J. D. Stembal

Even in today's statist world, I am allowed to use deadly force to protect another human life, even if they are a stranger to me. I am well within my right to shoot (and kill) someone who is assaulting a victim whose life or well-being is in jeopardy. I am not obligated to help, but I may choose to do so if I am able. In actual practice, I would only use deadly force to protect myself, a family member, or a friend because who wants to have to pay for a lawyer due to protecting a perfect stranger?

Are you arguing that kissing your boss's ass at work is not voluntary? Indeed, it is voluntary. You are perfectly free to let someone else do it or flatly refuse to fetch him his coffee. Honestly, who treats people like a glorified barista in an office building these days? That's why we have the Starbuck's business model. We have all been shit on at work before, and it's nothing unusual. You bitch, get fed up, quit, or get fired and move on. If you are not willing to do this, you could end up like this old friend of mine who has worked for the same family owned company for 11 years, forever getting passed up for raises. His goal is to get the owner thrown in jail, and has tried to report him for tax evasion (failed), labor union violations (succeeded), and is now hoping to have a "goodfella" intimidate him gangland style. Yeah, good luck with that one.

The city of Denver allows up to eight hens (no roosters) or ducks, and two pygmy goats in the backyard only. You have to pay a permit fee and ask permission of your immediate neighbors before building a chicken coop, but I think most people just pay the fee and assume the neighbors won't care. If you have a dick for a neighbor they can probably get the city to take your chickens away if they protest loud enough. Hens, ducks and goats can be loud at times, but you get used to the sound. http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/chickens-ducks-goats-now-welcome-in-denver

Thanks for the recommendation. Based on the trailer I saw, it deemed a definite pass. If it addresses self-knowledge at all, I am all for watching it.

Asexual reproduction isn't 100% accurate unless you ignore genetic mutations. The theory that sperm are less valuable than eggs, at least in homo sapiens (and their genetic cousin, the bonobo), comes from the concept of sperm competition. At the dawn of man, we had no concept of microscopes or genetics. We liked having sex a lot, so promiscuity was the norm. Sex reinforces the social connections among family and tribes, and is the way we traditionally formed friendly alliances with others, which eventually evolved into the marriage contract as a way of keeping the peace and brokering important business deals. Going back to the idea of sperm competition, multiple males will take turns having sexual intercourse when the female is close to ovulation and presenting signs of arousal. Then, at the microscopic level, our boys jockey for position and avoid obstacles left by other men to be the first to get to the egg in order to fertilize it. Humans and the bonobo have the largest specimens of penis in the Primate Family due to this system of sperm competition. Larger penises (and accompanying testes) can deposit more sperm closer to the egg and the shape of the glans of the penis is designed to scoop out previous sperm deposits made before the sexual encounter. The bottom line? Size matters, at least in terms of sperm competition. The institutions of marriage and religion were designed to subvert our natural inclinations for promiscuous sexuality, and to control them. I recommend two good books on human sexuality and evolutionary psychology. Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha & The Chemistry Between Us by Larry Young and Brian Alexander http://www.sexatdawn.com/ http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13588415-the-chemistry-between-us

I cried when my cat was euthanized a few years back, but I take comfort in the personal knowledge that I can choose the same for myself if I ever fall prey to a terminal illness. It doesn't make any sense to prolong suffering when it is avoidable. I was at a dinner party several weeks back and the topic of the "Rainbow Bridge" came up. I had never heard of it before so I asked for an explanation. It turns out that this is the bridge all your dead pet's souls inhabit while they are waiting for you to die and join them in the Kingdom of Heaven. I laughed and blurted out, "That's the most ridiculous claim I've ever heard!" Everyone was stunned into silence and one girl chastised me for "being a jerk" since the host's girlfriend had recently lost a dog. A lot of people made excuses and then left the party. It feels good to be the voice of reason in a world filled with delusion. As for consciousness, Hobbes discusses it in his lengthy philosophic treatise, Leviathan. Here is a link to some excerpts, relating to consciousness: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-17th/ Wthout working senses, and no material world with which to interact, we cannot be said to have consciousness after death. Why the hell would we want to live after leaving our bodies behind?

