J. D. Stembal

Opening the car window a bit so you can produce ID, registration, and proof of insurance doesn't provide the police with any incriminating evidence unless you're drunk or smoking pot. Barring that, you are not required to do anything else or answer any questions (4th and 5th Amendments). Most police, if they are suspicious of you (they pulled you over for a reason), will start to ask innocuous sounding questions after looking at your ID and registration (to see if they match with what showed up on their computer when they ran your license plate) like where you are going. At this point, you say "I'm not answering questions." I didn't intend to paint a traffic stop as a false dichotomy. You risk exposing yourself to consequences if you comply with the police. By saying nothing, you shut the options down to two. If you look squeaky clean, which you probably are, they have to let you go. Otherwise, they have to arrest you and process you with nothing to go on. This will be a nightmare of paperwork for them and you will walk. This is why I said to do nothing unless they draw down on you and command you to exit the vehicle and lay on the ground.

I hope I never have to draw down on anyone. I was told in a defense class that you won't know if you have the will to pull the trigger until the exact moment you are required to do so. Neither of the two retired cops teaching the class had to shoot another person before. Lefties like to paint firearm owners like wannabe bad asses, and not humans with a conscience. It takes a depraved individual to actually want to shoot a gun at someone.

There is something that always bothered me about this movie. It suggests that skinheads operate in a violent hate culture which outside of prison, and the members inevitably get sent to prison. I wonder if the reality is that when white people are convicted of violent crimes and get sent to prison, their only option to survive is to throw their hat into the ring with the white gang. This would make the rise of skinheads in prison a decision which lacks a moral choice. If I was ever imprisoned, I would hang myself on day one.

That's a lot of great information there. Three years ago, I culled my bathroom of nasty endocrine disruptors (using this webiste http://www.ewg.org/about-us), which amounted to a full size garbage bag. All I need for skin and hair care is coconut oil (plus unscented soap), which I use for cooking as well. Tea tree oil has been demonized in the mainstream media but I use tea tree toothpaste to brush. Since I don't eat very many carbohydrates, one five ounce tube lasts me six to eight months. I would like to point out that the USDA Organic label is a scam to increase the bureaucratic costs of industrial agriculture. You don't necessarily get any less pesticides and, in fact, you are probably getting more and deadlier pesticides on your food than you normally would. You should wash and rinse all fruit and vegetables no matter what. If it makes you feel better to spend more because of a government regulated label, feel free to continue your ignorance. All my food accessories are metal, glass or ceramic. i don't use any plastics with food or beverages. Link: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/ PS: I am shopping around for a heavy duty reverse osmosis water filtration system. Normally, I just use a Brita, but I want something that filters everything out. Does anyone have a recommendation?

Many Schrodinger's Cats died to bring us this information.

I don't remember ever believing in a deity. I may have believed in the existence of Santa Claus for a year or two, but I quickly became suspicious that he was a fake. A kid in school would say, "Santa's not real and I can prove it." All you have to do is find where your parents hid the presents, then on Christmas Day, see which ones are tagged "From Santa". You've caught your parents in a lie. As I reached middle school, my parents went to church less frequently. It was mostly a Easter/Christmas Mass twice a year pilgrimage, unless we also visited any of my parent's siblings who were all devout Christians. I remember sitting in the pew with my parents and thinking how ridiculous everyone was being for singing about Jesus. I did not sing along with them. Eventually, we stopped going to church entirely. Since then, I've only been in churches or temples for wedding ceremonies. I can't remember ever telling my parents that I don't believe in god, but the conversation also never came up. If I told them today that I was an atheist, it might not surprise them very much.

I can't get past the second paragraph. Your definitions are very unclear and contradictory. Can you outline and clarify them first? You will get more replies if you do. 1. (From the supporting violence thread) The initiation of force is universal. 2. (From the supporting violence thread) The morality of an action is judged by the net amount of happiness it causes. 3. Evil is a willingness to engage in selfish acts. 4. Evil is inherent in win-lose negotiations. (In the last thread, you claimed to simply aim to win and that violence rewards winners. You support violence because you want to win. In this thread you are claiming to be evil.) 5. Evil is necessary. 6. Good and evil are both subjective. 7. There is a correlation between lack of empathy and objectivity. Tell me which of those statements jive and which ones contradict. Fix the ones that contradict. I don't think Kevin Beal, Dsayers, WataschMan or myself have the energy or desire to do the heavy lifting for you. I'm not going to lie. This is going to take some work on your part. Thank you!

