Why Do Human Animals Behave Like That?

I had not intended for my last post about food quality and a certain sacredness about this thing we call Paleo to go totally off the rails into politics and social structures in comments, but it pretty much did anyway. Thank Shaun.

...Which prompted me, since I'd been saving up ideas to use in a Human Animal Political Post (TM), to forego it...maybe in favor of some food pics...how it's going in the backyard with the cold plunge and kettlebells, and so on. But to hell with that, just for now. I don't exactly have any idea how this post is going to come out in the end, but I have quite a bit of stuff saved up. So here goes.

My overall theme, always, is not which thing to vote for. It's to not vote at all; to withhold your sanction from convention; from just getting along. That's right. Be an "irresponsible citizen." Shirk your "duty." Get uninvolved. Unparticipate in the process. Above all, get middle finger exercise. Hey, new Paleo product: Middle Finger Kettlebells.

Flip it high & often.

New idea: live for yourself, your family, your friends, the best food you can make...and your Facebook Friends and Twitter followers.

Here, let me show you why. And no, you will never, ever vote your way out of this mess and no,  Ron Paul is not your Messiah. He's just as worthless as any politician, just less overtly destructive than most.

~ The American Experiment In Liberty Has Failed. I know you don't believe me, but, it's actually pretty short, under 10 minutes to read and I lead off with that because it's perhaps the most important of all the links, which I do select carefully.

It is, perhaps, a fact provocative of sour mirth that the Bill of Rights was designed trustfully to prohibit forever two of the favorite crimes of all known governments: the seizure of private property without adequate compensation and the invasion of the citizen’s liberty without justifiable cause…It is a fact provocative of mirth yet more sour that the execution of these prohibitions was put into the hands of courts, which is to say, into the hands of lawyers, which is to say, into the hands of men specifically educated to discover legal excuses for dishonest, dishonorable and anti-social acts. — H. L. Mencken, Prejudices: A Selection, pp. 180-82

That was written a long time ago and this, just the other day.

...The greatest fear of America’s Founding Fathers has been realized: The U.S. Constitution has been unable to thwart the corrosive dynamics of majority-rule democracy, which in turn has mangled the Constitution beyond recognition. The real conclusion of the American Experiment is that democracy ultimately undermines liberty and leads to tyranny and oppression by elected leaders and judges, their cronies and unelected bureaucrats. All of this is done in the name of “the people” and the “general welfare,” of course. But in fact, democracy oppresses the very demos in whose name it operates, benefiting string-pullers within the Establishment and rewarding the political constituencies they manage by paying off special interests with everyone else’s money forcibly extracted through taxation.

The Founding Fathers (especially Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madison, and James Monroe), as well as outside observers of the American Experiment such as Alexis de Tocqueville all feared democracy and dreaded this outcome. But, they let hope and faith in their ingenious constitutional engineering overcome their fear of the democratic state, only to discover they had replaced one tyranny with another. As one contemporary libertarian has put it :

“It is hard to think of other examples in history where so many checks and balances were placed upon centralized political power – and it is also impossible to think of a more dangerous and powerful government than the modern American leviathan. The abysmal failure of such a noble experiment should give all moralists pause. If the smallest possible government has grown into the largest conceivable government – within a few hundred years – it is hard to imagine what kind of theoretical system could conceivably control state growth in the future.” [...]

Some of us observed other frailties of the U.S. Constitution years later, but deluded ourselves into believing it was all just a consequence of inadequate constitutional design, which could be overcome and rectified with appropriate constitutional changes. Alas, it is impossible any longer to labor under the delusion that democracy can be fixed by tinkering with constitutions, appointing the right judges to the bench or electing the right politicians to office. As Frank Karsten and Karen Beckman have written in Beyond Democracy, democracy cannot be fixed because it is inherently broken:

“The problems of democracy are inherent. It’s like having dinner with a million people and deciding up front the bill will be split evenly. Everyone has a strong incentive to order more than he would individually, resulting in a huge bill that everyone deplores but no individual could do anything about. Democracy therefore has a very limited self-cleansing capability. Our politicians have a natural short-term outlook since they are only temporarily in office. They will overspend, overtax and over borrow knowing their successors will have to deal with the negative consequences. Besides that, they spend other people’s money anyhow.”

But now we come to the hard part: What is to be done? If not democracy, what? If the ballot box won’t work to reverse the arrow of democratic politics, if better constitutional design can’t overcome democratic entropy, are we left with rebellion and revolution? History demonstrates that violence begets violence and the violent overthrow of tyrants begets new tyrannies, frequently worse than those they replace. Is peaceful rebellion feasible? Will non-violent, civil disobedience work to reorder our dysfunctional politics, and if so, what kind of “new order” is to replace the old order?

The fact is, we don’t know how to structure society, and any effort trying to do so by constitutional/political/social engineering—no matter how well intentioned, no matter how smart the designers—inevitably leads to disastrous outcomes. The key, therefore, is not to think about replacing what we have with something else but rather to replace it with nothing, i.e., freedom from government, not enslavement to a new form of government.

The only way human societies can possibly develop successfully to satisfy the needs and desires of the individuals that make them up is through a process of gradual evolution, not juridical, legislative and bureaucratic incrementalism, but rather a social, political and economic evolution that occurs free of all three; a trial-and-error, evolutionary process where millions of free individuals work it out on a case-by-case, day-to-day basis at the individual level of bilateral trade, voluntary contract and discourse with each other. Coercive collective action in the name of the greater good not only is immoral—who decides who has the gun?—it also is destructive of human happiness and ruinous of human potential. [emphasis added]

Yea, unusually long "excerpt," but that's how it rolls, sometimes. Go read the other 5 minute's worth. Then sit back and long for your next chance to vote. You'll Get 'er Done in no time, Larry.

But I hope you see a distinction between that and a lot of the other stuff you see about how to "fix the system." Fuck the system. There really is no other way, and you begin by simply ignoring it in terms of activism, encouraging others to do likewise. All you can do as an individual.

What if they held an election and nobody showed up?

Stop wasting your life on such unmitigated bullshit. Look, hasn't The Messiah proved it, even to you lefties? More on that, later.

~ In the meantime, let's take the cases of a doper and a faggot. No sympathy for you! You don't get your human rights!

First up, filmmaker Rick Ray on Charlie Lynch.

In 2006, Charlie Lynch opened a medical marijuana dispensary in Morro Bay, California. He was such a stickler about following California state law that he called all the legal authorities he could. The ribbon-cutting for his shop was attended by local pols and chamber of commerce types and his shop flourished due to his outgoing personality, dedication to customer service, and strict enforcement of all laws related to medical marijuana.

In 2007, his dispensary was raided by the Drug Enforcement Administration and local sheriffs. Thus began a legal nightmare from which Lynch - and the country - has yet to awake. Placed under house arrest, threatened with an effective life sentence, and stripped of his income, Lynch became one more casuality in the war against medical marijuana.

Eventually, Lynch was tried in federal court, where the Kafkaesque proceedings meant his defense was not allowed to tell jurors that medical marijuana was legal under California law. Eventually, Lynch was sentenced to a year and a day, and was allowed to be free pending an appeal that seems unlikely to ever be fully resolved.

Lynch's ordeal - and the country's - is the subject of Lynching Charlie Lynch, a new documentary made by Rick Ray, who helped produce Reason.tv's original coverage of the Lynch case as it unfolded.

Where's your Fucking Obama-Messiah, commies? Everyone expected Republican fucks to do this sort of thing. But in matters such as this, you should be held to a far higher standard and when you don't live up, should suffer ridicule—not for being stupid fuckheads like Republicans—but for being far worse: having zero recognizable integrity. At least republicans engage in the tyranny they promise and defend stupid behavior they uphold, like praying in school, withholding science, and teaching kids to fear sky fairies.

~ Who cares about a faggot in jail, eh? Shouldn't they be locked up anyway? Alright, so here you go, Messiah Jesus-Obama, nowhere in sight.

Duncan Roy: Director Trapped in Men's Central Jail

Director Duncan Roy casts a courtly image of a baronial figure as he sits in his home atop Las Flores Canyon, a modernist, Bohemian hideaway with a jaw-dropping view of the Pacific. His surroundings project an image of California's creative lifestyle at its most alluring. But in February, Roy found himself standing alone outside Los Angeles County Men's Central Jail, released after three months of harrowing and wrongful incarceration.

During his ordeal, he learned to dodge angry Los Angeles County Sheriff's jailers and to trade with fellow prisoners for dried ramen toppings. He was helplessly trapped in a Kafka-esque corner of America's immigration war, where he disappeared into the bowels of the system without explanation or apparent legal recourse.

In 2006, Roy was an up-and-coming star of the British independent-film community. His first picture, AKA, had received notice and awards around the world, and he followed the well-worn path to Hollywood in search of a bigger canvas — in particular, a film adaptation of The Picture of Dorian Gray, to which he was attached to direct. He purchased the Las Flores house with the help of his then-boyfriend, a Malibu real estate agent who later would be featured on Bravo's Million Dollar Listing.

Well, when the geologist who did the survey in advance of purchase later admitted to falsifying it, implicating said ex-boyfriend, and Roy called ex-boyfriend on it, he soon found himself in jail under charges of "extortion," then an INS hold, even though he was here legally...

And now Duncan Roy understands what almost every other productive member of society who never hurts anyone does not. Please read his story. He spent 3 months locked up for absolutely no good reason. Read his story.

~ If I Wanted America to Fail.

I dunno, but as I hear the endless psychodouche from the likes of "occupiers" and other do-nothings, all I hear is STOP PRODUCING! Didn't they try that before, like in the 1950s and 60s in China and other places? But, y'know, 15 million dead of starvation here, 20 million there? I'm sure it was for a good cause.

~ Alright, Sky God worshipers of all sorts. The gig is up. You can no longer dishonestly use that Steven Hawking "mind of God" bit from A Brief History of Time as your second favorite appeal to authority.

Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven; it's a fairy story'

Now, does anyone have an old Einstein interview we can perhaps haul out and call it a rational day?

~ Social Suicide?

OK, this is where I give back, because I really don't care for this video. What's next, a new victims class: atheists? I think a video like this seriously compromises what ought to be the root theme of atheism: you're nobody's bitch; not some fantasy in the sky or fiery pits, and fuck anyone who doesn't like it. You're superior (and you are).

Interesting this came out as "Bully" hit theaters. New movie idea: Bully 2 The Atheists.

Alright. That should do it. I had one more but upon closer inspection, it wasn't what it pretended to be. I hope that was enough to offend just about everyone though. I don't like to disappoint.

Comments are open. Everyone feel free to be on their worst behavior.

Free The Animal is supported by readers like yourself shopping Amazon and CLICKING HERE to do so. Costs you nothing but sure helps out around here quite a lot. Always appreciated.

Comments

  1. Nice, but I’m still looking forward to the CT post. :-)

    • I’m still toying around with stuff. For instance, trying to figure out why 60 degrees feels way colder than 50 degrees.

      See?

      • JofJLTNCB6 (f/k/a Jc) says:

        That reminds me, I need to buy a thermometer. My current CT regimen is in whatever-temperature-the-cold-tap produces, which lately, has been colder than usual thanks to the relatively cold weather we’ve had for the past month or so, but I have no idea just how cold that is. I’d guess it to be in the low 50s, but again, I’m just guessing. I hope it’s cold enough because my family already thinks I’m nuts…I’m sure loading the tub with ice won’t help.

        (Hey, if someone in Missouri with a thermometer could measure that for me, I’d greatly appreciate it. Meanwhile, I still have “buy thermometer” on my list of things to do.)

      • 55 degrees in KCMO sir.

