Demosthenes_

I feel if that analogy were to be used, it would be taken in a literal sense. No one (or not many) people deny that humans wrote the holy books, but argue that their holy one was communicating their message to them and they just put it on paper. It is a good analogy, but I do not see it swaying anyone who is far in their life and still believes in a god.

A town of young a beautiful women sounds great, but what are their rules? I would only be able to see them on the weekends? What else is included? There may be beautiful women in that town, but there are also beautiful women in New York, Los Angeles, or even rural Alabama. Those places do not have rules which inherently restrict a daily living and a love relationship. I do not see the appeal unless you are desperate.

It may be the case that they aren't working hard at all. When I was young, I had a therapist who had me play with legos and she would study what I made. Turns out she was just doodling on her note pad as I played with toys. Even if there is a constant conversation talking from the client, the therapist could just nod their head and occasionally grunting in confirmation. I would not be surprised that they would be able to handle 80 clients every 2 weeks. I would strongly advise seeing another therapist. You want a therapist who has time for you, not someone who sees you as one of the 80 clients who doesn't necessarily know you without their notes.

I feel when you take money or governmental security into practice, it becomes hard to grasp because there are many angles to the topic(s). It might be better to do something more of the easily relateable to the majority of people while having a power message that can better people's life like anti spanking or aggressor vs self defense. Picking a topic which is strong is important, but I feel when a person introduces a new topic and it has a lot of weighted controversy or many view points, despite the facts, people may have a hard time grasping the what was said due to so much information and opinions surrounding the topic. By all means take on these topics because I know they can be persuaded, but I feel if your purpose is to persuade people towards libertarian ideologies, the topic should be about the family or the community and not with the government.

Unless I am misunderstanding something, is it then anything which rewards you is addictive?

All economic systems are a means of making a profit.

The reason we have mistrust towards authority is because of the coercion enacted by it. If I had a child and I am a muslim, my wife is a muslim, and the close to distant community of people around us are also muslim, I would not suspect my child would be a christian; the child would likely be a muslim. It is the same reason why many areas have regional political views in the same country instead of political views of people being scattered throughout. You were brought up a certain way and your peers were brought up a certain way, you will likely believe in that way too. So, if there are libertarians parents, the child would likely be as well. Libertarianism is a political view which is against harm/coercion. If many libertarians today became libertarians because authority was causing them harm, should we expect the children of libertarians will seek out to be harmed or try to harm others? I would suspect no. It is not all authority figures which changed people's societal view towards libertarianism, it was the authority figures which enact pain onto others. Many generations of people have been in the victim of authority, yet they still believed in what they were brought up to believe. Why would it change in this case? Authority is not interchangeable to one who causes pain. A parent is an authority figure, so is warden or a judge. They all have different jobs but are a party of authority, but this does not make them synonymous to each other. There are still a fair amount of people do steer the course of their parents. What about the children who go to the military because their parents did or become a physician because their parents are. Children who read often keep reading because they were encouraged to read just like children who watch a lot of tv is because they were encouraged to. If you want your children to be like you, create a positive example. The reason I believe many of us changed is because the example we learned as a child caused us to realize that it was killing us and others by means of coercion.

It would have been helpful to the viewers who are unaware of the MRM or feminism to talk about their view points. People may think it is an argument to talk about the characteristics of people rather than their argument to justify/disprove their argument. How could this video be passed off as a documentary? I suppose it is an introduction to some of the people involved, such as the Honey Badgers. But how do we know what they believe in? All that was gathered was that they do not like feminism with an emphasis on vulgarity, but the video neglected to discussed why as a focal point that the Honey Badgers do not approve of feminism and move towards MRM. Propaganda at its finest.

Communism(MerriamWebster)- a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed Socialism- a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather by individual people and companies. Marxism- a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society. (ie there is only the proletariat class). I'm not sure if you see it, but by definition, they are all synonymous in that they promote the power and unity of the working class and all in the same method. This sounds good on paper, but we know what it is like in practice.