You can do what the LEO wants you to do and suffer the consequences. From my handful of run-ins with police, I know they love to go on fishing expeditions, even if you are squeaky clean. It's been a long while since I've had the honor of being pulled over, but I was always friendly and compliant with police. I've had my car searched twice while being detained for over about an hour each time, arrested once (not a traffic stop), and patted down a few times (not at TSA screenings, but by uniformed officers). I would have been better off not talking and sticking up for my rights, because the more I talked, the more questions I answered, the more likely I was to admit guilt to something criminal that I was not aware of being a problem. The criminal code is designed so that LEOs can haul you in on anything if they want. You will break a law, it's jut a matter of time until you are caught. Answering questions gets you in the position to be caught doing something illegal. LEOs will also lie to you to intimidate you or get you to admit things, as seen in the videos I linked. I've had cops lie to me several times, using it as an phony excuse to search me. You have to consent to a search when there is no probable cause, and no warrant. I was stupid and consented, wasting my time while the cops get paid. I would not do or answer anything a cop says to you unless it has the power of lethal force behind it. Then it's not a moral choice any more. It is in your best interest to decline to do anything unless you are ordered to do so.

It is irresistible to blame provocative or cruel behavior on mental illness. I recommend reading Anatomy of an Epidemic by Robert Whitaker since it concerns the evolution of psychological diagnosis and the rise of pharmaceuticals in the mental health industry. I bought a copy but I haven't cracked it open yet. Look at the mainstream media's response to mass shootings. If you aren't hearing the gun control agenda, you are likely hearing the Right Wing appeal to deteriorating mental health in society. While this may be true, what most people in the mainstream media seem to be ignoring is the fact that often the perpetrators of mass killings have a long history of being prescribed pharmaceuticals, such as selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors. I was prescribed two SSRIs at different times as a teen, Zoloft and Prozac. I am personally very pissed off about it because it meant that psychologists (and my parents) were more than happy to sweep my problems under the rug to increase drug sales.

Your guilt or non-guilt is of no importance here, so it's irrelevant what the cop thinks you are hiding. You are much more likely to get shafted if you do the cop's bidding than sticking up for your rights. I didn't say that you should not be polite or pleasant, but not answering questions is the best strategy for staying out of hot water. Don't do anything you are asked unless ordered to at gun point. I would also keep a recording device on you or in your car to get the evidence if anything crazy goes down.

It is far more likely that the father reconstructed an imaginary fairy tale past for his own family out of shame. My own father did this when I confronted him with my anger about being beaten by him and witnessing him assault and hospitalize my mother when I was six. My mother does not recall this incident and denied it ever happened when I asked her how she felt about it. There is proof of the incident somewhere in the hospital records, if it were possible for me to dig them up. It is not important for me to prove it, because I know it really happened. I can vividly recall the image of my mother's blood in the bathroom, and my father lying to me that she slipped and fell. My father admitted that he hit her, and that's the important part. When my father could see that I was overcome with emotion about the abuse, he attempted to accuse me of only remembering the bad parts of my childhood which all families have. Why couldn't I remember the good times and be happy? This false memory scandal is essentially a get out of jail free card for all abusive parents. Any child who unplugs from the family matrix and starts asking the wrong questions gets dismissed as being brainwashed or crazy. If this sexual predator in the linked article would only admit to abusing his daughter, he would probably feel much better about himself, scum though he is.

You can't form a subjective opinion? I thought this was the basis for ethics. Do you not like taking ethical stands? To answer your questions: 30 million people died in the largest genocidal period known to modern history. It doesn't matter if they were guilty or not. (What kind of guilt warrants being slaughtered?) I don't know, ask a Chinese person about it. I'm sure you can find a relative of someone who died in the Cultural Revolution. If you don't have enough information about communist China to formulate an opinion, why don't we use the Holocaust as an example? (12 million killed in the name of happiness through social purification.) I apologize for engaging in troll feeding, but I couldn't resist. I'm fascinated at what he's going to write next. I want to encourage him to call into the show with this theory of utilitarianism through ethical genocide, which seemingly comes out of modern feminism. (#KillAllMen)

While this all may be true, it is largely difficult to establish as fact without empirical evidence. We can look at modern H-G tribes to get a feel for tribal hierarchies and social behaviors. I don't think there was any war in the modern sense because there was no agriculture or political infrastructure in existence. As we see from modern war, there is no overall economic benefit to war unless you invade and take over the tax livestock of another nation. This is not to say that there was no aggression or conflicts arising between individuals or tribes, say when two tribes end up hunting the same buffalo for some strange reason, or you look at someone's mate the wrong way. This is not the same as the modern concept of war, which is entirely funded by magic money that doesn't exist. You've already recognized the important factor that there was no state. Understand that a state is not possible without moving to agriculture first. All of the earliest civilizations grew out of fertile land. 1. Egypt around the Nile River, 2. Mesopotamia between the Tigris and the Euphrates. 3. The Yellow River in modern day China. The second most important consideration stems from the first. There was no formal system of money. Trade was based largely on barter if it happened at all. Trading tools for weapons, for example. The nomadic nature of H-G societies dictate that personal property was kept at a minimum. The tribe follows the food. Economic effort, if you could call it that, was solely focused on raising children, teaching them the various jobs necessary for survival, and continuing the culture of the tribe. The third most important consideration of tribal societies is that child birth and early development were very tenuous prospects. I forget where I read these numbers (it was either Sex at Dawn or The Chemistry Between Us), but women died during child birth around 20% of the time while up to 30% of children never survived to the age of 5. When the mother and child did survive, constant breast feeding allowed most mothers to delay having more children. Continuous lactation prevents ovulation and is the most basic form of birth control. However, if another child is conceived, and it cannot be fed or carried by another women, it gets left behind to be eaten by scavengers. Thus, infanticide was a necessary and common practice. As a side benefit, it is often cited that children in H-G societies enjoyed an adult to child ratio of 4:1, meaning that those children that did survive to childhood were well cared for and well educated by the tribe. Imagine if everyone everyone born today had four loving family members staying home with them. It's not only mathematically impossible, but philosophically impossible as dictated by our modern fascist government. There can be no debt if everyone invests their time and money into raising children. In fact, it is the modern surplus of children that the government sorely requires to continue printing money. Debt is created based on the future tax slavery of unborn children. We need to argue that anarchy is the free state of man, and therefore, voluntary associations are the only legitimate form of governance. Appealing to anarcho-primitivism is shrouded in too much myth to be of any benefit to arguing for anarchy. Considering the three most important differences between modern society and primitive tribal society, you can clearly see that the modern state is impossible to have without agriculture, currency, and debt creation. Therefore, primitive tribal culture does not make a convincing argument against the state in and of itself. We should be operating from first principles and non-aggression when we argue for anarchy or voluntarism.