      • JofJLTNCB6 (f/k/a Jc) says:

        Thanks. You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

        Real close to where I guessed it to be…but wow, can’t imagine bringing that down 10 or 15 more degrees. But every day is a little easier to endure, so I guess that’s progress toward that end. That said, I learned last night that right before going to bed is a less-than-ideal time for this. When I finally fell asleep, I slept like a rock, but it took me a while to get there.

      • My tap temp has gone from 52-58 in a matter of a couple of weeks.

      • JofJLTNCB6 (f/k/a Jc) says:

        I guess it’s time for me to break out some ice if I want to continue pursuing this indoor CT approach.

      • I’m going with the whatever the tap temperature is, is. I’ve done the 5 gallon buckets of ice thing. First time, we were away from home for like 6 days and when I came back they were frozen solid, and it worked well. Lowered the 130gal by a good amount. Then, over the weekend I put another 2 5-gal buckets in the box freezer and more than 24 hours later they were only frozen about an inch into the perimeter.

        Too much trouble.

        I’ll just do whatever the fresh tap temp is, seasonally. I do change out the tank every couple of days, the lawn appears to love the flood of 130 gallons of water.

      • JofJLTNCB6 (f/k/a Jc) says:

        Even in my relatively smaller bathtub, I figure it’s still going to take a prohibitively large amount of ice to make a meaningful difference. And by “prohibitively”, I mean, “an amount that will probably irritate my wife” if I were to make the necessary room in the deep freeze or buy it in the store. Actually, buying it in the store would irritate *me*…paying real cash money for frozen water. That’s crazy talk.

        I’ll likely stick to the same plan to go with the cold tap water temperature. Jack Kruse probably wouldn’t approve, but I don’t have to wake up to Jack Kruse every morning.

      • You, sir, have the humorz.

      • If I had to guess, it problaby has somethign to do with the body’s reaction to the temperature WRT vasoconstriction and shutting down the capilaries in the skin.
        So, at 60, no vasoconstriction, no keepign the blood deep in the body -> Heat loss is faster and more substantial.
        At 50, body says, “F*CKINCOLD!” and pulls all the blood to the core so as to not lose heat. Your body stays alive longer, but your flesh becomes cold. But you’re not aware of the loss of heat, so you don’t FEEL cold.

        Unscientific guess, but might hold water if researched. ;-)

      • Jean, yea, pretty much my speculation.

      • So i looked into this CT thing. But nowhere have i found what i am looking for While you are toying with this subject, help me with this. I, a menopausal woman, recently started having cold flashes. Didnt know about these. Actual uncontrolably shivers. My goal as a Paleo-phite is to see if CT will relieve both hot and cold flash symptoms. Not taking drugs or hormones. Any info you have found would help. I am experimenting now, but, shoot, that water is cold. Is it worth it?

      • JofJLTNCB6 (f/k/a Jc) says:

        Kate, I know nothing about your specific issues, but I can say with certainty (insofar as my certainty is confined to n=1) that the cold plunges get easier. In the past few weeks, I have taken 7-8 of 20-25 minutes and each one was easier than the one before.

      • I hope to find someway of controlling my hypothalamus which is flipping out due to hormonal changes. Do I really want to freeze my buns off if it isn’t going to work? Still researching before I even put my big toe in. Going to California in May. Maybe will dip in the Pacific…that water is coooold!

  2. Richard,

    I think you were looking for this page on Einstein quotes re: God.

    “It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously.”

    • Yea, i know it’s debunked, but it’s still fun to bring it up because to many Xians never got the memo. I’m sure they’ll still be quoting Hawking for years to come.

      • Richard,

        I knew that you knew…
        I thought you wanted a citation. Perhaps poor reading on my part.

      • Nope aretea, just closing the loop. No sweat, and thanks for the trouble of digging it up.

      • Slight argument, more philosophical:
        I think that “THE RELIGIONS” are a load of bunk, overall. I say that being born, baptized, raised, Catholic.
        But most people are never capable of attaining any real self-awareness. (And I mean in the 1700s – forget the modern cluster-fuck, with social programming via TV, twitter, music, even our children’s books any more!) So, in lieu of proper education, a “quick and dirty” religious indoctrination works wonders on enforcing “proper” thought in the majority of people. God will punish you if you disobey, etc. Not to mention, social ostracism was likely a death sentence, even in the 1800s. And before the advent of portable, effective firearms, and a place to buy pre-made ammunition? Can only carry so many spears, or even arrows. Other humans, animals, accidental injury could all be fatal, not to mention poisoned or infected water, and the difficulty of hunting larger animals alone…

        But as to “god” (Can’t capitalize here, as that would mean THE God of a certain faith) – I’d say, whatever is the prime mover, or bringer of order, would be “god.” This god then supersedes the god of Abraham, Yahweh, Allah, et al. But the individual faiths have simply “adopted” that god as their God. (Detailed arguments will be ignored – wrong thread, wrong forum, for religious argument about which ones are demon-inspired vs. god-inspired.)

        I’d counter with another Einstein quote: “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I am not certain of the former.”
        Humans tend to be proud, especially when they don’t have a right to be. (See: Cluster B personality disorders; Roissy’s “Dark Triad” of Game; Greek myths ad infinitum, but especially Arachne/Ariadne.) Add in the politicized mess of modern stupidity (publish or perish, for instance), and the “First to Market” scheme of business, and then things like 6-sigma and “Lean” and “Just in time inventory”… Better to beg forgiveness than ask permission, right?
        Put all that (plus some odd extracts of Liberal philosophy, where we “can’t know anything”, etc; and odd pieces of religion, like an obeisance to “God the Father”, or the “Will ofAllah”) into the blender; hit Frappe. What comes out?

        I can’t figure it out either, it looks like some demon barfed all over Earth, and we’re living in it.
        Hence “retiring” one’s self from the political (and other) malaise, unplugging as much useless crap as possible… and trying to, as Aristotle said, “KNOW THYSELF.”

        There are reasons for the mess of Religion, Politics, etc. We could go on about it for hours – but those who wish control over others, ALWAYS are narcissists, and therefore are ALWAYS “Right”, even when the peasants are beating down the gates demanding change. “Those worthelss proles! Do they not understand, I do this for THEM?!” Sound like Marie Antionette? “They ask for bread? Let them eat cake.” She lost her head… Our leaders seem intent on doing the same.
        And that is true in each sphere: Catholic church being “mine”, I’ll pick on them a little:
        – “Dogma” (film) – the church went absolutely APESHIT over the very IDEA that PERHAPS Joseph and Mary acted as, well, HUSBAND AND WIFE. I mean, seriously, WTF? You can accept that the “virgin birth” of Christ is more easily explained by rape, incest, or “young hormones”, and discard that; and you can accept that Joseph was told by an angel to not turn Mary away (which would’ve resulted in stoning, IIRC), so he married her KNOWING she was pregnant; but then he was what, the ultimate cuckold for the rest of his life? His marriage was never consumated? (As I understand, not putting out the sheets from the wedding bed, with blood stains, was a BIG deal.)
        Long story short, a vile, irreverant, sacriligious, bawdy, crude comedy film got far more exposure than it ever would’ve, and all the priests went back to diddling altar boys, and said, “We did our part in keeping the world safe for Christ! We can’t help that people are fallen and evil!”

        WTF? Self-delusion much?

        And while we’re talking about diddling altar boys – that problem has been going on since my FATHER was an altar boy, so – if the Church didn’t deal with it correctly along the way, we (as a society of multiple faiths from a mostly-consistent background at the time) are the ones to blame, as we enver enforced our OWN rules – yet we blame the Church (some blame) and the guilty priests (lots of blame) and never look in the mirror and say, “WTF?” We as a society should’ve dealt with this issue, and made examples of both the perpetrators AND the enablers (who moved the guilty from one location to another). No one to blame but US.

        And now, the latest complaint is that no one wants to go into the priesthood. We won’t have enough priests! And the ones we CAN recruit are coming from Africa/Philippines/(other non-anglo culture)!
        Well, WTF again? I understand wanting to make God in your own image, and therefore wishing his agent (priest) looked (and sounded) like you… But if no one wants to commit to such a lifestyle, MAYBE THERE’S A REASON? Maybe it’s just selfishness or immaturity, or maybe it’s that we can now see the underlyign lies of the faith? Maybe it’s time we concede that the human animal is best forged and tempered in adversity – and we MUST have adversity in our lives, or we decay. “Where wealth accumulates, men decay”. Proverbs, I think, reprinted in “Poor Richard’s Almanac”. Most of our poor, even those on welfare, are doing better than the petty nobles of 1700s or maybe even 1800s. Food is plentiful, entertainment is plentiful, shelter almost guaranteed – what’s to worry about? Just lie back and take more Soma… (While people like me, Richard, etc. are taxed and harrassed left, right, and center to (a) support the government, which in turn will (b) support the indigent, especially willfully indigent, and (c) provide the comfortable illusion that all ethic groups commit crime at the same rate, IE, we are sacrificed on the altar of “Diversity”. Makes no difference whether you are white, red, yellow, purple… You will be forced to conform.)

        Makes me think of the old show, “The Prisoner.” (NOT the remake, the original.) “What do you want?” “We want Information. In Formation. IN FORMATION.” Be a good little cog (spheres of society, religion, corporation, etc.) Play the game. Don’t stick out. Don’t rock the boat. Don’t actually BE A HUMAN BEING. Just be the animal… Ruled by base instincts and emotions, wo you are easily controlled.

        The rulers forget, they too are products of this same diverse, anti-religious, totalitarian society – so they, too are weighed down by the same fetters, mental, emotional, spiritual, physical (thimmerisol?) – and even if you’re the greatest plague-bearer rat, you’re still nothing but a RAT.

        Religion is important for keeping the sheeple in line. So is proper law enforcement. But when these things fail, we are the ones to blame, too.

        Why is that important part always left out?

        (Answer is again that Cluster B personalities are easily led and controlled. The system gets what it selects for… Whether or not that’s what it SAYS it wants. “Where have all the good men gone?” indeed, you prissy little whore-princess… )

        /Threadjack

  3. Thanks Richard, I needed a good laugh today and that overly simplistic, ‘If I Wanted America to Fail’ video delivered. Plays right into the confirmation bias of many readers, I’m sure (and your’s too?). Makes me pine for the days when there was lead in our paint, asbestos in our buildings, chlorofluorocarbons in our air conditioners, DDT in my backyard and no seatbelts in my car.

    • Yea, Greg, you are such a smart mo-fo and thank you sir for the lesson in perspective.

      It’s not about that, but I’ve already heard the bit about pearls, swine, et al.

    • ….And by the way, Greg.

      I’m so very happy that your Messiahs and Saviors saved your little poor, incompetent, ignorant pussy ass from the scourge of lead, asbestos, clorofluohydrohydroclorfluocabons (do you have a license to use such big words?) and…gasp…DDT…FROM YOUR BACKYEARD. YEARD!!!!!

      And on DDT, fuck the millions of then brown skins who die of malaria every year.

      We’ll just give ‘em nets and jerk off to porno in the 5-star hotel in the heart of Africa and burry it in the expense report.

      Har har.

      Stupid fuck gonners.

      Hey, but at least you don’t have DDT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ….in your backyard.

      Go away. Stupid fucktard.

      • Wow, I didn’t think I’d incur that much wrath! For simply insinuating that there might be a bit of yin and yang to the idea of free markets and regulation? Really?

        Can I mention that I’m glad there are things such as national parks and protected wilderness areas or is that just anathema to you, too? Do I think they’re perfect? No. Are there problems? Sure. Is the free market the answer to everything? Fuck no. Not when people are involved and opacity is preferred over transparency.

