aaaaa11

Here's another great example: The first thing Scott Adams says in an interview with Fox News is "Let me start by disavowing Donald Trump." Fox News titles the video "Why the 'Dilbert' creator is supporting Donald Trump" 1 minute and 10 seconds into the video he says the exact opposite! Unbelievable.

Can't wait for that video! From what I watched, Oliver's video was mostly frivolous criticisms of insignificant statements and criticisms of his personality and supporters rather than talking about the issues.

Article on a Libertarian blog about Donald Trump: > https://beinglibertarian.com/7-things-not-to-hate-about-donald-trump/

Just read this article: http://www.occupydemocrats.com/republicans-enraged-as-obama-on-track-to-completely-eliminate-deficit-by-2017/ " Obama On Track To Completely Eliminate Deficit By 2017" "Since Obama took the presidency, he has cut our national deficit in half– and it is possible that within the next two years, he could get rid of it entirely. " "Projections for this upcoming year have already been revised to cut a further $60 billion than what was projected in March, putting our deficit at $426 billion- a far cry from the $1.4 trillion he started with" Could it be true? Is that data valid? Doesn't make sense to me. What is going on here?

I'm very happy that gay couples are now free to the same tax benefits and pieces of paper as any hetero couple. It truly is great to see such a reduction in government control. But the underlying problems have not been addressed, or even acknowledged. The government just oppressed a large demographic of people for decades. It’s great that they are no longer doing that, but the very fact that they were given the privilege to do so is deeply concerning. I wish this had been a wake up call. Like other government initiatives, the underlying problems have not been solved. The price of healthcare has not been lowered. People have not been educated about the virtues of donating money to people who need help paying for healthcare. Rather, money has been taken with force from one party and given to another. It’s kind of like drinking in order to reduce anxiety. Yes, the anxiety goes away temporarily, but the cause of the anxiety has not been solved so, and the alcohol is not permanent, so it will keep coming back, and, in the case of healthcare, now we're even more dependent on government. Again, it’s great that gays are now free to marry, but the fact that they weren’t always should be concerning.

If you are interested in a technology or software focused business I would check out The Lean Startup by Eric Reis. It's relevant to other kinds of businesses as well. If you have a certain kind of business in mind I can point you to a more specific resource.

Both sound great Mike. I'd be interested in hearing thoughts about "micro aggressions" as well as issues women face in the workplace such as "bro culture" and sexual harassment.

Some of these statistics are mind blowing. Have any feminists publicly rebutted it in any way?

Stef should debate Sam publicly instead

Sam Harris is like philosophy-light. What he says is just interesting and controversial enough to pique people's interest. But falls short. If Sam is punk rock, Stefan is death metal. I'd love to see Stefan and Sam debate.

If a person slaps a person it is wrong - if a cop slaps a person it is ok - if a Mom slaps a person it is applauded ???

I think there are a few important things people aren't paying enough attention to: - The media's victimizing and at times falsely representing important issues or not discussing important issues - The underlying issue that we hold the government and the police to different moral standards than we ourselves - The fact that laws don't police themselves - every law, regulation, tax code, etc. that people call for means more police (Stef talks about thisin The Truth About Eric Garner) The more people feel victimized, and the more people get caught up in the symptoms of underlying problems, the angrier people get. The angrier people get, the more riots there are, the more riots there are, the more people think we need more police. I wrote more about this on Quora: http://qr.ae/0Iull

Amazing presentation. Mind = blown. Concisely presented and great citations. The data cited is so different than the mainstream narrative. I have a question though. What do you think makes this issue so important? Why do you think people should see this presentation? How does it fit into the overall mission of FDR? Is it because these disagreements are leading to a divide between the sexes, which is critically important for humanity? Is it because men are being harmed? I'd be curious to hear anyone's opinion on the importance of this issue. Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

That's a great story Laurel. I admire your commitment to parenting. And totally agree parenting is a 0-1 project.

Great story and comments Michael.

Thanks all! I've been doing a lot of research on how to increase testosterone naturally. I would love to get feedback from anyone who knows a lot about this. In addition to eating more healthy fats, less sugar, lifting weights regularly, and sleeping 8 hours per night, I plan on taking the following supplements: BCAAs Vitamin D Zinc Magnesium Selenium There’s also a supplement that combines zinc, magnesium, and vitamin B6, called ZMA, that I might take instead of taking the first two individually. I'd appreciate any thoughts/feedback from anyone who has gone through this.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/politics/obama-mandatory-voting/ What are your thoughts on this? I read an article saying that Obama called it “potentially transformative.” While it might benefit the democratic party, it sounds like the worst kind of transformation from a moral standpoint. Seems to me, like Stefan has eluded to in his video The Truth About Voting, voting is just a crumb of freedom. A figment of the imagination of control. Voting is like the glimmer of hope you get when the friend who constantly disappoints you occasionally does something promising. Voting is enabling, and taking part in, the immoral institution that is the government. And forced voting is just stacking immoral on top of immoral. Somehow it seems nice, but only when added to a faulty foundation.