True or false: the Cultural Revolution was a blessed event where 30 million people lost their lives for the happiness of others.

You know they're only going to keep the alpha males around for labor intensive purposes (or possibly forced breeding). They won't allow these remaining men to have fulfilling sex lives if that is what she's attempting to sell to us. It will most likely be a slave/rape farm. A zoo for the male human species. I wanted to revive this thread to provide another insight. Here's a quote from the last feminist I dated. Notice the man shaming tactic in the last sentence? Feminists attack men. Men defend themselves. Feminists dole out excuses for other feminists while trying to blame the male outrage on the men. The phrase "clearly insane" doesn't give feminists any moral responsibility as crazy people are not considered to be legally accountable for their actions, which is why when there are feminist bomb threats at MRA conventions, the police don't investigate it. (Apparently, feminist bloggers are calling it a hoax: http://mancheeze.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/paul-elams-sham-scam-there-have-been-no-feminist-threats-regarding-mra-conference/) This is how you spot a feminist apologist, gentlemen.

I am sad and confused. Do you realize that this person was never your friend? The realization that you should be taking from this experience is to be careful who you consider a friend. When you were telling this man about your childhood, did you crack jokes or laugh while doing it? Because, that is a form of passive-aggressive bullying.

This is why the United States will have to default on its debt, and the dollar will ultimately be revalued. When the Fed starts jacking up rates, one of the worst economic downturns will start to snowball out of control. They will then change course to hyper-inflate the currency, and we will all be holding Zimbabwe-like million or billion dollar bills, trying to by food with it.

If you win, and someone else loses, this violence cannot be universalized. It's a contradiction.

Since you would oppose someone eating you who wanted to eat you, then you don't support the initiation of violence being universal. If you were arguing that the initiation of violence is universal, then you would willingly allow bears to eat you.

Addendum to my other post: Also, you presented the video in such a way that you presupposed that people may not like it. "Don't get all worked up" is a passive aggressive command. It's as if you are telling us that if we don't find it funny, it's our problem. The claim that it was your intent to share laughter isn't an honest one.

I find it amusing that you posted someone else's video, and then got defensive when third parties didn't find the video to be all that funny. Why would you feel attacked when it's not your creation? Even if it was, you should be able to take constructive criticism with an air of graciousness. If it's not funny, then it's not the end of the world. For the record, I chuckled at the video a few times.

Are you against the human consumption of other animals? Would you be opposed if someone else decided to eat or rape you in order to increase their reproductive prospects?

Parents divorced at seven, daughter displays eating disorder and cutting as a teenager, but he must have been a loving father and those repressed memories of sexual abuse must have been implanted. Give me a break... Relevant article about the Castlewood lawsuits: http://phtherapies.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/update-on-castlewood-treatment-center-lawsuit-other-ex-patients-come-forward/ From the comments section: "Mark Schwartz DESTROYED my family. I am CERTAIN that a thorough investigation will result in his ultimate downfall." It seems Castlewood and Schwarz have been pissing a lot of parents off. I think that might mean that IFS is working as intended.

As I experienced it, you were expressing a honest disappointment in the quality of the show and enthusiasm of the hosts. I may have bailed from the chat before the discussion was over and missed later comments, but I don't think you need to apologize for expressing a heartfelt feeling. Perhaps you aren't the only person feeling this way? Remember, if enough people start diminishing donations, it will send a strong market signal to the host of FDR to formulate a new strategy. If your disappointment stems from another source, and you realized it after some reflection, thank you for the apology.

Magnus, you touch upon an important point. My father and I were practically strangers for most of my childhood. He nearly worked himself to death and had a heart attack at 47. Did my mother ever take time off her career to stay home with me? Not at all.