        Are you simply trying to weed out those who enjoy reading your blog, yet don’t toe the line on everything? Or simply trying to discourage flippant dissenting comments?

        C’mon, if that ‘If I wanted America to Fail’ video was a PETA tirade against meat, you’d be all over it for over simplification of the issue and misuse of facts and ignoring other information.

        Jeez, and here I thought it’d be interesting to grab a beer/paleo beverage at the next ancestral whatever conference symposium thing.

      • “Jeez, and here I thought it’d be interesting to grab a beer/paleo beverage at the next ancestral whatever conference symposium thing.”

        You’d be surprised. I’ll buy.

        I did give fair warning for everyone to be on their worst behavior.

      • Sounds good.

        Always happy to tee one up for some bad behavior.

      • OK, Greg, now that all the bad behavior is behind us, let me tell you how your comment set me off.

        “Thanks Richard, I needed a good laugh today and that overly simplistic, ‘If I Wanted America to Fail’ video delivered. Plays right into the confirmation bias of many readers, I’m sure (and your’s too?). Makes me pine for the days when there was lead in our paint, asbestos in our buildings, chlorofluorocarbons in our air conditioners, DDT in my backyard and no seatbelts in my car.”

        First off, condescension gets a fuck you right off. most people who know me know I’ll put up with a lot, but when I’m writing a blog, especially a roundup where reducing everything to analysis kinda spoils the whole thing, I don’t expect to be taken to task for everything someone might say that i link to or highlight.

        Moreover, that particular video, while one sided has nonetheless an important theme.

        Watch it again.

        It’s really about the politics of the politics. its about fooling people.

        Second. you do the same thing Ive seen for 20 years and have grown too impatient with to rally anything but an FY. If you want productivity, then you want asbestos, pollution, DDT, or whatever scare is in vogue.

        If you want the federal deficit cut, well damn, guess we’ll have to shut down the Washington monument.

        Cut the education budget? Damn, guess we’ll have to cut school lunches and cutters want kids to starve.

        I could go on for a thousand lines.

        Hopefully, you get the gist. Argue strong, but don’t use hand wringing bullshit.

      • Richard,

        Totally understand. Hey, I wasn’t on my best behavior (I admitted to being flippant). But after getting riled up over Mr. Lynch’s story, I couldn’t help but find that ‘America’ video taking itself just a little too seriously and forcing a bit too much gravitas. And it did make me laugh, despite the underlying message.

        I’ll stick around and try to be more constructive when I comment. Unless I’m goaded into being on my worst behavior.

      • …and don’t go start being a good sport about the whole thing. :)

  4. I think that Ron Paul’s campaign has value, as opposed to Ron Paul the politician, who has none. His previous presidential campaign back in 07-08 was my ‘red pill,’ so I will always have a soft spot for him because of that. Though it took me a few years to become an enthusiastic middle-finger-giver to the state, I did get there, kind of the student surpassing the teacher in a way.

    Speaking of red pills, Richard, what was yours? I believe you mentioned it before but I cannot remember what it was. Ayn Rand?

    • Questioned asked, so I’ll answer, though it is nothing like it was in 1990. Neo-Tech was my initial Red Pill. I’m sure Google can fill you in.

      • Hahaha. Neo-Tech. I was 13 back in 1997 when I ordered the Neo-Tech book, “God-Man: Our Final Evolution”. What struck me was the health section. I remember reading in a bit of disbelief that we were simply mentally conditioned to eat and that you could just un-condition yourself and adapt to one meal a day or fewer over time. Martin Berkhan, Brad Pilon, hell even Ori Hofmekler, eat your hearts out. hahah. Thanks for the reminder.

      • Yea way after my time when it was just The Neo-Tech Discovery. 114 “concepts.” Actually, pretty damn good. Unfortunately, went off into territory I did not want to follow. But, it’s the truth that’s it’s what first got me thinking for myself, 22 years ago.

  5. Richard,
    you had a chance to vote for the legalize weed referendum in Cali and you didn’t. Cuz u dont vote.
    so stfu on weed

    • Steve

      Hey man, go back to the bong. Sit there and imagine the next great weed erection.

      BTW, I’m a non fan of the entire medical marijuana bullshit and if I voted, would vote against. Way too pussy and bend over for my tastes, especially since most enlightened and smart people over about the last 4 decades have smoked weed, I had a few hits Saturday night myself.

      The very stupidest thing ever was to try and make this just another tobacco bullshit.

      Go have fun with it. When it is legalized, I’ll be sure to get my occasional hit from a moonshiner.

      Now go fuck off, you little pussy, who should know better,

    • Steve

      Regarding weed and not voting in various referendums involving such, it occurs to me that you may have identified a systemic problem, therein. :)

    • By voting, you are purposefully backing and justifying the coercive evil system that any moral human should rally against.

      • Carlos, I long ago came up with a quick one-liner when asked why I don’t vote:

        “because I’d never do that to you.”

      • I like that

      • JofJLTNCB6 (f/k/a Jc) says:

        Yeah, by not voting for a change…ANY change from the current laws, you obviously completely agree with the current laws.

        Really? That is your conclusion?

      • I stated that by voting you are justifying the idea of laws, the government, and taxation.

      • But worse, you are seeking to be part of the bigger mob who imposes its will through force, jail, seizure, coercion (they always use what we love against us) or even death against those unfortunate enough to have fewer friends.

        This is the state of your lofty system, demorepublicanocrats.

      • JofJLTNCB6 (f/k/a Jc) says:

        But the ballot initiative wasn’t to do away with any laws, it was the imposition of a new law…(wasn’t it? I’ll admit, I don’t stay current with other States’ initiatives…and especially California). By voting, you are justifying the idea of this new law. Only by not voting are you in actuality casting a vote for neither the existing or the proposed law.

        Eh, or something like that. I was somewhat invested in this response when I started, but very quickly completely lost interest and really don’t care now. I’m even debating whether to hit “submit” or close this window…

      • Jof

        Great display of apathy towards voting. See?

  6. Libertarians are squishy academics, for the most part, and anarchists are quibbling drop-outs. But egoists are indomitable. What if someone were to come up with a way to massively increase the number of egoists in society — while simultaneously driving the anti-egoists out of their minds?

    That is to say: Ahem.

    • I think that is the purpose of (to borrow a phrase from Keoni Galt @ hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com) Tell-a-vision. Telling you what to think, how you compare to others, what you’re ENTITLED to…

      ;-)

  7. Alex Good says:

    Am I to understand that you believe atheists to be superior? If so, you’re a moron. Since the existence of a god can’t be proven one way or the other, the belief in one is simply personal opinion and not subject to how “superior” you are.
    Put simply, there are plenty of idiotic atheists, just as there are plenty of idiotic theists.

    • Alex:

      Amazing how logic contorts.

      Atheists are superior in principle, given that most grew up with the fantasy and dumped it in spite of all admonishing by hand wringers to the contrary.

      The inferior ones wriggle. That’s not Good, Alex.

      • unicorn says:
      • Ok, unicorn

        Please do keep publishing your links. They’re about the equivalent of 10lb ladies dumbbells (no pun intended) for those who’ve been at this for a while, but I see where you are.

        You can’t just take it on faith, can you? And you don’t even realize how profoundly that distinguishes you from simple believers who honesty do.

        Do you even realize that all of these brilliancies you’re linking to have been regurgitated and dismissed for hundreds of years? No, you don’t becaue you only seek out that which pacifiies your inability to simply believe on faith.

      • unicorn says:

        You’ll love this one then!

        “Do you even realize that all of these brilliancies you’re linking to have been regurgitated and dismissed for hundreds of years?”

        Have you listened to the recent Craig/Harris debate?

        Have you listened to the John Lennox/Dawkins debate?

        Hardly lightweight exchanges. Don’t look now your confirmation bias is showing…

      • Ok, so you’re not going to take it on faith, I see.

        Rather, you’re going to take stock in “debates” that amount to each side hearing what they want to hear.

        I’m just holding out for verifiable, scientific proof of a personal God deity. I don’t need any debates to tell me that there is none. I’m sure I’d have heard such news by now.

        This whole debate thing essentially amounts to both sides charging the other with showing them the proof. Since neither side has any, bot sides WIN!

      • Where I do find debates over religion useful is when they serve to highlight the oppression religious institutions have dealt to humanity as a whole, women, children, minorities and homosexuals, among others.

      • unicorn says:

        You’ve conflated religion with theism.

        “I’m just holding out for verifiable, scientific proof”…

        You hold all sorts of unscientific beliefs.

        Five are here…

      • “You’ve conflated religion with theism.”

        Have I posted Carl Sagan’s bit from A Demon Haunted World yet, about a fire breathing dragon living in his garage?

        If not, let me know.

        I’ve made no such conflation. Theism is merely the fantasy that all religions draw from to make the fantasy seem less ridiculous.

        They call them “doctrines.” some, catechisms.

      • unicorn says:

        Richard,

        I had a Philosophy professor who played devil’s advocate incredibly well. Later I found out that she was an atheist and hard leftist. As most of the twenty-something students were also lefties and atheists, she, in her role as devil’s advocate often argued conservative (ala Burke, Kirk,etc.) and theistic principles (Aquinas, Plantinga, etc.).

        She alluded to examples of vocal atheists and political leftists either mis-characterizing their opponents / creating straw-men. The sky-fairy allusion was one such example.

        The debate as to whether only scientific knowledge should be trusted was another topic. (Again she was a materialist / strict-determinist / atheist) but she often counter the “scientism-ists” in the class with thought-provoking counter-arguments like questions concerning the intelligibility of the universe.

        The Craig clip is only 3 minutes and it is interesting. If for no other reason than Atkins’ sour-puss and Buckley’s demeanor…

        This link as well isn’t long and is well argued.

        I believe I understand the arguments and have sometimes attempted to explain them myself. These two posts just do it with more style, is all.

      • Somewhere over a Parallel Universe, way up high…….. where there is the oppression NON religious institutions have dealt to humanity as a whole, women, children, minorities and homosexuals, among others. What “religions” (including atheism) have done or now do in the name of God shows neither proof or non-proof of the existence of God. You know better.

        “Atheists are superior in principle, given that most grew up with the fantasy and dumped it in spite of all admonishing by hand wringers to the contrary.” That would make me superior in principal because I grew up not on any fantasy, not any “religion”, and claimed Christ in spite of all admonishing by hand wringers….well, not really. There were no hand wringers, but I went from non-believing to believing by the wave of God’s magic wooden spoon. Prove me wrong.

      • Whatever floats your boat or gets you off, Kate.

        How am I supposed to account for everyone that goes quirky and loopy?

        I recommend dealing with reality or taking lead medicine if it comes to that. But that’s just me. I do recognize that people use all manner of disparate “devices” to cope with things they individually find too arduous. It’s a personal matter. This is far removed from religion qua institution.

      • That’s cool. I’m glad you aren’t tying me to a stake and burning me in effigy. I totally respect the way you think about things. But calling yourself superior because you “outgrew” the fantasies is a bit narcissistic, don’t you think? Or, are you just adding fuel to the fire….

        I like wind to float my boat…oh, but wait…you can’t see the wind. Maybe it doesn’t exist…..I see God’s “results” all the time. Just look at my grand daughter’s face and tell me there isn’t a God.

        And if God helps me “cope” so I don’t have to take lead medicine, all the better, right?

      • Ah, then based on your logic, when you look at the face of someone who, for example has neurofibromatosis, or leprosy….then that would compel you to believe that there is NOT a god, right? Helluva a “result” for your god, huh?

        I could easily look at your granddaughter and assert there is no god. Hell, I can even look MY granddaughter straight in the eye and say the same thing.

