J. D. Stembal

I don't think anyone in this thread is using language as a form of manipulation. I recognize the progression of development. Egg (plus sperm) Zygote Blastocyst Embryo Fetus Infant Child Adult I'm sure you can add more subdivisions to this progression but it is reasonable to conclude that every adult human - indeed, every adult animal that reproduces sexually - follows a similar model for development. I wouldn't argue that a fetus is a person, but it has the capability to become a person after it is born. Some hunter-gatherer cultures didn't consider you to be a person until you survived early childhood, since infant mortality was still extremely high. Who has the emotional capacity to have a funeral ceremony for every dead baby when there were so many? We've only conquered infant mortality in the last hundred years or so. Relatively recent medical advances have quite a lot of bearing on how casually we can now speak of terminating unwanted genetic abnormalities in the womb, which is essentially eugenics. Dawkins might have well have tweeted, "We've got too many babies being born, so let's start getting picky about their genes. Abort it and try again!"

If anything, the Galt's Gulch debacle proves anarcho-capitalism works. You have to break a lot of eggs to make an omelette, and terrible real estate endeavors should be allowed to fail. A majority of people are sacrificed as investment "losers", so that there can be a minority of investors that do their research and succeed. Not everyone can succeed with every investment or endeavor. It's just not possible. If people are striving for something as powerful and enigmatic as a libertarian utopia, how are they going to get it right on the first try? It's telling that this land they were selling was protected, meaning regulated by the Chilean government. "If you believe you don't need any government, you're gonna get robbed. That's why we set up government in the first place - so we don't all get murdered, raped, and robbed." - Cenk Uygur, The Young Turks

Well, specifically, in the video I linked, it is stated that Cloud4Cancer could be developed for use in diagnosing "many, or all forms of cancer" but for an unspecified reason, it is only focusing on breast cancer for now. That, and the inspirtional hash tag, irks me. It's as if the whole point of the story is to casually regard the health and well-being of men as an afterthought. Perhaps I am biased, because I am a man. Also, I understand that breast cancer is very prevalent in women (but did you know men can get breast cancer?), and causes many deaths due to misdiagnosis, but the fact still remains that, overall, men die at a higher rate from cancer than women.

Social scientists love to look at primitive hunter-gatherers and other backwater societies so they can take an intellectual dump on free-market capitalism. For example, many tribal societies share food after the hunt and modern academics tend to see this as evidence against universal property rights. I recall having a conversation with a statist about the NAP, and she brought up the tribal food sharing problem with regard to property rights. Having learned about universally preferable behavior, I asked her, if she was really into food sharing, would she have a problem with anyone in her neighborhood (the tribe) coming into her kitchen and taking food when she wasn't home? She replied that she would because that was stealing, and not voluntary on her part. How can you have theft when you are arguing against property rights? What an amazing logical disconnect! Your teacher isn't necessarily a socialist, but I would be highly skeptical of any of her conclusions that appear to attack the free market. The video you linked is the very picture of voluntarism to me. I wouldn't call it anarchy, but it's pretty damn close to it. Little to no government Prevalent trade and barter A new custom credit currency

You and your spouse can get screened before conception. Jews do it all the time. Waiting until gestation to test for genetic abnormalities is like waiting to fall to the treeline before pulling the ripcord on your parachute. (Edit: My bad! Apparently, genetic screening for Down's Syndrome can only be done after conception. http://umm.edu/health/medical/pregnancy/before-you-get-pregnant/genetic-counseling) I know some people love to make appeals to emotion when it comes to abortion, in particular. Think of the children! However, Down's Syndrome is not lethal, nor is it painful, as far as I'm aware. People with this condition live fulfilling lives, albeit, differently than most. What Dawkins is suggesting is eugenics. A woman's right to personal property first applies to her body, and anything in it. However, rephrase his assertion as, "Is your baby XY on the 23rd chromosome? Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring another man into the world if you have the choice." I've sure a feminist has already beat us to the tweet. Considering how much disease we inflict voluntarily on ourselves (metabolic disorders and such), squabbling over the genetics of a small percentage of unborn children completely misses the point. http://news.sciencemag.org/2011/04/preventable-chronic-diseases-are-now-worlds-biggest-killers According to the above article, in 2008, 63% of world deaths were from preventable diseases, like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Why are we bothering to tweet about a non-fatal genetic disorder that affects one in seven-hundred babies?

I endorse this product or service. I've wanted to do this since watching Rising Sun. Hopefully, it comes to the US sooner rather than later.

Feminists, once again, claim a social grievance where men also have significant issues. http://www.aol.com/article/2014/02/24/loveyourselfie/20836450/

These responses are truly sad. People are screaming out loud about how helpless they are to assert their own preferences by praising their abusers. In my mind, this is more empirical evidence that I made the right decision to leave Facebook behind. Why would you want this type of despair in your mind on a daily basis? Looking at the responses, I am curious if we will ever see a National Spank a Child Day. Here is a disturbing article from this summer: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/383414/victory-parents-great-spanking-war-christine-sisto

If I am not authorized to make a contract on my behalf, how can any EULA that I click ever apply to me? How can I be forced to pay back a student loan?

I wish that the author would just admit that anarchy is scary and therefore he needs government to save him instead of inviting me to read 22 pages of savage straw man assault. On the very first page: Is he talking about ancaps? Which ones don't believe in the morality of the non-aggression principle? How could you then call them ancaps?

