Pleiades

Depends on who gets which weapons. If it goes the way of Lebanon the left will lose, the right will lose, but the Muslims will win.

So I understand that a deficit of gray matter is associated with mental illness, but is anyone aware of the affects on the brain of excess brain matter?

New video's out. Hope you enjoy. Let's chat and discuss! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqzape_0MFQ

I did a video on human sexuality a while back. Here's the relevant text on the issue and I've included a link to the video. To quickly address that women who engage in a lot of sexual intercourse are considered sluts whereas men are studs. If you ever wanted an argument that we don’t live in a culture were rape is common, look no farther. In our cultural and biological dynamic, the role of the man is to convince a woman to have sex with him, and the role for a woman is to find a genetically superior man to procreate with and then get a subpar man to raise the child or to have a good guy to raise their children with together. That’s the biological mating game: like it or not. I am known to say “that which you give away has no value”, and for women to give potential access to their eggs willingly to an uncommitted man is effectively saying that their sexuality has no value and she is getting in return a booster shot of seminal fluids. Men who have sex with a lot of women are giving up something fairly valueless: their sperm. However, they are gaining access to something rarer and more valuable: a woman’s sexuality. The reason that women are called sluts for having a lot of sexual is because of the potential risk factors and the lack of rewards for taking the risk. So long as women bear the more than a decade-long burden of birthing, raising, and caring for our offspring then we will always perceive sexual intercourse as inherently riskier to women. That’s why they are called “sluts” because they are treating something which we as a society and species view as inherently valuable: female sexuality as if it were valueless and risk free as male sexuality. What society deems valuable in men is not his sexuality, but how he obtains sexual desirability, which is why he is a stud. He has access to any woman that he wants when he asks. And for the slut: she gives access to any man, especially the crappy ones.

So don't really know where else to put this. I'm a gay man and have been trying to find a decent guy to have children with and start a family for over six years. Six years and no one wants to have a family or kids or try to develop a life. The entire gay community seems preoccupied with trying to just collect as many STDs as they can. And I hate playing the identity card, but as a gay man I'm part of less than 3% of the population, then as an anarchist basically all of my options end up being insanely socialist. We don't get on very well. It really seems like I'm just not like to find a compatible man who shares my values to start a life with. Rant rant rant rant.

Howdy. The link doesn't work. This source says 4 killed. http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Protests-in-Dallas-Over-Alton-Sterling-Death-385784431.html

So, this is something that's bothered me on my journey to try and find someone who wants to co-father children with me in a meaningful way. Why is the gay community so socialist? Why do they value the force of the government more than their own opinions. On the whole gay marriage subject: gay people technically could always form a private contract between themselves, even if society never found it to be acceptable. Even present day, you can get a lot of the same protections through legal means, just not in a single package, which is inconvenient, but whatever. And I never needed a sheet of paper to tell me that my relationships are meaningful. I've never needed other people to tell me that my relationship is meaningful. I think I can evaluate the quality of my own relationships without an external power. But now that there is this general approval of Gay Marriage in the population and instead of treating it like a voluntary interaction, which it should be, the gay community seems violently and viciously intent on shoving it everyone else's collective faces and expecting them not to gag on it. All while they claim that they are oppressed and underprivileged, they use government force to quash and intimidate people out of differing opinions. I would love to hear people's thoughts on this? Is this also common in heterosexuals?

May someone please fix the links on this page? I'm trying to do due diligence in reading them, but the formatting keeps right aligning each successive heading to the point where I can't read it. Thanks!

As a statistician it always hurts me to see people completely incapable of understanding the difference between the trend and the individual observations that comprise the trend.

Well, I don't stop at just feminists. The video that has been discussed on this forum talks about an MGTOW user and why I feel that he's incorrect on his opinions on women.

D: Wow. I honestly never considered it that way! D: You are 100% correct about what I said, but my intention wasn't to poison the well, so to speak. But you are right. I should have just said nothing at all.