        Beauty doesn’t a god make.

      • “But calling yourself superior because you “outgrew” the fantasies is a bit narcissistic, don’t you think?”

        No. At a point, there comes a time to identify and distinguish.

        It’s long time past that fantasies ought to be relegated to their propped place. I think fantasy is wonderful, BTW. Religion corrupts it.

        Kate, I don’t know what you’re used to in terms of discourse, but when you say something like since you can’t see the wind, it doesn’t exist, you unfortunately look like, and I don’t thing you are, a moron, ignorant, backwards.

        Let me show you.

        Since when is sight our only sense? I may not be able to see the wind, but I can see evidence of it. I can see the movement of the trees, the clanging noise when branches fall on the patio sheet metal awning. My dogs get up in paws.

        I smell different things.

        I feel the chill on my skin.

        I hear the swooshes everywhere.

        And if I’ve launched my hang glider from a point and ride a thermal, and don’t keep my mouth shit, I’ll taste the bugs it carried up with it.

        There you go, all other four human senses, I think.

      • No, that’s your logic. You assumed too much.

        No, the opposite. IN MY OPINION, thank God I can have one…..God created leprosy (or did that bacteria evolve from the pink slime at the beginning of time?)

        Just because man is disfigures by it….well so what? The bacteria is benefiting….and the man may have leprosy for the “greater good”. So I can look at that man and still believe in God.

        I have a “heart” , I have feelings…I feel love, hate, blah blah blah….I, again my opinion, assert that that is from God. And my grand daughter is absolutely beautiful….so there.

      • “Kate, I don’t know what you’re used to in terms of discourse, but when you say something like since you can’t see the wind, it doesn’t exist, you unfortunately look like, and I don’t thing you are, a moron, ignorant, backwards.”

        It is a scriptural reference John 3:8 pertaining to the “spirit”. I guess that makes me ignorant? I just assumed that when you argue against a god you may have studied yourself.

        And…all those senses just listed…..How can you (plural) use them, very poetically, I might add…..and still think there is no God?

      • “God created leprosy”

        Doesn’t it always come to this? Now imagine what illogical contortions a true believe has to go through to not only accept it, but consider it part of gods plan, or whatever the mental disease demands.

        So now you may see the beauty of a forum like this. Didn’t Kate wade in here all rational and reasonable? She did.

        And now, this.

        It was 21 years ago now that I physically lifted a middle finger to the heavens in symbolic gesture of the liberation of my mind. I’ve yet to reget it.

        Kate, if your “god” created leprosy, then fuck him. Fuck your god.” I do hope you’re better than him,though. If not, I worry for your safety.

      • Yes I did……and since wading in here I have gotten NOTHING done. I’m supposed to be blogging. I have to admit, I hope someday my blog has this much Chutzpa. And, Sir Richard, I promise not to call you ignorant….to your face.

      • I didn’t assume one damn thing. I went with what you said and followed your “logic” to its natural extension. You said it; I certainly didn’t.

        What the fuck kind of god would create something like leprosy? And what “greater good” can there be in dealing with a disease like that? Next you’ll be saying it’s WONDERFUL what happened all the victims of tsunamis, earthquakes….it’s all for the glory of an egotistical bastard. “Here, let’s torture you a little so I can feel better, make people beg and plead to see if I’ll bother to let them live. Ahhhhhhhhhhyes, now that really feels great!”

        You know what? Richard already said it in another post. People who think like you do, like to suck god-cock. On their knees, and they swallow.

      • unicorn says:

        Problem of evil
        Main article: Plantinga’s free will defense

        Plantinga’s aim in the Free Will Defense is to show that the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, wholly good God is not inconsistent with the existence of evil, as many philosophers have argued. According to Plantinga, “the central idea of the Free Will Defense [is] that even if God is omnipotent, there are nonetheless possible worlds he could not have actualized.”[29]

        According to Chad Meister, professor of philosophy at Bethel College, most contemporary philosophers accept that the free will defense shows that it is logically possible for God and evil to co-exist, as long as a strong notion of free will is logically possible.[30] The problem of evil is now commonly framed in evidential form which does not involve the claim that God and evil are logically contradictory or inconsistent.[31][32] However, some philosophers continue to defend the cogency of the logical problem of evil.[33]

      • Oh now, what’s wrong with swallowing? Your guy needs to change his diet, makes all the difference ;-)
        Richard, that warning on your comments section is overdue…

      • Hey, takes a cock sucker to know another cock sucker…oh, dear…that was rude. We all have our “cocks to suck” in one form or another. Yours is that you believe…..what? that nature is the all powerful? That we just all of a sudden “big banged” ( speaking of cocks) and voila! A man with leprosy….evolving from the “pink slime” ( oh, I know it was green, gray soup….at least that’s what “they” say). Where do you think nature came from? No, really….I’m curious. In all this discourse these past few days, not many of you have defended your beliefs…only came down on me for mine…..Where did we come from? Enlighten me?

      • Is swallowing Paleo?

      • You really don’t get it. A “belief” is an opinion you hold with NO evidence to support it. Also known as faith.

        I don’t hold “beliefs” and I have no faith. You seem to have the idea that “atheists” BELIEVE that there’s no god. No, I don’t believe that either…I just have seen zero evidence that couldn’t as easily be explained by the tooth fairy.

        Until there’s some solid evidence…I guess what I believe in is….coffee.

      • gahrkness:

        Bullshit.

        I’m sure you believe strongly that there is no Santa Clause, Eater Bunny, Tooth Fairy or Ebenezer Scrooge.

        C’mon. You believe it. You have faith that they don’t exist.

        You, in fact, pertain the the religion of believing all the foregoing don’t exist.

        Just admit it.

        Your religion is no different.

      • Really, Richard, could you at least spell my name right before you rake me over the coals? ;-)

        I think the quibbling point here is to believe without evidence. IMO there is plenty of evidence that a god doesn’t exist, so that’s not a faith-based “belief.”

        For example, I consider (and I know I’m not exactly the first person to think of this) that a god as posited is actually not possible. He couldn’t do **all** the things ascribed to him; therefore by definition, he could not be god. That’s pretty much the end of the story as far as I’m concerned, but a lot of people like to go further and explain a lot of other logical fallacies.

        I suppose if you want to call that ‘religion,’ well, go ahead. I still believe in coffee.

      • gharkness:

        yes, i know and understand that god is not possible. however, when dealing with theists I like to take baby steps.

      • OK. One thing I want to make clear. Just because I believe in Jesus, doesn’t make me a Jerry Falwell crazed religious zealot. In reading these posts, I happen to have very similar “beliefs’ as many of you here. I am non Political….I don’t vote. I believe in as little government as possible. I like Rock and Roll, and I live with my boyfriend…and ex-Navy man, now National Guard. I like Ron Paul, sort of….the other geeks in power just plain, well, suck each others’ cock. Oh, and I am a Paleo-phite and have been for over a year. Yes, it’s the best thing I have ever done for my health. So, we aren’t all that different. That’s why I ended up here.

        That said, let’s have some coffee.

      • Doesn’t’ that make you Agnostic?

      • “And…all those senses just listed…..How can you (plural) use them, very poetically, I might add…..and still think there is no God?”

        Oh how your indoctrinated ignorance makes me laugh.

        At this point, i’d love for you to simply continue to post 17th and 18th century missives of wonder.

        We don’t get many of you soul savers round these parts, and you never know.

      • Gee, Richard. I’m not here to save your soul. That’s your problem. I am just stating my opinions and, well, I happen to think I’m right….No, really. If I knew any 17th and 18th century missives, I doubt anyone would understand the English vocabulary used back then. It isn’t Jersey Shore. God will save your soul, not me. AND as I said many times before, I WILL not push my beliefs on anyone. At all. not even my kids. So, need not fear….Discourse, my dear.

      • “God will save your soul, not me.”

        Condescending bitch.

        Fuck you, and your “god”

        Can I be any clearer?

        Really.

        Fuck. You. Fuck. God. Fuck. Psychopath-Jesus.

      • You couldn’t leave it alone , could you> Ha..You love it…having someone to look down on. Fuck you too. Now, can we talk paleo?

      • Here…let me really piss you off. I like Jack Russells.

      • LOL

        Alright, Kate. You obviously have what it takes to take it all. Impressive.

      • Sigh. An agnostic is “without knowledge,” presumably in this case with respect to god.

        An atheist is “without theology.” He has no belief in a supreme being.

        If I am an agnostic, I am also an atheist, because I do not have a belief in religion or in its tenets. How could I believe something if I didn’t have knowledge of it? Oh, wait! That would make me a Christian! Let’s just say… I have no god, which makes me both an agnostic and an atheist. No conflict there.

        But I **could** also say I was an atheist if I had a positive belief that there was no god, in which case I would NOT also be an agnostic.

        You really need to read up on this stuff if you want to argue it.

      • marie curious says:

        Oh it’s very Paleo!: Nutritionally, there is high quality protein (glutathione, creatine) and minerals (Phosphorus, zinc, magnesium, some calcium, potassium), heck even vitamins: Ascorbic acid (vitamin C), vitamin B12.

      • There’s not enough of it to make a difference, but certainly in the instance *I* described…it’s nonexistent!

      • “I don’t hold “beliefs” and I have no faith. You seem to have the idea that “atheists” BELIEVE that there’s no god. No, I don’t believe that either…I just have seen zero evidence that couldn’t as easily be explained by the tooth fairy.

        a·the·ist
           [ey-thee-ist]
        noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

        ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
        n.
        1.
        a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

        There, now we are both clear.

      • marie curious says:

        You’re so right, gharkness.
        Definitions matter, or we don’t even know what we’re arguing about.
        Too many use the term ‘agnostic’ as some kind of ‘atheist-lite’ -but really, it’s a term relating to knowledge, where atheist is a term relating to belief.

      • “where atheist is a term relating to belief.”

        Unmittigated bullshit.

        An agnostic is a pussy too afraid to simply say you’re fucking loony bins. An atheist simply dismisses god, like we all dismiss stupid moronic bullshit.

        An atheist is someone without a belief in god. Moreover, Webster had like hundreds of thousands of words to define, and it’s no surprise that he got one wrong.

        Look at the etymology. A-theism. It’s someone without theistic belief.

      • “an atheist is someone without a belief in god” -um, yes, that’s why i noted that “atheist is a term relating to belief”.
        I agree with you Richard, especially since I am one. Where’s the problem? I didn’t’ come down hard enough on the “agnostics” ? O.k. I agree there too, just don’t express myself that way…well, not until I’m totally exasperated and that just takes longer for me…I’ve been having way too much fun today, winning an all. So I’m mellow, shoot me. :-)

      • my error marie. I see you were just associating belief with atheism, not labeling it a belief.

        My error, I fucked up. I’m an idiot.

        And now, I’ll take my spanking, please.

      • Score! +1.
        Sorry, I can’t, I’m laughing too hard! I’m all out of witty come-backs by now, I think. Hmmm…you last much longer than I do, sir :-)

      • “you last much longer than I do, sir”

        Just what a man likes to hear.

        hahahahah

      • hahaha. Well that’s just righteous. Being the owner of this blog, master facilitator of comments and trickiest Dick around, I figure you deserve to get your ego stroked sometimes – as one great-ape to another…. :-)

      • You forgot the fructose. Oh noes, the fructoes! And I was trying *so* hard to not post a comment in this thread.

        I must have been about 5 years old when I was standing in assembly listening to everybody singing “All things bright and beautiful” and thinking “No they’re not!”

        I’ve been an argumentative little bastard ever since, ain’t that right Richard? ;-p

      • marie curious says:

        “…in the instance I described…it’s nonexistent!” Lol! +1.