I think he is proposing a lot of radical ideas and it is very hard to digest his other ideologies. 1.Aliens exist 2.Atlantis was destroyed via poor control of death ray or technology related to it. 3.Aliens cloned us to mine and give give gold to them 4.Aliens invented currency; it is not a human invention. He does a good job of bringing the audience to his conclusions, but I feel I would need to see the hard data to believe it. After you hear all of this, you are informed that he has a political party in South Africa and is running for president, as suggested he is forced to if he has a political party. He has a political party to protect him against those who would fight his ideas of aliens, technology and currency. When/if he is president, he will eradicate banks, give pardons to debts, and more importantly have no currency. He never really shows hard numbers of his findings, he mostly just says, to paraphrase, we found these results. Most of the times he shows pictures and the patterns. Everything else is sorta a we did the experiment and these were our results, kinda thing, but no numbers. The no numbers thing could have been that he was trying to compress a 4 hour presentation into a 2 hour, as he explained in the beginning. Again, this is all a lot to digest. The beginning started out fun and fine but then are clashed with this tornado of information and implications. Only to land in Oz to be taken down a yellow brick road. It is easy to follow but what he is saying is hard to accept. It would be much easier if he gave us the hard evidence other than saying he found these results showing the patterns in monoliths and in dirt. Edit: Michael Teller is a theatre actor, singer, radio host, and sound technician. He has also got his bachelors in pharmaceutical. His research is based on the of the writer, Zecharia Sitchin. Sitchin believed in austronaut creationism, much like Teller suggests of our origin. In Sitchin's work has been regarded as pseudoscience. He mistranslated many of the Summerian texts and is noted by his archaeologist critics that he often quotes out of context or distorts evidence. Teller's information which he reached the conclusion in his political party comes from a writer with stretched or misleading evidence. I would argue that Teller has much of the same methodology of stretching or misleading information, dominately because much is left out and much is being suggested with a hard backing. For contributionism, Teller/Ubuntu owns all of the main information sites on it. On contributionism.org, the summarized explanation between contributionic economy and contributionism is, "99% of the people work like slaves their whole life for little to no reward, so the other 1% can live an absolutely fabulous life. ", but then says, "Contributionism is a slight shift. 100% of people work together so that 100% of people live a great life." It continues down to explain that the current system is made to promote the banks and that "You can’t, it’s a fool’s battle. They are too big and will financially ruin you with litigation." Yet he is plugs in his political party and explains how he will fight the banks. Ubuntu promotes using bitcoin and to stop doing business with the banks entirely, which is not something I can completely disagree with. What is disturbing is the promotion of Ubuntu of how the party is the answer and less about contributionism of a life style. I would compare his argument to the proletariat against the bourgeois and there is information which needs to be filled in the lines. Why are the banks bad? Why is living without the banks better and why wouldn't we be slaves? Teller promises and suggests a lot, but I feel there needs to be some fact checking behind what he says. His idol became famous for his ideology but when his facts were checked he was shown to not be as legitimate as people found him to be. This is important because if he builds his way of living on something which is not true, everything else falls with it. In the video Teller suggests that he created a political party for personal protection and ran for president because he needed to as being the owner of a political party. Yet it seems there is constant promotion of this political party and much less information on his original beliefs of ancient technologies and astronaut creationism. Contributionism sounds fair as 100% of the work helps each other and themselves instead of the 99% helping the 1%, as is argued. When explaining the contributionist economy, his explanation of contributionism is blatant propaganda. There are details missing from the explanation of contributionism such as how people will live their lives and only gives the explanation that there will be a 100% employment if the banks are gone and people work for themselves. Contributionism is presented like it is good for the people, but a lot of it also sounds like a promotion of his personal agenda of Ubuntu and it makes me paranoid.