Yolo invoked Godwin on us. Qwerty is defiantly stating that healthy skepticism towards governmental dietary anti-meat and anti-fat dogma is just flat out wrong without even trying to prove that assertion, like using basic knowledge of human physiology as a frame of reference. Vegans and vegetarians always fall back to the aesthetic argument "Killing animals is just wrong!" (it's not supported by UPB) when they don't have any other arguments left. I don't see the thread improving at all from here, so let's change the topic. Is human cannibalism supported by UPB and NAP?

This is why I'm more enthused about hedging against inflation with precious metals rather than BTC (although I own alt coins). Having a nest egg of BTC is next to useless if the government shuts down all the exchanges and confiscates the information (see the Silk Road debacle). I can bury my metal specie out in the woods somewhere and no one will ever find it.

Thank you for this information, Nathan. I will enjoy reading more on my favorite pseudo-science that is based on science so simple it is taught in every biology textbook.

What about the case of the Reddit poster with diphallia? http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1u75hh/i_am_the_guy_with_two_penises_ama Is he objectively two men because he has twice the genitals? Does this developmental abnormality allow him a use special sex-assignment category? There is also a recently documented case of a woman with two reproductive systems (two vagina, two cervix, two uterus). How does that effect the objective classification of gender? Is she considered sexually to be the same as two regular women? Can she have two husbands simultaneously without repercussions since she has twice the equipment and theoretically has the ability to have two children at once that aren't twins. In the David Reimer story, it is important to remember that his sex reassignment surgery was only deemed necessary because the doctor botched the circumcision so badly. Perhaps if we just let people keep their genitals in the same condition as at birth, and refrain from sexually abusing our children, we wouldn't have so much misery regarding sex and sexual identity in the world. Circumcision and spanking are forms of sexual abuse!

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/22/5821600/obamacare-halbig-subsidies-illegal-most-states http://www.cnbc.com/id/101853569?__source=yahoo%7Cfinance%7Cheadline%7Cheadline%7Cstory&par=yahoo&doc=101853569 Hopefully, by the time this gets to the Supreme Court, the mandate will be nuked out of existence, in effect, dismantling the law.

The contradictory concept of combining "left-leaning" & "liberty" reminds me of the racially harmonious cookie that gives Jerry Seinfeld a stomach ache after he eats it.