      • marie curious says:

        Nigel! Why aren’t you asleep over there? Midnight, what? Good boys don’t stay up late. :-)

      • “Nigel! Why aren’t you asleep over there? Midnight, what? Good boys don’t stay up late. :-)
        You just answered your own question! I would have stayed up (oo-er, missus) even later, but I have a blocked nose & headache (even Vitamin D can’t stop me from catching viruses).

      • Uh huh, I guess I knew that ;-). Sympathies for the cold! Just fasted my way out of one myself – it does seem to shorten the duration by days (2-3, vs. 5-6). It was one my one-an-only cold in a year, so I’m thinking all the vitamin D over the winter really did help – thanks for your posts on it.

      • I felt unwell on Sunday night and I spent the night shivering fully-clothed under my duvet. I just took aspirin and kept going. I went out on Monday, Tuesday & Wednesday nights and I’m now feeling relatively normal again. Vitamin D does indeed appear to be the dog’s doodads. :-D

      • Kate:These are not valid definitions, but you go ahead and spout them, because they make you feel good, apparently. Must keep you from thinking of all the lepers and people with neurofibromatosis.

        Do you understand the meaning of the term “a-“? It means “without.”

        Here’s another definition of agnosticism: Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.
        So, I am without knowledge. (I don’t give a shit either, but that’s past the point.)

        Atheism: Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. I am without a belief in a god.

        That is ALL IT MEANS, no matter what some prejudiced dictionary-writer wrote.

        Just like I said to start with WHEN YOU ASKED ME – so WHY DID YOU ASK?

        So I guess it comes down to whether my search engine can beat up your search engine. There, that should make you feel better.

        Now, I have seen you say some pretty condescending things, but I do believe you need to quit telling ME what I supposedly believe.

        (Thanks, marie. That is correct).

      • The definitions were from the dictionary, but, like science books and history books, you just can’t believe them, right? I HAVE NEVER TOLD ANYONE HERE WHAT TO BELIEVE. THAT’S UP TO YOU . Is that clear enough? I have said that over and over….but like so many in our wonderful uneducated society, you look for and hear what you want. Very selective.

        “You know what? Richard already said it in another post. People who think like you do, like to suck god-cock. On their knees, and they swallow.”
        “Next you’ll be saying it’s WONDERFUL what happened all the victims of tsunamis, earthquakes….it’s all for the glory of an egotistical bastard. “Here, let’s torture you a little so I can feel better, make people beg and plead to see if I’ll bother to let them live. Ahhhhhhhhhhyes, now that really feels great!”

        I’m condescending? Gee….You all seem to think I came here to Bible thump. The topic opened itself…and NOT by me. I just commented. And because I don’t agree with you, I’m the idiot and I have been treated as such in here, with a few exceptions. I have been attacke since I have been here. I thought you all were open minded, but I was wrong. Even by the owner of this blog. Shit. If this is Paleo lifestyle at it’s finest….maybe I’ll hit McDonalds. At least they are nice to me there.

      • Kate, the dictionary was very carefully chosen. Face it, there are thousands of dictionaries online. Pick the one that says what you want it to say. You asked me what I “believe,” and I told you, and then you told me no, that’s not what I believe. And you say YOU have been attacked?

        There is a very fundamental difference here between you and me. I am unable to take seriously the ideas of someone who is willing to accept that magic exists. You either believe in magic or you don’t. You do, and I don’t.

        That pretty much makes everything else moot, because we are looking through two different pairs of glasses.

        Now, I don’t have problems getting along in everyday life, because I realize that a good portion of the population believes in magic, and I have no reason to argue with them. In the meantime, I seek out and spend my time with people who don’t believe in magic, and that makes my life very good indeed. Even when they yell at me and spell my name wrong, like Richard just did.

      • FUCK. “Kate, the dictionary was very carefully chosen. Face it, there are thousands of dictionaries online.” I fucking picked the first one that popped up! For crying out loud….that is bull shit. I asked you if maybe agnostic was a better term? And I quote “Doesn’t’ that make you Agnostic?” That’s all I said. Shit….all of you have made so much more out of what I say….maybe you should look closer in to this discourse. Or something….

      • Look closer in….for what?

        As I said, we’re looking through different pairs of glasses. We will never see things the same because we have a different basis for our views.

      • Or A theist is someone who is a, well, theist. Watch out for punctuation?? Ok, this is a dead horse.

        I understand you are from Texas, and, I, being a Texan….by choice, am not willing to go against ‘family’. “The eyes of Texas are upon you…..”

    • BTW

      “Since the existence of a god can’t be proven one way or the other”

      As a long time commenter here, I would have never suspected you of being, well, so weirdly prejudice.

      The existence of unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster, Easter bunny and Santa can’t be “proven” one way or the other either. That’s what you call fantasy.

      • Alex Good says:

        And you need to think about whether their existence makes sense. I may not believe in the flying spaghetti monster myself, but I won’t fault anyone who has thought about it rationally and decided that it exists.
        People who don’t think about it are fair game, though. Atheists may not be superior to theists but intelligent people are superior to idiots.

      • “I may not believe in the flying spaghetti monster myself, but I won’t fault anyone who has thought about it rationally and decided that it exists.”
        Why the hell not? The Abrahamic god is self-contradictory (problem of evil and theodicy) and therefore cannot exist; so, yes, in the case of the biblical god, it can be disproven.

      • Alex Good says:

        If you were an all-powerful being how would you describe yourself? As an immortal jerk who enjoys screwing with the human race or as a benevolent omnipotent force for good? Don’t forget that the bible is supposed to be his words, not the truth. People just assume he wouldn’t lie to them.

      • The fuck are you talking about?

      • Alex:

        Actually, that was roughly the proto-argument implicit in me when in 1990, laying on a couch in Toulon, France, I lifted a middle finger to the sky and never looked back.

        Your argument is self defeating. Nobody thinks they’re just a slave to a miscreant who gets off on the misery of his own creation, or by default, through inaction. They, or at least very many, believe him to be a personal God, concerned with every fortune, misfortune, and what color of panties they select that morning.

        So, I guess, in a sense, let’s advance your argument. God may very well be an asshole. Worked for me. It’s kinda a cool to come to the realization that you are morally superior to your “god.”

        Slaves paved the way, there.

      • Alex Good says:

        The really funny thing is that based on what I’ve read so far, the devil may actually be morally superior to him as well. I haven’t read all of the stuff on it yet though.

      • Really, Alex?

        You seriously take the Pastafarians seriously even while none of them take themselves seriousy and their whole point is ridicule?

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8635624/Pastafarian-wins-religious-freedom-right-to-wear-pasta-strainer-for-driving-licence.html

        They’re laughing their asses off at your expense and you don’t even get it?

      • Alex Good says:

        Read what I said. I know damn well it’s all one big joke. But if someone THOUGHT ABOUT IT RATIONALLY and decided that it could very well exist I wouldn’t fault them.
        Don’t try to twist around what I say and use it against me. Use your brain and argue without cheap tricks.

        And before you make that argument, yes you can think rationally about whether deities exist.

      • Alex.

        Google “stolen concept.”

        You don’t get to think about the irrational “rationally” and arrive at a rational conclusion.

        Just admit it was dumb. We all do it.

      • Alex Good says:

        You can’t prove it one way or another but you can weigh evidence which suggests that either one or the other is true.
        That is how you think about it rationally.

      • No, Alex.

        You need to Google around for “arbitrary assertion.” You do not need to worry about every single silly arbitrary assertion someone comes up with, demanding that you “evaluate it.”

        Arbitrary assertions are RATIONALLY and ONLY rationally dismissed out of hand until there is solid, verifiable, reproduceable (if experimental) evidence that there is reason to take it seriously.

        Taking stock in arbitrary assertions is irrational.

      • Alex Good says:

        You mean like the arbitrary assertion that what the atheists believe is superior?

      • No, that’s no arbitrary. It’s arguable. If we both accept the premise that the more correct, rational stance is superior to anicorrect, irrational stance then we can take on just about anything and judge it.

      • Alex Good says:

        Since the statement “there is no god” is also arbitrary (it can’t be validated, which means that the definition of “arbitrary assertion” applies equally to it and to “there is a god”), any conclusions drawn from it are also arbitrary.
        Which means that your assertion that atheists have the superior philosophy is just as flawed as the belief that christians are superior for believing in a god.
        I don’t know what’s out there. You don’t know what’s out there. Stop pretending you do.

      • “Since the statement “there is no god” is also arbitrary”

        No, its not at all arbitrary, in the exact, precise way and means that saying “there is no Santa Clause” is not arbitrary.

        It is not arbitrary to dismiss an arbitrary claim.

        “I don’t know what’s out there.”

        I do. Existence. Stuff. Things. I know little about the true nature of all of it, but I do note that people who observe and study seem to be able to explain more about it all over time than at some point in the past.

        So that’s where we are.

        “Stop pretending you do.”

        Every honest person reading this knows exactly who’s not pretending and who’s pretending he’s not pretending.

      • Alex Good says:

        So is this going to go back and forth with me saying it is arbitrary and you saying it’s not? The fact is you’re wrong and you don’t want to admit it because your entire personality depends on you knowing how the world works. You are just as bad as the christians who go around thinking that the bible can’t be wrong, you just can’t see it.

        Yeah, you might be right about there not being a god. But the fact that you won’t entertain the possibility that you might be wrong just means you’re too set in your ways to be reasoned with. I’m done trying.

      • Alex Good says:

        I will however be checking back from time to time to see if you’ve smartened up.

      • Alex

        Let me make it as simple as possible.

        There are infinite possible assertions. We have very finite minds, and time. Thus, we’ve worked that out by saying, ok, any assertion can be entertained, but because we have a very finite ability to assess the veracity of assertions, lets set a standard, whereby, an assertion must come packaged with some evidence that’s verifiable by anyone with the skills to assess such matters.

        The entire realm of religious faith is predicated upon, well, faith.

        Now, back in the day, if you did not possess this faith, they would simply draw & quarter you, burn you at the stake, or if provelidged, lock you up in prison indefinitely. In other words, they were honest about it, in a sense.

        But today, because men can actually walk on the moon and do other sciency things, religion has become an ugly stepsister if the only thing you have is to just believe it.

        They have an enormous inferiority complex, now. Hell, kids are capable of things like using a smart phone that was beyond the imagination for gods.

        And so, it’s all various contortions of “scienceism” to attempt to cast religion in a scientific light rather than a pure faith based light, because it simply strikes people more and more, as ridiculous superstition and it’s only going to get worse/better.

        In terms of a scientific claim, it’s still as arbitrary as it ever was, has no verifiable science backing it, is still an attempt at explanation without explaining anything and the list goes on.

        Arbitrary claims are properly dismissed out of hand.

      • Alex Good says:

        The dismissal of an arbitrary claim is arbitrary in and of itself. All this is is a shift in the dominant philosophy, not a correction of past mistakes.
        A correction would be to just admit that nobody really knows enough to make any decisions on what does or does not exist.

      • “The dismissal of an arbitrary claim is arbitrary in and of itself.”

        Thanks Alex.

        Sincerley and from the bottom of my heart. You expose yourself to be not worth another second of my time.

        You’re a moron.

        I’m sorry about that. but if you can’t draw a distinction between an hypothesis with evidence that ought to be taken seriously and an arbitrary claim of bunnies hiding chicken eggs for kids, then you’re a moron.

        I actually don’t believe you’re a moron. What you’ve done is expose yourself as dishonest.

      • Alex Good says:

        And you’re an arrogant idiot. Of course that’s what I enjoy most about your blog so I really shouldn’t be complaining. You find what you look for.

      • Alex:

        Did you hear me?

