J. D. Stembal

Why is TZM mentioned in this thread? It is complete lunacy. How can an artificial intelligence control the global resourced based economy? Humans cannot succeed in a RBE with actual intelligence.

You cannot cut out all meat and still have a healthy lifestyle. It's not how the human body evolved to live. We are omnivores; we eat meat and plants. See the research and medical practice of Volek and Phinney - http://www.artandscienceoflowcarb.com/. Also, see Bob Atkins and his successful four decade career of healing sick people with high fat diets. I have avoided rice, soy, corn, wheat, and sugar for the past two years and I dropped from 200 lbs to ~155 lbs in that span of time. Stay away from industrial agriculture because it will kill you. That video linked above is ridiculous. Eggs are more lethal than cigarettes! Some other literature I would recommend: Wheat Belly by William Davis Why We Get Fat by Gary Taubes The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith (if you can stomach the pernicious feminism she spouts) The Paleo Solution by Robb Wolf The Paleo Answer by Dr. Loren Cordain The Primal Blueprint by Mark Sisson These books have changed my life, so give one or two of them a look-see if you are looking to alter your nutritional outlook for the better.

I despise the feminist backlash and horse apple scented pleas of women about the lack of women writing. If you want more women writers, promote workshops to get young women to write more!. I was asking a feminist about The Lord of the Rings in college and she scoffed saying, "Tolkien has no idea how to write female characters." Ok, so what's so wrong with male characters? I honestly don't care if fictional characters have penises or not. I've noticed while watching the series that Daenerys' story represents the political evolution of feminism. In the beginning, her brother is selling her off to the Khal for promised military support, which is the feminist historical depiction of the woman's role in society as property of men. She allows her new husband to kill her previous tormentor/master, but only after he rapes her. Why would you ever willingly sleep with your husband in an arranged marriage? That's oppression! Then, when the Khal dies, her military power fades because the natives won't willingly follow a female leader. Who would want to do that because most everyone is a misogynist in this story, right? Next, we learn that Daenerys is imbued with magical powers over dragons and dragonfire, representing the mystique and natural power of femininity (see also Melisandra). Later on, she steals an army (feminism co-opting the state) to enforce her will on other cities and regions and becomes a tyrant herself. This sequence of events loosely mirrors the transition of the feminist movement towards totalitarianism.

I'm with Rob here, and I'll tell you why. If you are constantly pulling your punches with people and pussy-footing around the real topic (ending state power to achieve a non-violent society) then you're never going to get any results in your life. You will still have a horde of statists in your life that think you're a special, but delusional, snowflake. Live by your beliefs and start showing the power of voluntarism to the world, and see who joins you in the movement. You might as well get it over with and tell everyone you meet that you believe in a peaceful voluntary society, which is essentially anarchy. Tell them that you're an athiest, and see what happens. If you aren't invited to the next barbeque party, you'll know why. The people who are genuinely curious about your ideas will want to talk to you without feeling threatened. Why should they feel threatened? It's not like you are kidnapping, mugging, or raping them. Tell them why you are into a peaceful voluntary society where everyone is allowed to choose how they want to live, and that this society is called anarchy. You will either receive indignant stares, sarcastic muttering or people asking you about your ideas.

The discomfort in the death discussion belongs entirely to the parent, not the child. I know a mother who secretly bought replacement fish for her son when they died, and they died frequently, rather then explain what happened to them. After six weeks or so of this charade, she gave up and explained to her son that the fish had died. She ended up explaining to her son that everything is made out of stardust, so we are the components of dead stars that are constantly recycled and reused. You could call that the scientific hippy atheist explanation of death. While the explanation is factually true, it is thickly colored by environmentalism. This is the same mother who confirmed that anthropogenic global warming is killing the polar bear habitats when her son learned about it in second grade. He ended up freaking out on her in the car because he thought driving was effectively murdering polar bears. It's the religious households that will have the hardest time discussing the death of pets and relatives. Eventually, "Does Sparky have an immortal soul?" and "Did Grandpa go to hell?" will have to also be answered or deflected.