What evidence do you have of the charge of fraud on the part of Taubes? I've seen none. What exactly is he misrepresenting? You can't even articulate where your problem with his position is. As far as I can tell, you are revolving your position around ad hominem against Gary Taubes specifically, which is why I linked video from other intellectuals reinforcing the same information Taubes is giving. It's not one guy committing fraud, it's you that is unwilling to see that vegetarian and vegan lifestyles are not healthy. The reason why they are unhealthy is that they rely too much on grain and carbohydrates in general, and the human body is just not adapted to live an agrarian existence without the consequences of metabolic syndrome - heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and auto-immune maladies. Today's health care crisis is a direct function of the USDA guidelines for "eating healthy" and trendy diets like vegetarianism which push way more carbohydrate than the human body was ever meant to metabolize. It's amusing that you are giving up so easily in responding to me, Tyler. I read the blog you linked. It was a shotgun blast of government research studies which led the blogger to conclude that: Here, the blogger even admits that the studies are short-sighted because they do not consider anything but weight loss: Weight loss is not the motivational goal of nutrition; it's the motivational goal of vanity. If you are attempting to manage your health by looking at the fluctuations of a scale, I feel sorry for you. Weight loss is just a pleasant side effect when you finally put down the bran flakes and oatmeal and eat healthily. Weight loss does not ensure that you have no cancer, arterial plaque or balanced hormones. You can look skinny and actually be fat due to the body growing adipose tissue in your viscera, or the areas between your organs. You can't know exactly how fat you are without applying Archimedes' Principle to determine your body's density. You haven't said anything about what you think about the hormone hypothesis Taubes discusses, which states that eating fat does not make you fat. That's what the carbohydrate does since it is always and forever turned into glucose that the liver has to manage through the helper hormone insulin, otherwise you go into a coma. Have you ever met a type-1 diabetic? They have to monitor their blood sugar almost constantly or risk diabetic coma. All the facts are supported, not just by scientific and clinical research, but the basic knowledge of the human body that you learn in biology class. Keto-adaption is the other metabolic pathway the body has for generating fuel for cells by turning fatty acids into ketone bodies. This is the process through which humans shed body fat, not working out extra hard on the Stairmaster after eating one too many cupcakes. Furthermore, Ancel Keys' Seven Countries study was terribly flawed (he cherry picked data and did not include sugar consumption) and don't even think about citing Colin Campbell's China Study. In the first post in the thread, you made three assertions of why you feel the vegetarian lifestyle is superior: 1. Killing animals is not preferable behavior. This is merely an aesthetic argument as no one is violating the non-aggression principle by eating meat. Read UPB to understand why it does not apply to animals. 2. Eating meat is deleterious to the environment. I don't have the time to address this all now, but I would recommend reading Lierre Keith's Vegetarian Myth or Michael Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma to learn that the only scourge to our environment is industrialized agriculture (and the state, through subsidies), and corn is the biggest culprit (4000 gallons of water used per bushel). If you eat grass-fed beef instead of corn-fed, there is no need for all this environmental damage to occur. I have similar reasoning for buying wild Salmon instead of farmed despite the wide disparity in pricing. 3. Eating meat has negative health consequences. This is the current claim that I've been trying to fervently dispel here. I do hope that you stay for a while longer and respond.

If you can't agree on basic definitions, there's really no point in debating. Since a sophist like Peter Joesph will end up looking like a fool if he agrees on a set of definitions beforehand, he will not ever into a fair debate. Hence, your disappointment is a function of Peter Joseph's ability to bullshit like the sophist he is. I haven't seen a video of this debate on the You Tube channel. Where can I view it?

The FB statement becomes more interesting if you strip out all instances of nationalism and internationalism since both concepts are imaginary. "The oppressed against the oppressor; making this equivalency is false. Truth is being a traitor to the oppressor, and the first to raise the flag of the oppressed. The path to destroying all begins with treason to the dominant and loyalty to the oppressed." The last paragraph completely self-destructs, but the first two paragraphs are Marxist.

Seeing how the feminist cause has been shaming men for the crime of being born with a penis for a generation and a half, I'm not surprised that some of the more abused examples of shamed men would want to surgically remove the source of the cultural stigma.

Stefan related a story about his daughter who was being harassed by another child in a park. He was present and supervising her but his daughter correctly identified the other child as an abuser and told her to leave. If the children are raised peacefully, they won't want to be around the sociopaths in training. If you put them in public school, they never have a choice to avoid children, hence the endless parade of sociopaths we all had to manage in public school before worrying about learning. Anyone who claims that not all public schooling is bad doesn't understand voluntarism, and is missing the point of peaceful parenting.

TED deserves no moment of silence. It's a forum for leftist mouthpieces. Simply look at who founded and funds it. The owner of TED, Sapling, has granted $10M to such groups as Acumen, a cause that seeks to eradicate "global poverty", Environmental Defense Fund, whose organizers pushed for the DDT ban, and PATH (formerly OneWorld Health), a group focused on combating "global health problems". Need I say more? What do I say about feminists like Rosin? She has a husband, father and two sons. How are we letting hatemongers breed like this? If you find a feminist in your family, educate them until they come to their senses. If a woman you are dating is a feminist, dump her faster than a bad check. If you have friends who are feminist, get new friends who have self-respect and examine your own while you are at it. I have a different interpretation of her data about the man-cession. Women are gaining on men in the economic sphere because there are an increasing amount of jobs in the public sector, which women are happy to fill (education and public health care services). Also, women spend 80% of all income, so industries that rely on male dollars are struggling and industries that rely on female dollars are thriving.