If you felt that way then, how do you feel now? Is it an issue of capacity? Do you feel like a person who has an IQ of 80 could one day have an IQ of 100? If you do not feel it is an issue of capacity, then I would argue you have already accepted people's permanent low intellect. What you might feel then is a lack of understand, feel anger and fear towards the fools who has much power as you.

I see the sentence saying a wise man has the capacity to learn from others and chooses to use that capacity to learn at their own will. A fool does not have the capacity to learn from others and does not learn because they cannot. If this is your intent, then I would say the sentence is right. I would not say stupid people choose to be stupid because that suggests consciousness of their intellect. In this case I would advocate the Dunning-Kruger effect. I believe foolish/stupid people may not fully grasp their intellect which leads to a state of arrogance and the inability to accept their faults.

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/07/14/miami-cop-fearing-termination-altercation-speeding-internal-affairs-lieutenant/ A Miami officer pulls over a man who was speeding. The man refused to show his ID and tries to get out of the car. In retaliation, the officer puts his hand around the man's neck to hold him back. After a few words, the officer throws the man to the ground and pins him. A few other officers show up to help the officer out. It turns out the man is an off duty internal affairs lieutenant. The other officers pull them off from each other, say some words, and then drives away. On one hand the lieutenant broke the law. His job is to live by the law and enforce it, otherwise he is a hypocrite and defines his job as unjust. He was not charged for speeding and was free to walk away despite breaking the law. In the other hand the officer was aggressive towards the man, so much as putting his hand around his neck and throwing him to the ground. Unless there were threatening words mentioned towards the officer from the man, none of these seem justified on any grounds. The only thing in defense of the officer is when the lieutenant opened the door, which he should not have and should have known not to do. In the end the officer was discharged.

It is an interesting difference but in either case both genders do use coercion to get what they want. However I know they are treated differently by the guards. When my mother was in jail, they would often have 1 guard watching over 25 female inmates in the visiting room, which was noted to be too many guards. When the jail was used for men they had 1 guard for every 10 inmates in the visiting room, and they felt that wasn't enough. The reason the 1:10 wasn't enough guards was there would often be fights between family members or other inmates. With the women, the worst thing that would happen is an inmate or visitor would put their hands in their lap, possibly trying to smuggle something. Despite the difference, both of which used their own methods to get what they wanted. On one such case, a visitor (family member) was punched and tackled by the male inmate they were visiting for a reason I was not told. In my personal experience there was a female inmate who attempted to seduce 16 year old me into getting things for her and she would return the favor when she got out. Among the other inmates, I was told that a lot of the female inmates used guards as their weapon, such as spreading rumors so rooms would be searched and humiliating body searches on the spot. Regardless of the differences, I feel it is not a gender difference in the level of violence. The women or men would be just as willing to get what they wanted and had no problem hurting someone. The difference was the method on how they got it. The guards felt the female's methods were less harmful, but with the level of drug smuggling in the jail and the guards general passivity to females, I feel female inmates have the advantage in jail.

I have 5 bosses, 3 of which I work with on a regular basis and the other two on a weekly basis. I also do not like any of them very much. Not liking your superiors does not have much to do with your end goals. You want to be in this field of work for most of your life and your professors are temporary. You will deal with people who you do not like or respect all of your life but realizing what you want in life and how to get there is important to you, if you take it seriously. If you value your girlfriend, I would heed her words because she cares about you and your intentions/ambitions. The majority of knowledge I know is self taught, but I gained a lot of value in the professors, such as a second opinion or better methods of doing something. If in your case there are no advantages, you are in a system where you need the degree to be certified and to get the job. If you want the job you must go through the steps. If those steps means going to college, dealing with less-desirable teachers and getting good enjough grades to get that job, attending as many classes as possible is recommended. There is nothing wrong with skipping class if you just cannot go, but skipping for the sake of just not wanting to go shows signs of how much you care something.