The room has terrible acoustics, and the phantom power on my input is kind of crap so the gain kills the sound quality.

Overall, the concept of MGTOW doesn't bother me, but it's the rhetoric presented by the more popular YouTube videos. I'm not sure how pervasive the attitude is in the general population, but Vloggers like Sandman seem more interested in griping about women instead of what a healthy form of the MGTOW philosophy would be: defining yourself independent of outside influence (including female romantic partners).

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvxpKLRUCKVeVugjgzipvIw

So some of the "they's" referred to radical Muslim groups which have been murdering people for pursuing Western educations (Boco Harem comes to mind). Then there were also some mention of their victims. Which is another part of the "they". Does this clarify? I really disagree with the sentiment of the message. Sending Western teachers to people who are killing students of Western teaching is only going to get more people killed. Wow, I was not aware. Thank you for sharing that with me. It's a very powerful bit of information.

https://scontent-a-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/s526x296/10730794_821856857837106_4201167815831170712_n.jpg?oh=8dc30507c82bd92d9db95ec39467ef5a&oe=54F24B4F So, I get the point of this, but aren't some of the Muslim extremists (the Boco Harem come to mind) against western education? They did set fire, shoot in the back, and slit the throats of several hundred school boys, as well as kidnap over 200 school girls and force them to become wives to members of their group and rape them constantly. This was to prevent them from getting a Western Education, and forcibly convert them to their brand of religion. I fear if we do send teachers, they will kill them. Anyone care to share some thoughts on this?

1) Don't get legally married; write your own contract if necessary. If only it were that simple... Unfortunately several different governments (The Canadian BC, several American states, and Australia come to mind) consider couples married/civil partners after living together for between six months to about a year. Even without a contract. Even without consent from either the girlfriend or the boyfriend. t. Even without consent from either the girlfriend or the boyfriend.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2730822/Man-accused-rape-faked-letter-alleged-victim-saying-shed-attack-walk-free-court-face-giving-evidence-trial.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490 From what I've gathered from the article, the accused rapists had someone not the alleged victim forge a letter saying that the attack did not happen, and that letter caused the case to be dismissed. To me this is very suspect. The article is clearly leaving information out. Does anyone else have information relevant to this case and the circumstances behind it?

Well, I'm Canadian and I need to apologize for everything. Sorry. In my opinion this is classic, liberal hyperbole. If it happens to one person in the group then it could happen to every person of the group.

Well, that's just going to make false allegations an even more prominent issue if you force women to find a "just cause". I think there should be no government mandated or enforced support, but the couple must agree to terms in a contract at the end of the marriage since they are ending the current marriage contract. Child support is a very tricky matter since it can easily be abused.

Sorry. I just copied the headline from the page link since I wasn't able to think of a relevant one myself. Also, I think there is a difference between which sex your body is and with sex you personally identify. One can be objectively measured by the casual observer without impacting the other. I have a male body, regardless if I identify as a male. Other people can look at me and say "that is a male".

http://chrismilloy.ca/2012/01/transgender-people-are-completely-banned-from-boarding-airplanes-in-canada/ Here's the link and my thoughts: what's wrong with requiring people to look like their ID? That's the point of ID. Whether or not government issued ID's and passports are ethical aside, there's no point in having any form of photo identification if it doesn't apply to you? Am I missing something here?

Well, Argentina's doing great, guys! They don't need any type of capitalism when they are gearing up for their second round of hyperinflation in a decade!

Hi JSDev, Would you mind elaborating please or describing some of your experiences?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/08/03/science-is-not-democratic/ Science is not democratic! To be fair, Obama doesn't consider a democracy to be necessarily democratic either. Also, doesn't he love the IPCC, the group responsible for removing about a century of relevant temperature data because it didn't fit into its narrative? Didn't researchers also switch the data on which oils were healthy and which weren't back in the mid 1900s?