Did your parents ever ask your opinion on the rules of the family or the home? Did you have to sign off on the rules that the family wished to follow? Did you ever hear the words, "Do as I say, not as I do"? Were the rules ever applied equitably or universally? This is why we have the state and the mandatory social contract.

I ended up watching the movie a few times. Here are some of my thoughts about the movie, with some spoilers: The moral of the story has less to do with beating your meat to professional vixens and more to do with realistically looking at the values of the family, the church, and the people with whom you hang. The message of the movie would have been more powerful if they had delved more deeply into the hypocrisy of the church and his friends. Overall, the movie succeeds as a morality play, but it's not about pornography. The porno addiction is just incidental to Jon's life. The movie is actually about his family.

Teenage girls sucking older men's dicks so they can afford higher education. Can we call this philanthropy instead? Why use such an emotionally charged term as prostitution?

Math is only precise when it is correct or valid. The math behind a physics proof can be proven to be just as incorrect as the logic behind any universal ethics proposal. What of it? How do boundary conditions benefit ethics? More importantly, what are they in relation to ethics other than lifeboat scenarios? Why can't we demonstrate universal ethics with any reasonable certainty? What does math have to do with being certain about ethics?

Please elaborate on the text I added emphasis to in your quote. It most definitely is demonstrable. Why not to the level of physics? How have you found it not to be demonstrable? Have you attempted to demonstrate it? Since you continue to discuss physics at length without any reference to philosophy, logic, or universal ethics - other than to point out that it is insufficiently demonstrable compared to science - why did you not post this in the Science and Technology sub forum? I still don't understand what you intend to accomplish by imposing boundary conditions on universal ethics. It shouldn't have boundaries, or lifeboat scenarios. It's universal, meaning it's valid no matter where you are in the universe.

I feel more Illinoisan than American, having been born in Illinois to American parents. I am unsure how either statement has any real meaning. Can you please clarify what you mean? I must dissent from your blanket statement and point out the option of not voting at all.

I would turn it around like Stefan does in Against the Gods. Theists are mostly atheist since they typically only believe in one of the many thousands of gods worshiped in human history. Suck it up and lose the last god, so you can be free! Unfortunately, a lot of atheists have turned that last god into the State, which is just the latest incarnation of the Divine Right of Kings to rule over us.

I've never seen the watchmaker analogy before but I instantly dislike it. Obviously, it cannot apply universally. Is a rock complex (compared to a watch)? No. Can a human make a rock? No.

J-William, I must pose the option of leaving Facebook to you. If you've already taken time to de-FOO from your father (and possibly mother), why leave yourself open to being pulled back into the family drama? This is the second thread I've seen in the FDR forums about confronting pro-spanking comments on social media. I will continue to ask FDR members to analyze the benefits of social media in their lives. Honestly, why do we need it or want it?

I am so proud of you. I made the decision to go completely sober in May. Alcohol was the biggest problem for me, although I've nursed occasional habits of cocaine, marijuana, and various common club drugs. The biggest challenge that you'll probably encounter is that no one in your circle of friends will support your sobriety because, most likely, they also have substance abuse problems. I had one friend - who, incidentally, doesn't speak to me now - tell me that I wasn't an alcoholic when I told him I stopped drinking. A couple weeks later, he invited me to go camping which turned out to be a thirty person weekend binge drinking festival in the woods. The two sober people there were me and his teenage son. Aside from a few positive interactions with people, I had a completely awful time dealing with his boorish friends, some of which were openly hostile to me. I think this had to do with me openly giving up alcohol and admitting to alcoholism. I knew that I didn't like some of these people but I wasn't told beforehand that they would be there. I had the false impression that because his teenage son was in town, it would be a relaxing affair. Wow, did he prove me wrong. I've looked back on all the people with which I've spent a lot of time and found myself almost completely surrounded by alcoholics. Groups like NA and AA are helpful since everyone there is committed to staying sober, and you can make new friends, but I was personally turned off by the religion that they conveniently peddle with the twelve step process and the meetings. Perhaps you can find a group that are atheist if all the god talk bothers you.

Can I have those three minutes back?

No, feminists completely understand the above term as it relates to walking home alone at night in a high-crime section of the city, where a man may use his superior aggression and strength to mug, rape, kidnap, or murder a physically inferior woman.

Denmark's obesity rate is a full 23 points lower than the United States, so we can suppose that the extra $.56 in the picture meme equates to vastly lower per capita sales of Big Macs in Denmark, which means fewer fast food workers adjusting for population. I was looking at the OECD Better Life Index study to fetch the numbers: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/denmark/ I have to ask. What does McDonald's call a Quarter Pounder with Cheese in Denmark?

The Thinking - Feeling component of the Myers-Briggs personality test is often used to illustrate the above. Everyone scores differently on the scale, but the tendency is to conclude that women are mostly feelers. When I purchased a handgun, I showed it to my ex-girlfriend's room mate. She curiously watched me field strip the firearm to polish contact points, and commented that she didn't think the weapon looked very frightening since she was seeing it in a clinical situation, unloaded and stripped down to its component parts. Previous to that point, she had been leaning to the pro-control side of the political argument. I believe wholeheartedly that women can contemplate issues rationally, given the chance, and so can men navigate issues using emotions to guide them, if they are allowed.

If I heard and understand Wuzz correctly, he believes that I don't have a right to feel slighted by this feminist colored story because I could do the same research, but focus solely on testicular cancer, never mind the media backlash I would receive for gender bias or discrimination.