If anyone drops the rape culture bomb on you, the simplest way to disarm it is to ask them if they've ever been raped or at least sexually assaulted. Odds are that they have not been raped and they may refuse to answer any questions. If they are so convinced that there is a culture of rape that is constantly threatening them, there should be some empirical data backing their contentions up. I can cite at least five examples off the top of my head where I was sexually assaulted by women. Twice by strangers, one of which may have been a transsexual woman, and three instances of aggression by friends or lovers. Most men, including myself, have a diminished capacity to process this kind of abuse because we are instantly stigmatized if we happen to be the victims. On the other hand, I have never been sexually assaulted by a man. Try telling your story to other people and see if they can put down the dogma for a second and find compassion for you. I bet they will start off by laughing at you. Then, when you persist, they will try to leave the conversation or change the topic on you. If they are truly compassionate for rape and sexual assault victims, they will hear you out.

Whenever you hear the phrase, human nature, you have to ask for the speaker's definition. There is no inherent concept of human nature. We are defined by our surroundings. Human nature is a collectivist imagining of the human species that has no universal meaning. I wouldn't use the phrase because so many biological and parental factors play into it. There is cause and effect. It would be fair to theorize that everyone starts out as a blank slate at conception, and then learns and reacts to their environment from there. I say conception not because I'm a pro-lifer (I'm closer to the pro-choice camp) but because stressors placed on the mother during pregnancy have a profound hormonal and developmental effect in utero. When people use science to prove there's an aggression gene which determines whether you are going to be violent or not, I will feel very nervous for our species. Essentially, this is the same line of thought feminists use to tell men that we are all guilty of fostering rape and rape culture. That Y-chromosome is just naturally prone to violence. Men can't help it; the genes turn them bad! Parenting has absolutely no role in indoctrinating children into violence, right?

I don't want to put words into JSDev's post that aren't intended, but I am almost certain he was alluding to the Non-Agression Principle. If that's not the case, I apologize. If you enter into a serious discussion with someone about the state being morally invalid, you can point out that they are endorsing the initiation of force against you by arguing for the existence of the state. That's when you get the final comeback, "Well, sorry, that's just the facts about the world we live in, but that doesn't mean I want you imprisioned, murdered, raped, victimized, etc." What they are arguing, at that point, is a contradiction. This is the statist waving the white flag while simultaneously ignoring that violation of the non-aggression principle is a problem with which we should all be concerning ourselves. It's ignorance heaped upon cowardice, resulting in the malignant cancer of the state under which we all suffer. You don't have to continue wasting your breath on statists when they endorse the use of force against you. It's as if you entered into an arm wrestling contest, and then, just when you are about to beat the statist through well-exercised logic, a masked ninja assassin (the state) jumps out and lops your arm off at the shoulder with a razor-sharp katana. It's not a fair fight, just as talking with a statist is not a serious discussion.

You could really blow her mind simply by saying, "More men are raped than women," but I would first question what you are doing on FB battling with feminists or posing as their friends in the first place. Unplug, and move on, brother!

At the risk of sounding like a misogynist, I observed that at the most recent pride parade in Denver, which happened a couple weekends ago, there was a lot more female representations of gay pride than male. I'm not claiming that promoting gay pride means that you are gay. In fact, you don't have to be a man to promote men's rights so the same follows for gay pride. I am concerned that males, in general, are less encouraged to express their sexuality openly. You used to see virtually naked men dancing around everywhere at events like this, now it's mainly lesbian motorcycle road rallies comprised of rainbow clad vixens and butch sidekicks. Is the male body that offensive to people? What happened to the pride for men?

This minor e-conflict could be used as an item for discussion or self-analysis, which might lead you to the conclusion that you need to extricate yourself from Facebook in short order. I fell for troll bait like this all the time, and usually felt disgusted by the end of it. I'm not saying it's the right decision for you, but think about it. You have to pick your battles, but the more you get barraged by this kind of propaganda online, the more conflicts you will have.