        You’re dishonest.

      • Alex Good says:

        You do realize that calling the opposition a liar is the basic fallback for zealots, right?

      • Alex, do you know the difference between lying and being dishonest?

      • Alex Good says:

        They’re synonyms. Go get a thesaurus if you don’t believe me.
        Also, Arbitrary: subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one’s discretion.

        The decision of whether dismissing an arbitrary claim is the right thing to do is, by definition, arbitrary. This means that it should be dismissed as well. Logic loop.

      • “They’re synonyms”

        No, they’re not. While lying is a form of dishonestly, you can actually tell the technical truth and be dishonest. Lawyers and politicians do it all the time. Using truths out of context or truths that don’t tell the whole story are examples, which is why they use the oath “the truth AND the WHOLE truth.”

        “The decision of whether dismissing an arbitrary claim is the right thing to do is, by definition, arbitrary.”

        Wrong again. But I’m out of time.

      • “And before you make that argument, yes you can think rationally about whether deities exist.”

        Ok, and so what is your rational concluded deliberation on the issue of Santa and the Easter Bunny? How about unicorns?

        Hopefully, you might conclude that there’s a more rational use of your deliberative powers,

    • Generally religious people argue that the existence of their god can’t be disproved, but are quite certain that the other guy’s god doesn’t exist.

      For example most Christians are quite certain that the gods that ancient Greeks or Romans believed in do not exist, and they are certain that Shiva The Destroyer does not exist. In my case, I happen to worship Thor God Of Thunder; however I have never met a Christian who is willing to posit that Thor may actually exist.

      If you are not willing to accept the possibility that Thor really exists, I don’t see why I should entertain the possibility that your god exists.

      • Alex Good says:

        I’ve never denied the possibility that Thor exists. Something(referencing gods, not just things in general) exists, of that I’m 90% sure, and I just choose to believe in the one who requires it for his version of paradise. As long as I die a violent death I get Valhalla whether I choose to sacrifice animals to them or not.

      • Actually, not true.
        If you die a violent death, as in shot in the back while running away peeing your panties, you go to hell. (Forget the asgard equivalent, but it’s not Valhalla.)
        Odin’s Daughters, the Waelkyrie (Valkyries) choose the slain, and they are chosen based on VALOR in death. Fighting an uneven battle, for instance, when it would make more sense to run away. Think “300” for another example of worthy death.

        Something to be said for that, too, since I’m a confirmed yet lapsed Catholic – WTF is the point of being confirmed as a “soldier of Christ” if the biggest “fight” is whether or not I should pay full taxes to the IRS, or serve on a jury, or donate to Covenenant House? All very “clean”, and not much in the way of actual effort, risk, or valor.

        I’d posit that is part of the root of our issues. We have nowehre to go, no where to fight, no where to be MEN. (or even women, for that matter.) Just vapid consumers… All wealth, all decay, no challenge, so no victory.

      • Alex Good says:

        Well if you want to get into specifics, the valkyries weren’t the daughters of Odin. Whereas I simply failed to make my point clear (courage and all that was supposed to be implied in my statement), you were just plain wrong.
        I do agree with your statement about society making it impossible to do something great with your life though.

      • Hmmm……
        Valkyries are Odin’s daughters through Freya, and form an all female military squadron known by any of the following: Odin’s Battle Maidens, Shield Maidens or Chosers of the Slain.
        Per http://www.valkyrietower.com/odin.html – however, that is the only site a quick cursory check brought up with that information.
        Wikipedia was fairly quiet about this, though see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freyja#Relation_to_other_goddesses_and_figures and you find the line “These examples indicate that Freyja was a war-goddess, and she even appears as a valkyrie, literally ‘the one who chooses the slain’.”[47]”

        Not sure of validity, but it’s at least a decent possibility. ;-) So I won’t just concede the point. :-)

        I think the point you had intended to make was that you could gain heaven/valhalla/etc. regardless of faith. This sounds similar to some of the Calvinist commentary I was reading earlier today at InMalaFide.com ). It’s not your faith, or your good deeds, you’re just “chosen”? Not many faiths have that “edge” to them, and it’s a big point of centention with my GF, that she has, “Accepted Christ as her lord and savior,” so she seems to feel she can be a bitch whenever she wants – but she’s “saved”.

        That whole line of reasoning always felt wrong to me – After all, you want to get to Heaven, you’d have to first believe in God. (Christ as redeemer maybe, too, depending on the faith.) Otherwise… Why would an omnipotent, omniscient creature give a rat’s ass about any of us? (We can argue later about whether or not he/she/it would care, let’s just say it would for sake of argument.)

        Further, even medeival literature supports this notion, that it’s not just by faith, or profession of faith, that one achieves redemption, but by ACTIONS. If you will, that’s what saved the thief on the day of the crucifixion. The repentent thief was willing to atone for what he’d done, and aksed forgiveness, basically (taking some literary license, I confess.) But it was by ASKING to be remembered that he was “saved”. (And I’d point out it didn’t do squat in the physical world.)

        So, if I die attacking a group of skinheads who are committing murder, would Jesus and Odin fight over who gets my soul? Am I taken to Heaven for acting in defense of others? Or am I taken to Valhalla to prepare for Ragnarok, because I’m such a ballsy warrior? (For sake of argument, I won against a certain number of skinheads, took no pleasure in killing them, and was motivated purely by desire to prevent injury to the victim. Change any detail, we can’t argue this question, as if I didn’t beat anyone, I can’t see valkyries taking note; if I take pleasure in the killing, I’m evil by definition – destined for hell – that’s a MORTAL sin, BTW; if I’m motivated by desire for treasure, notoriety, etc. my motivations are not pure, so I’m not acting in a state of grace – i’m acting for personal gain.)

        Well, if I’m a modern Pagan worshipping Odin, I could see the valkyries dispatched; but if I’m a Christian, I can’t see being taken to Valhalla as a non-believer, even if Odin is “the one true god” ™. ;-)

        Make sense?

      • Alex Good says:

        I see your point but dieing in battle is the only official requirement for Valhalla. Courage was implied but faith wasn’t. And I’m wondering if I might as well switch over to paganism since I am really doing it for the heaven stuff, which is personal gain.

        Also, I don’t take my information from websites if I can help it. All of the lists of Odin’s children in the Eddas and all of the sagas which I’ve read mention nothing about the valkyries being related to him (familially) in any way.

      • Rob, “we just go one God farther.” Dawkins.

      • unicorn says:
      • Oh, noos. I was worried about this. I was hoping against hope that no one would haul out…

        “I am a writer and philosopher living in Los Angeles. I teach philosophy at Pasadena City College. My primary academic research interests are in the philosophy of mind, moral and political philosophy, and philosophy of religion. I also write on politics, from a conservative point of view; and on religion, from a traditional Roman Catholic perspective.”

        Whoa. Edward Feser is just devastating. You win.

        Where has he been all my life?

      • Ok, unicorn, I’ll toss you a bone. While I could not manage getting through all of Feser’s psychodouche, I do understand the mechanism.

        You see, very simply, Euclidean geometry and Pato’s writing are actually REAL.

        Do you get it?

      • I actually went back and read through that tonight with more time on my hands.

        There should have been a song called “Blinded by Philosophy,” which, of course, would not apply here, because “Blinded by Philosophist Parlor Tricks” applies better.

        In other words, it’s no surprise you put that link up with no argument yourself.

        You don’t have a clue what it says, and that’s why you and others find it so beautiful, and was the point in the writing it in the first place.

        He could have said it in about a sentence. “The “one God further” deal is bogus because the real God created Thor, Athena, Zeus, et al.”

      • unicorn says:

        “You don’t have a clue what it says”

        A well-reasoned criticism of the anthropomorphic-god caricature you consistently use here, me thinks.

        Feser’s book, The Last Superstition, is indeed a difficult read.

      • “Feser’s book, The Last Superstition, is indeed a difficult read.”

        I’m sure that’s the absolute truth, though I imagine “excruciating” would be a better description.

      • I don’t think you get it, unicorn. I’m a former divinity school student at college level. Graduated from a small Baptist private school with a class of two and so I was only in the top 50% — but the other guy went on to fly commercial airliners, so fuck me.

        I won a Bible preaching contest and a congregational hymn leading contest at the age of about 17.

        I’ve read the Bible cover to cover many times. It was literally our whole lives from about 74-79. We didn’t even have a TV, spent our time tending to a 5000 sq foot garden, chickens (eggs and broilers for meat), goats (milk), and rabbits (meat). We hunted birds and deer, and fished steelhead trout in the Klamath river.

        I already know all of this stupid shit and I dismissed it years ago as not only utterly worthless veridically, but harmful on many levels.

        So forgive me if I don’t jump to attention with every new video and link to brilliance you post. This has ALL been dealt with, and long past is the time I agitated over it beyond simply having my fun ridiculing and making fun of it at the age of 51.

        I wish you well. That you have the courage to come engage here speaks more well of you than bad and I’m optimistic about your intellectual future.

      • unicorn says:

        Christian biblical theology has nothing to do with arguments (reasoning) for god.

        Your knowledge of theistic philosophical arguments is woefully lacking for someone who consistently insinuates that the matter is settled.

        Thanks for the well wishes.

      • “Christian biblical theology has nothing to do with arguments (reasoning) for god.”

        Exactly!

        No religious doctrines have anything to do with the “reasoning” for god, which is why we have religions and their disparate dogmas and doctrines.

        It was necessary, because there is no “reasoning” for God.

        At least you’re working your way up the chain of illogic, so I have to give you credit for that.

        Eventually, you’ll see Craig for the intellectual masturbator he is. Be assured, you’re not the first to post links to Craig. Not sure whether I saw the Harris debate you referenced, but I do believe I watched some of a debate with Hitch.

        I laughed, not so much at him, but at all the wide eyed imbecils who don’t see him for what he is. He’s a clever logical contortionist, far well enough to woo most people, including you. Not even close for me, Sean, or many other rationally mature people.

        You see, we just went and learned the principles of logic on our own, and when we post links to videos, it’s not to show someone how someone else is so much smarter than us that we can’t even begin to explain it on our own terms (watch the video!!!!!!!!!)

        It’s to make them laugh. Because…

        For example, Nooooobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tym0MObFpTI

        You are amusing, though. The more I dismiss and laugh at you, the more serious you get.

      • “woefully lacking for someone who consistently insinuates that the matter is settled”

        For a matter to be settled, there must be a matter to begin with. Fantasies are no matter.

      • unicorn says:

        Richard,

        I had a Philosophy professor who played devil’s advocate incredibly well. Later I found out that she was an atheist and hard leftist. As most of the twenty-something students were also lefties and atheists, she, in her role as devil’s advocate often argued conservative (ala Burke, Kirk,etc.) and theistic principles (Aquinas, Plantinga, etc.).

        She alluded to examples of vocal atheists and political leftists either mis-characterizing their opponents / creating straw-men. The sky-fairy allusion was one such example.

        The debate as to whether only scientific knowledge should be trusted was another topic. (Again she was a materialist / strict-determinist / atheist) but she often counter the “scientism-ists” in the class with thought-provoking counter-arguments like questions concerning the intelligibility of the universe.

        The Craig clip is only 3 minutes and it is interesting. If for no other reason than Atkins’ sour-puss and Buckley’s demeanor…

        This link as well isn’t long and is well argued.

        I believe I understand the arguments and have sometimes attempted to explain them myself. These two clips just do it with more style, is all.

    • Tomasz R says:

      I’ve never understood believers urge to worship this totalitarian dictator they call “God”. Normally if you believe in existance of somebody, you don’t lick his boots, worship such person. Even if it’s a powerful person: a boss, a dicator etc. But in case of a dictator called God they do this.