Wow, that is a powerful message. Congratulations for taking a brave and honest stand! Did you attempt to talk to her about her second husband's verbal abuse over Christmas and not gain much traction? I hope you realize that she will most likely not honor your final request for healing. Once she realizes that you are going incommunicado, she will get scared and seek you out.

Quick, find the closest penis and mail the image to the proper authorities! It's possible that the investigation started because the girl's parents found the pictures of his tubesteak, and invoked the state. I can't imagine how a parent would buy or allow a child to buy a phone and then use it to snoop on their kids. It's like parents are taking a page from the NSA handbook of how not to trust your subjects, I mean kids. Phones aren't intended to be surveillance gathering tools - or are they?

Stefan has also used the analogy of being a salesperson to explain the power disparity in dating. When you are asking a prospective admirer out on a date, you are essentially selling yourself. The one selling the goods is always the party in the inferior position. That's why rejection burns so much - at least the first dozen times, then you get used to it.. If you are met with refusal, it is easy to fall into the line of thinking that you have little to offer as a potential mate. For humans, that often feels like a fate worse than death. (I AM GOING TO DIE ALONE!) I hope the above comments can add some more helpful perspective.

It would be instructive to share at least one example of a terrible personal decision here for us to consider, if you feel comfortable. I don't have the advantage of reading the previous thread you mentioned, but offering only abstract hints about plugging back into the matrix doesn't describe much for us. It may help to temporarily set aside your fear of being judged or mocked by others. Ask yourself, what is the worst that could happen if you are open and honest with yourself and others? At worst, you face humiliation at the hands of perfect strangers. At best, you will learn something about yourself and those in the FDR community. Perhaps after identifying some specific issues here, you can take your personal research to the call-in show and discuss them with Stefan. What course of action do you think will be most beneficial to you? It seems obvious that you feel that your approach so far is inadequate to alleviate anxiety.

I'm just curious what specific unanswered questions you have based on Gary Taubes' position on nutrition. He's a journalist and writer, not a physician or nutritional researcher. He's a communicator, not a scientist, Calling him slick and evasive is not an argument against the lipid hypothesis, you realize. If you want to see a presentation by someone who has actually been in the trenches of nutritional medicine, watch Dr. Phinney here: (if you want you can skip to about 11:00 for his explanation of the keto-adaption experiment, which is essential to dispelling the myth that eating meat is not beneficial to humans) Or, read anything by Dr. Robert Atkins, the most popular selling nutrition book author of all time. Alternatively, former lab technician, cross fit trainer, and fellow Paleo-libertarian author, Robb Wolf, has a no non-sense layman's approach to exercise and nutrition. Here's the first video in a series called the Grocery Store Tour: I want you to notice that none of these people are claiming that eating meat is a poor lifestyle choice that has negative consequences. The vegetarian ethos is based on myth. It's science-fantasy. Sure, I agree with your right to choose not to eat meat for whatever reason you dream up, but don't irresponsibly claim that it's healthier using aesthetic arguments about being nice to animals (or whatever pseudo-science you can cook up) in order to sucker other people that don't know any better. It's not a healthy lifestyle choice and it never will be, especially in today's grocery stores where we are showered with an overwhelming selection of processed junk claimed to be "heart-healthy" that actually kills people.

Do you mind sharing the reason for your question? Being a heterosexual male, I am well aware this is the case in practice. The woman almost always chooses the man in sexual relationships, and the role is rarely reversed. One of our inherent problems as men is that we are so desperate to seek positive approval from women to validate our concepts of manhood, that we will latch onto the first woman who doesn't reject us out of hand. This tends to create problems in the love lives of men as it sets us up for abuse at the hands of women.

Cancer, obesity, heart disease and diabetes are all characteristics of metabolic syndrome, which is not caused by eating meat, but by eating too many products of modern state-subsidized industrialized agriculture: Soy, Wheat, Corn, and Sugar. These are the four horsemen of our health care apocalypse! Don't believe the deliberately misleading nutritional propaganda disseminated by the USDA. Check out Gary Taubes. He will blow your mind.