Negotiations such as "If you want dessert, you have to finish your dinner," are potentially damaging because most desserts are addictive. Raise your hand if you've seen a six year old beg for candy (Skittles, in my example) while prostrating before you on the ground promising you the best behavior in the world if only you will give them one piece. Tossing them a quarter every time they take out the trash or clean their room works because the nature of the exchange is not psychologically damaging, as is the case with sugar-based substances. Eventually, the child will value their time more than they value the quarter (damn the Federal Reserve Bank!), and will have moved onto bigger and better chores. You may find, as I have, that modern parents are eschewing the pay for chores paradigm because they believe that it promotes callous capitalism, i.e. the child will only care about money at the expense of other values such as compassion for others who are less privileged. I am not contending that Kohn is putting forth this argument, but it's out there in the water, so to speak. Incidentally, the aforementioned parents have the kind of irresponsible and unmotivated children that will intentionally make a mess just to give you more work to do because it validates their existence.

This is one of those stories that tempts you to laugh because it hurts so much. I resisted the temptation. I am now desperately wishing she miscarries because I don't want to imagine what that child's life will be like even if it is born in good health. By the by, she already has two children, ages 3 and 6. Cunningham is 23.

You can even take it one step further to ensure birth does not happen - abstain from sex. Why is that so difficult? If the ante is too high, sit the game out. The trouble is there's a moral hazard that was created by the state getting involved. If a woman is impregnated by accident, and no one is willing to financially plan around it, the state is there with its guns ready to imprison the father if he doesn't pay up. It really is a win/win scenario for women compared to what happened historically before advancement in prenatal medical care (~20% death rate resulting from pregnancy).

This is the second contentless collective community ad hominem appeal that I've read in the last few days. At least, it was put forth by a backer so it may deserve another reply. (Addressing the OP) Indeed, if there are other communities out there for sharing new ideas, by all means, link to these founts of free speech and enlighten us. Mayhaps, if we find the alternative discussion compelling enough, we'll come to a similar conclusion as you. If the FDR community is not a positive work environment for you, there is no shame in searching elsewhere. I'm new to the messageboard, so I haven't reached any definite conclusion yet, but I will add that recently seeing two vague appeals to no one in particular that the collective community is being too close-minded to have a discussion tells me that I don't wish to continue reading the General subforum. Here is a piece of advice. It is not healthy to take the discussion too personally. Just because someone contradicts an idea, it should not be contrued as harrassment. Don't get so emotionally attached to the viewpoint, but also don't forget to argue your perspective reasonably - with passion. To reuse your analogy with the knife cutting both ways, you are the one that is reluctant to get your hands bloody. Let's have a real discussion about ideas. I've got the knife of reason within reach so tell us all about them!

This is a really loaded question. The unstated assumption made here is that a male-female friendship that doesn't include sex is not a worthy relationship. My concern here is that you are valuing human relationships solely by how much sexual satisfaction you can derive from it. A more important concern to me would be that I can love and trust (key components to any friendship) the people with which I share physical sexual contact. Share sex with your friends, and forget everyone else.

No KS campaign is contractually obligated to do anything for its supporters. You can't take liars, weasels, and cheats to court. Projects are backed purely upon the reputation of the campaign author. What this person is saying is that he is not responsible to his backers. He will likely never be funded again unless he uses a pseudonym. Many backers feel as though supporting a KS entitles them to a return on investment, which it does not. You are paying a stranger to pursue an interest or hobby. If they are successful at it, great, but if not, say bye-bye to your money.

Ah yes, public roads. One of the biggest annoyances for me is the proliferation of useless signs and signals on every street and corner. I see permanent memorial signs for victims of car accidents and drunk driving. I'm not against people leaving flowers by the side of the highway in remembrance of the tradegy, but do we really need more signs distracting drivers? Who pays for these signs? The family of the victim or the taxpayer? Also, high on the irony scale, I noticed the last time I drove through Illinois and Iowa (two states that recently banned talking on your phone without a hands-free device) that they are using the amber alert highway emergency signs to promote the bright, flashing message: "One text or call could wreck it all." Let's distract drivers with propaganda because there are too many distracted drivers!