      • “Normally if you believe in existence of somebody, you don’t lick his boots”. I just watched a video called North Korea undercover…a National Geographic documentary with Lisa Ling. They not only kissed this asshole’s boots, they would have sucked Kim Jong Il’s dick if he had had one. These people were brain washed from birth, as are, well, so many religious people..(.in all religions) to claim him the supreme being. Go figure

      • Kate, he is their God. Litterally, as with the Japanese and their Emperor prior to WWII.

        That said, I like your style. Glad I didn’t scare you off or chase you off. Another reason I like you.

  8. Yup, exactly. Kids understand this completely naturally, they associate Santa/Church/super-heroes etc. with fantasy as a matter of course, from the moment they understand the concept of imagination….if we don’t brain-wash them daily or suppress their own conclusions :
    True story > Dinner table, ca. 30 years ago :
    -baby bro (5yrs old) : Santa’s coming tonight, Santa’s coming tonight! (runs off chasing rein-deer sporting dog..)
    – big sis (10 yrs old) – whispering : Dad, there’s no Santa, right?
    – Dad – whispering back : Right, but imagining is fun, remember? You can help him with that (wink).
    – big sis (forgetting to whisper ) : but, but…if imagining is fun, why does grandma take me to church sometimes? It’s no fun.
    …..silence, then belly laughs from both parents. Grandma sputtering. End of any church-going.

  9. sigh > reindeer-Antler sporting dog :-)

  10. Richard, did you listen to Kruse’s webinar?

    Curious to know if it’s lame or worth the $.

    • Rob, you talking about the podcast w fat burning man, or something else. If no, no, did not see.

      • No, not the fat burning man thing. He did another one (yesterday?) for $$$. Maybe he’ll send you a link so you can review for free. Don’t want to pay for it, frankly.

        BTW, did you see @ShitKruseSays? Could the MeanGrrrls be any more obsessed?

        It’s not funny, so it’s gotta be by Evelyn or Kamal Patel.

      • “did you see @ShitKruseSays? Could the MeanGrrrls be any more obsessed?”

        Who, Melissa and Emily?

        I noticed yesterday that both have unfollowed me on Twitter.

        I laughed.

      • No, Emily’s wickedly funny, so I don’t think she’s behind the twitter account. It might be Melissa, though.

        By “Mean Grrrls”, I’m thinking of the attack squad of grad students and miscellaneous hangers-on who think “Paleo” belongs to them because they went to an Ivy. I actually think most of them are male (though all of them are b*tchy….hence Grrrls.)

        Maybe Mean Grrrls is the wrong metaphor. They’re more like the winged monkeys from the Wizard of Oz. :-)

        By the way, there’s a great interview with Tim Ferriss & Ray Cronise here (cue to 41:30 for the content):

        Ray is the real deal (and listening to that interview made me wonder if Kruse really had his magical vision at Michelangelo’s statue, or if he had just realized he could rewrite chapters of “4 Hour Body” into a platform for himself.)

        In any event, I don’t need a new God (whether Ivy-Leaguer or Nashvillian doc), and I certainly don’t need their nauseating disciples!

        Keep rockin’, Richard!

      • If emily was really funny, then she would have appreciated my Tweet yesterday when she posted a pic of herself in the mirror her husband had just put up, with a nice wood frame.

        My tweet: “nice frame.”

        now that’s fuckin’ ambiguously funny and she didn’t even give me the nod. :)

        I think Emily is great. Melissa too. Oh, well….

  11. The only reason I would vote for Ron Paul if I lived in the US would be because he’s not trying to make the government bigger, and more invasive then it already is. He’s trying to put it in reverse.

    Politician is just a title. I think he only began politics because they got rid of the gold standard and he thought “WTF are they doing?.” I think voting is important if it prevents further government spending and regulation, and puts it in reverse.

    If those elected in government are looking to destroy or downsize government, they might have my vote, as I don’t see any other reason to vote. The only other option would be to take up arms in a revoltution, not vote and hope everyone else does the same, otherwise somebody else is going to have their way, or not vote and ignore that you’re being robbed without protest.

    • “I think voting is important if it prevents further government spending and regulation, and puts it in reverse.”

      Old Anarchist slogan:
      If voting could change anything, it would be illegal!
      Lenin, I think, said: It matters not who votes – only who COUNTS the votes.

      Remember those when you go to vote. (I’m still debating whether or not to – last election I cast a protest vote, because our system screws third parties and I at least wanted to make a point. Besides, NJ always goes asshole, I mean Democrap.)

      • The last vote I did in Canada was a protest vote as well. A party that I haven’t even heard mentioned in the news, ever. If the system really is rigged, then not voting accomplishes nothing. Voting at least has the potential to be counted fairly, or accomplish nothing.

        If it’s truly rigged, then the only other option would be a revolution. Or ignore things.

    • “The only other option would be to take up arms in a revolution”

      Nope.

      1. Henry David Thoreau
      2. Ghandi
      3. Martin Luther King

      They all had something in common, and that’s your alternative.

      • I don’t know, passive resistance in any examples where it worked seems to have worked because it was seen by the powers that be as a real threat of much larger violent resistance if they met it with violence. So the cost-benefit analysis wasn’t in the powers’ favor in each case. After all, “Losing” India wasn’t a financial loss in the long-run for Britain, quite the opposite. And in all cases, you still have government, just changing forms.
        The problem that I can’t get around, help me out here!, with the passive resistance approach is, well, scale, again, so same problem as with any -ism. If the passive resistance is nation-wide in the largest economy in the world and really decreases profits for the government/industrial/financial powers, the cost-benefit analysis shifts to violence – they have to hold a gun to our heads, persecute several to set examples/instill fear etc.
        I don’t think the farm animals can just ignore their cages, that won’t make the bars go away.
        But if there is a way around this, then the kind of honest discussion you foster here, not dominated by ‘vested intellectual interests’ , might actually find it …well, so maybe I’m not that much of a pessimist after all;-)

      • Civil disobedience ought always be tried before people start killing one another.

        Screw this masturbatory analysis bullshit. Of course, it works in times and places, when a time has come. Fuck-Duh.

        Unfortunately, it seems to take visionaries to take such a simple concept and propose it over…taking up arms and killing people or cowing in perpetuity as slaves.

      • Yes, fuck-duh…and it’s been a damn long comment session, no? on at least two posts that I see.
        But I’m not advocating anyone taking up arms.
        That would be a solution to my problem and I’m saying I don’t see a solution!

        Has someone thought of it? I really am asking.
        I try to keep up with philosophy, from freedomain radio (Stefan is a contemporary and a Canadian) to Ayn Rand, with stops in between at the greeks, the romans, the germans, the ‘enlightenment’ etc, but I haven’t seen one, so I’m frustrated.

        How do you expect to be allowed to just walk away – not in small numbers, that doesn’t affect the profit, but in the large enough numbers where it does, where the powers get violent.

        It’s the size issue, always.

      • Jeremy Voluntaryist says:

        “It’s the size issue, always.” – marie

        It always is with women isn’t it. :P

      • Lol. I can’t believe I didn’t see that one coming.
        O.k., you too sir are very bad, very very bad… geez, at this rate, we’ll have the whole round table here soon – but Sean is Galahad, that’s firm.
        (if that doesn’t ring a bell, see the disastrously long thread on spanking in these comments -enjoy, hey one good laugh deserves another :-)

      • Jeremy Voluntaryist says:

        I just got done with that one. I only get to catch up every week or two so I fall behind.

      • “that’s firm”

        See marie? Jeremy had you pegged.

      • LOL. Damn!
        I’m getting a reputation and it’s all my fault!
        Wait…checking, checking, no, that last phrase should be fine. :-)

      • “Has someone thought of it? I really am asking…..How do you expect to be allowed to just walk away – not in small numbers, that doesn’t affect the profit, but in the large enough numbers where it does, where the powers get violent.”

        Effective civil disobedience can no more be predicted than can effective revolution where arms are taken up (CD is a form of revolution).

        There are times, places, circumstances that bring about both.

        My only point is that CD is something that can be “poked” without a lot of risk, without the shit having to hit the fan; for no matter the outcome of any armed revolution, a lot of blod is going to be involved and I really hope that in spite of all frustration and anger and vitriol and all the rest, that clear heads prevail.

        The recent large;y moronic Occupy movement was a stab at civil disobedience. Peaceful, so far as I could tell, so I give them credit for that. But it just didn’t resonate. That’s no surprise to me, but I do give them props for keeping it peaceful.

      • Yes, I know.
        But when the very logic on which peaceful anarchy rests leads to a pretty dire prediction (gun to head because large-scale CD deprives the rulers of too much profit) then even if I think there ‘must be something else’, I would have to hedge my bets while I’m waiting to figure it out and try to at least influence the government so that it isn’t completely insufferable in the mean time.
        The best government up to know has been like HIV : treatable, with a whole lot of effort, but not curable. We don’t have even that ‘best’ government here, but if the other ~50% voted, could we? Unpredictable, I know…. and around and around I go.

  12. The bible is effectively a theory which is also it’s own claimed evidence. I’m sorry Alex, that’s not how proof works.

  13. Funny, my daughter is 12 and has never stepped foot in a church and she is the nicest kid I know… Weird eh?

    What really amazes me the most about religious nuts is you can tell them to there faces that Christianity, Muslim, and ANY other religion still floating around collecting money and causing more harm than good nowadays, is a complete rip-off of early pagan mythology and the original Egyptian “Sun” gods ie: Horus.
    To say to them that religion started 5 to 12 thousand years ago with the “study” of the sun/moon and stars – yes astronomy – then watch there face crunch up in a confused stupid fucking billwildered look is priceless.

    Is it because they are afraid of the fact that when you die you just die? How about giving 110% in the only god damn life you get – sorry there are no underage virgins in heaven waiting for you after you kill the non-belivers.

    I encourage all nuts to visit this site, read some of D.M Murdock’s books, and even try to debate with them logically. http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/index.php

    For Muslims in the crowd – try and prove this guy wrong and get paid $50K

    • “Is it because they are afraid of the fact that when you die you just die?”

      No “religious nut” is afraid of that. Quite the opposite. They are afraid that when you die you don’t JUST die. It is far easier and far more comforting to believe that when we die it is just over. That regardless of our actions in this life we all meet the same meaningless end…no more, no less. If atheists are right then religious belief, and lack thereof, are both meaningless. If atheists are wrong, then everything else is meaningless. The religious man’s bets are hedged, so to speak…though I don’t consider that a good qualifier for religious belief by any means.

      “How about giving 110% in the only god damn life you get…”

      When was the last time you saw a “religious nut” NOT giving 110% in this life? People act according to their beliefs. The stronger you believe something the more it will affect your actions. The Westboro Baptists have VERY strong (and very misguided) beliefs. I’d say they easily give their 110% according to their beliefs. Wouldn’t you?

    • ” sorry there are no underage virgins in heaven waiting for you after you kill the non-belivers. “

      But with tight Game, you can get them here for free!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! :-D
      (Just kidding, but it HAD to be said!)

      I’ll need to take a good look at that Alisina link – the ONE religion that seems bent on world domination through any means necessary, and all means possible. Always interesting when I see somethig heretical to chose

      • “Always interesting when I see somethig heretical to chose”

        WTF? Typo!

        Always interestign when I see something heretical to explore, especially about Islam. (After all, ANY mention of ANYTHING about Islam is heretical to them…)

      • His site is fantastic – He proves Mohammad is a narcissistic psychopath villian that invented his own God. The best part is he debates with Muslim Scholars who really show the true colors of their beliefs. He has single-handly convinced tens of thounsands of Muslims to leave the religion. He has yet to lose a debate..

