money. You need to examine how they view their own property rights in the face of the threat of aggression. Do they leave their car unlocked with the keys in the ignition so that someone who needs a set of wheels can freely borrow it? Of course not. They believe in their own property rights, just not any one else's. It would be more simple to say that because they have the capability to make an argument, they are contradicting their own argument, but no one actually understands how body property rights extend into the world around them. Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations is a book everyone should read. I still need to get a copy of it. I've only read excerpts off of the internet.

I'm not sure what the real purpose of this legislation will be. Bank deposits haven't been guaranteed since fractional reserve banking became the norm. What happens when every customer shows up at the bank to take out their money? Bankruptcy. FDIC is a pyramid scheme to guarantee that banks pursue high risk loans, assets and investments to increase profits with no downside and lower their accountability to the customers. It as if the person who was quoted at Zerohedge has no idea how banks work. How could a modern day bank fail when the Federal government has them all propped up with legislation and bailouts? Perhaps there's something buried in the language which says, "Next time there won't be a bail out." I expect another housing crash is nearing.

I love how leftists fall into this trope that armed societies are necessarily more violent by the virtue of being more well armed. Apparently, they've never heard the expression, "An armed society is a polite society." If everyone carried a firearm, the most belligerent of us would be very reluctant to initiate violence for fear of being gunned down in self-defense. This society would be peaceful due to the halo effect of gun ownership. Which flavor LCR do you carry? I thought about pairing a .357 ankle holstered with my GP100 but it does not look like it would be comfortable to fire unless loaded with .38 Spl. It is less than half the mass of my GP100 with a 3" barrel. I need to find someone that has one so they can let me try it out with some self-defense magnum rounds. I've used a Springfield XD-9 before but the sights were way off out of the box. Not one of us could hit the target with it. I'm not too thrilled with polymer guns or trigger/grip safeties.