Studies have shown that low testosterone affects 4 to 5 million men in the United States, yet only 5% get treated for it*. On average, men today have about 20% less testosterone than men the same age did just two decades ago**. Testosterone is not just for getting boners and big muscles. It affects mood, energy levels, and self-confidence. Low testosterone levels have even been linked to health risks such diabetes, heart disease, depression, osteoporosis, and even early death***. And it's not just a problem for old men and young boys. Why isn't low testosterone being talked about more given how important it is, and how prevalent (estimated 25% of men) it is? Do you think this is an important issue? (I just found out I have low testosterone. I felt fine and have been practicing many health habits. I'm in my late twenties, so even my doctor was shocked.) *http://www.bumc.bu.edu/sexualmedicine/publications/prevalence-diagnosis-and-treatment-of-hypogonadism-in-primary-care-practice/ **http://www.healio.com/endocrinology/hormone-therapy/news/print/endocrine-today/%7Bac23497d-f1ed-4278-bbd2-92bb1e552e3a%7D/generational-decline-in-testosterone-levels-observed ***http://www.lifetime-weightloss.com/blog/2012/4/9/why-1-in-4-men-have-low-testosterone.html

Towards the end of the most recent call in show, "Saying No to Marriage," Stef and Mike mentioned research studies that they wanted to conduct, but were unable to due to insufficient donations. I would love to get the community's feedback on the idea of asking donators to fund specific research studies as opposed to asking them to simply fund the show as a whole... I know the "business model" of FDR has been discussed ad nauseam. The purpose of this thread is not to question the business model of FDR as a whole. I simply wanted to put forward an idea for how to fund the research specifically. What if the FDR team and/or volunteers from the community put together a proposal for a given research project along with a budget needed for it to happen and then ask listeners/donators to fund that specifically? If the project is not funded sufficiently, the research is not conducted. If the research is funded sufficiently, the research is conducted. My hypothesis is that more people would donate if they knew that they would be getting back more than what they can get for free, and that they know they would be enabling something that would not be happening unless there is enough donation. If the hypothesis is wrong, then some time is wasted, but FDR can continue it's standard donation model, and hopefully eventually receive enough to fund the research. If the hypothesis is correct, then the research can be funded, potentially faster than it would otherwise, if it would be funded at all. If the hypothesis is not tested, it might take a really long time for the research to get funded, or it might never get funded at all. I put forward this idea because I would love to see FDR research projects happen and because I think it could help spread the messages of the show. Could this be a viable way to fund the research? I understand there are challenges in doing this, but are there ways to alleviate them? I understand this campaign would take some time. I for one would be willing to donate my time and/or money if it were needed, and I suspect others would too.

I just came across this article written by a mom about her experience participating in Y Combinator, one of the most prestigious and competitive "startup accelerator" programs: https://medium.com/thelist/hi-im-a-mom-and-a-start-up-founder-my-yc-story-3b8c8650ae95 What are your thoughts? Here are mine: As women are increasingly taking more ambitious and time intensive career paths, including entrepreneurship, they of course have less time for childcare (all else equal). In this new normal, families are naturally looking for new ways to raise kids effectively. It’s important to find effective ways to raise kids because of the effect parenting has shown to have on a child’s well being, how a society is effected by it’s children’s well being, and for the moral importance of treating a child well. As it pertains to this article, it seems the author’s decision was to leave her children, including a three month old, for five days consecutively, every seven days. I would be interested in hearing how the father adopted his schedule to meet the needs of the children (the author mentioned he is a also a business owner). I also wonder how effective this was, particularly given the importance of breastfeeding in a child's early life. As someone who also has ambitious career goals, I can understand how women would want to spend more time on their careers, and I think it’s a great thing that they choose to and have the freedom to do as they please. However, an important challenge to address in this scenario is parenting. While I strongly encourage men and women to pursue ambitious careers if they so desire, I also encourage men and women to pursue the noble and morally responsible mission of effective parenting. If we decide to focus more on our careers, I hope it doesn’t come at the expense of children. Is the admiration for YC beginning to outshine the admiration for good parenting? If it has, I hope that we can find a model for parenting that has equal or greater positive effects as a father and a mother dedicating significant amounts of time to child care. The benefits of YC to her career and company are acknowledged, but the benefits to her children are not.