        But I encourange everyone to read throught that freethought forum – they really nail the orig of all religions.

  14. dr. gabriella kadar says:

    I live in Canada and the issue of whether a person is a ‘believer’ or ‘non-believer’ or ‘atheist’ just isn’t. Most of us are simply not interested. The rest of us are too polite to ask. There are a number of social ‘do not go there’ items and religion is one of them. This does not indicate a lack of interest in learning about various religions.

    This is also why we do not have an abortion law.

  15. I’m almost disappointed that no one has jumped in with the “if you don’t vote, you don’t have the right to complain,” argument, to which I was eager to point out that not availing myself of one right does not strip me of my other rights. And therefore, whether or not I vote has no bearing upon my rights of free speech.

    But…nobody has said that. How “disappointing!”

    • The “If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain” line actually soudns suspiciously like the fascistic, “America! Love it or Leave it!” line, which I was sorry to hear from a veteran recently…

      Given that the best place for a “human resource” is somewhere “productive” (and please bear in mind that the transfer of wealth mechanisms are considered productive from control perspsective), our government is making it impossible for us to leave. We can “import” millions of illegals and grey-market labor (including, for example, Russian programmers vis-a-vis Oracle, I think it was, coming in on 1-B visas or something – tourist visas, not H1-B “skilled labor” visas), but we can’t allow anyone to leave the roach motel.

      I agree that if you don’t vote, you don’t have a right to complain.
      At the same time, above comments should’ve made it clear: It doesn’t MATTER how you vote, the “right” person will always win. Voting for your slave-master is not a legitimate vote. It is a coerced vote. It is an illusion. And ultimately, the ballot box will rech critical mass, and people will “vote” with the cartridge box. And some “unscrupulous” individual will start targeting NOT the figureheads – POTUS, Speaker, Governer, Judge, et al – but instead be more cold and calculating, and take out those closest to the puppets: husbands/wives/children. “There are ways for a man to walk, and yet be dead.” -“Wake of the Red Witch”
      Failing that, those who are blamed (rightly or wrongly) will be targeted: Tri-lateral comission, Bildenbergs, bankers, et al. Possibly in the same way.

      It will get very ugly, very violent, and end badly for all involved – even the spectators. Can’t sit it out, ya know? Especially not in the era of Predator drones, FAEs (Fuel-Air Explosives), and cluster bombs. And I fear the day is coming very quickly – If the Aryan Nation is inviting Black Panthers to speak, acknowledging the two hate groups have more in common with each other than the ruling elites who are corrupting the system, and they might bury the hatchet long enough to fight the common enemy?

      Yeah, there’s no neutral here. And no winners.

      BTW, I think not availing yourself of one of your rights would amount to nullification of that right, over time. As in law enforcement, failing to regularly enforce the law means there is no law; it is null and void through non-enforcement. (Which means I should start pushing the family harder on using some of our rights, actually – thanks for making me realize that!)

    • Gharkness. I’ve always said that if you vote, you have no right to complain (in a moral, not legal sense). Simple logic. You signed up for the rules, so don’t be a poor sport if things don’t go your way.

      Anyway, go to YouTube and plug in “George carlin doesn’t vote”

  16. “Nobody should be emotionally blackmailed to think like every one else. An nobody should be punished for being an individual. ” Ok, Mr Atheist man, thank you for your words of wisdom. Is that why God isn’t allowed in schools? I think so, Ms O’Hare. So,why can’t I think like I want to? Hey, I believe in Jesus. and you called me CRAZY. I have a mind of my own. Let me use it. And you can do whatever the “heck” you want.

    Is there really Paleo Beer?

    • Deities are generally omnipotent or damn near omnipotent so I don’t think it is actually possible to not allow a god in school, gods can go wherever they damn well please. They can enter into schools, strip joints, honky tonk joints, you name it.

      • But they never do, never show themselves, isn’t that strange?

      • Not if they don’t exist. It’s entirely predictable (if they don’t exist, they won’t show up, even for free blowjobs)

      • “Soemtimes I think the only sign that there is intelligent life out there, is that they’ve never contacted us.”
        (Bastardized Calvin and Hobbes line)

    • “I have a mind of my own. Let me use it. And you can do whatever the “heck” you want. ”
      You obviously don’t have a mind of your own, because you’re vomiting the same horseshit falsehoods that have been perpetuated by your rulers.

      • Kate:

        Carlos is right. Dismiss the fact that he’s on his worst behavior. There’s a point to that.

        You did not nvent religion, not even close or far. Not at all. You are simply regurgitating it and comforting yourself that you have a “mind of your own” when what you are really demonstrating is that it only goes so deep.

        This is why I really kinda love what I’m up to, here. I’m already dealing with folks who have the basic intelligence in order, ie, Paleo. Takes a lot of independent thinking to get even that far, given what you’re up against.

        You’re not done yet, Kate.

        Best wishes.

      • Points taken. You don’t know me and you don’t know where I get my beliefs. I have lived all over the world, I have studied and lived amongst other “religions” , I chose to unschool my kids to keep government out of our lives, I taught them to think for themselves, and yes, God is not in our schools because some loud mouth woman with a chip on her shoulder (O,Hare…look it up..if it hasnt been removed from the history books….) screamed “separation of church and state is in the constitution” (which it’s not….look it up) . All this to say, I ain’t regurgitating nothing. Unless its a Big Mac, which I don’t eat because I chose a Paleo lifestyle…. I do not believe in the church club otherwise known as organized religion, much as I believe neither did Jesus. I don’t believe He wanted us to hail His mother and count on beads. What I do believe is that I have a right to my ideals, just as you do, without being criticized and ordered to put my Bible away. I don’t do that to you (plural) and it pisses me off when I am told how I am supposed to behave and what i’m suppose to believe so as not to offend someone else. Bull poop. You (plural as in Mr and Mrs atheist) have offended me. Dont start saying i am homopobic or would spit on anyone in a Burqa. What I believe came from independent thought and study and from maybe reading blogs like your, Sir Richard.

      • PS. I appreciate what you ARE doing here I like a good stirred pot.

      • “What I do believe is that I have a right to my ideals, just as you do, without being criticized and ordered to put my Bible away.”

        Shit, I wish I had a right to not be criticized.

        Really?

        Maybe there is something to this religion thing.

      • But actually, frank criticism is probably the chief reason I’ve maintained a blog for so long.

        If you’ve truly come to these ideas on your own, Kate, without being taught them by others (which I done believe…I think you’re lying about that and simply covering for fear or whatever), then how could you possibly worry about criticism from others who have clearly not had the benefit of your rare experience?

      • Did I say I came up with these ideas all by myself? I think not. I was taught….a lot of different things…Didyou not also get your ideas from being taught by others? Don’t you expound highly on the Paleo life style? Did you make that all up yourself? No, you studied, picked what you liked and went with it… Like putting your body in 50degree water. Hmmm….come up with that all by yourself? Am I criticizing you for it? No! And I don’t criticize, I critique….as I did about said ms O’Hare. I spoke the truth…She was a loud woman, had a potty mouth and a chip on her shoulder. See? Critique.

      • Kate

        I can show you a paleo diet, what it’s like to fast, got in 50 degree water an so on.

        Nobody can really show you god, and neither can you really show anyone else.

      • I told my grade 7 religion teacher (yes, catholic school) that the class was bullshit and never looked back. It amazing how easy people get mind fucked.

      • Carlos isn’t right, Kate has as much right to do what she wants as anyone else does and shouldn’t be restricted from taking a bible to public school or praying before a test or whatever, the law shouldn’t give a fuck one way or the other…
        The argument Carlos and you give is about as correct as telling someone they aren’t original and don’t have a mind of their own because they are using English to get their point across and therefore are a bunch of conformist pussies for communicating like everyone else or for eating Paloe :/

      • Poison the well, Jorge.

        Anybody can take a bible to school and pray any time they want. And that has always been the case and chances are, always will be.

        The battle for prayer in schools has long been a dishonest one, one that you fell for. Nobody taken seriously ever sought to prohibit individuals from praying. They sought to prohibit the state from forcing everyone to pray in an institutional setting.

        But of course, an honest accounting of it like that would never fly, which is why the republicans are every bit as despicable as the democrats and why I reject all of their bullshit, wall to wall and floor to ceiling.

        Fuck them all. Fuck Obama, fuck Bush, and fuck them all right down to Washngton and all who stood with them.

      • Where’d you get that? “Anybody can take a bible to school and pray any time they want. And that has always been the case and chances are, always will be.” I LOL. When is the last time you entered a public school? First ban of prayer in school was 1962, then affirmed in 1963. No, no prayer….not even the head bowed.. No prayer at commencements, sports games. Coaches get away with it, but several have been taken to court. Our freedom in action.

      • I am not sure about taking a bible to school – that’s probably not allowed, but NOBODY can keep another person from praying. When I was being indoctrinated in the catholic church, I was taught that praying was something I did internally. No one can keep a person from doing that, and it doesn’t require a bowed head, closed eyes or ANYTHING else.

        You are getting prayer (aka talking to yourself) mixed up with public demonstration of prayer. Not the same thing. The second is illegal; the first cannot be prevented.

      • Kate

        You are conflating anyone’s personal right to pray anywhere, anytime–well, perhaps we can make an exception for an airline pilot in the act of landing–and institutional prayer, as in, let’s all bow out heads in prayer.

        And anyone can take a bible to school, any public school in America.

      • Again the thing about being a deity is that you are pretty much all-powerful, the normal rules that apply to humans are inapplicable.

        So a deity does not actually have to HEAR you pray out loud, any deity worth its salt can read your thoughts.

        So if the deity was a human named Steve, you would indeed have to broadcast the prayer and speak loudly and clearly so that Steve can hear your prayer.

        But if the deity is god-like, as deities tend to be, you can just THINK your prayer and the deity will hear it, that’s one of the great things about being a deity. There is no need to speak loudly and clearly, deities do not have hearing impairments.

      • It was about 5 years ago. A friend’s son just started Jr. High. At lunch, he did what he had always done. He bowed his head, put his hands together and said Grace, silently as his mommy had taught him. All of a sudden two, not one, but two staff (teachers?) swooped down on him and chaotically removed him from the cafeteria and took him to the principal’s office. There he was told he wasn’t allowed to to “that”. Poor kid….He could have been praying to Thor. But he was in the act of prayer. Not allowed. For all I know the staff (teachers) were fine upstanding, tithing Southern Baptists, but they, as was the principal, were scared of “the Man”. NO PRAYER IN SCHOOL….SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE< blah blah blah. The parents didn't fight it, but made the indecent well know and decided to homeschool the boy. Make of it what you will.

        Anyone can take a Bible to school. Anyone can take a gun to school…but you had better no display either one.

      • “He bowed his head, put his hands together and said Grace, silently as his mommy had taught him. All of a sudden two, not one, but two staff (teachers?) swooped down on him and chaotically removed him from the cafeteria and took him to the principal’s office. ”

        I call bullshit. I simply do not believe it, not even for one micro second. I think you’ve swallowed a big whopping lie. Otherwise, the kid was being overtly disruptive and was dealt with because of that, and of course, given the agenda, it became about prayer. In fact, I could see that as a very good baiting strategy for someone who wanted to make a case.

      • No bullshit!! Would I lie to you? No need to lie. There is too much truth to back me up. It was the act of paranoid bureucrats.

      • There’s a difference between some functionary behaving outside his or here authority and something being illegal. Such oversteps can be challenged on many levels

        Nobody has yet linked to established legislation that it’s illegal to bow ones head and pray, or bring a Bible to a public school.

      • To the contrary, a lawsuit filed in the public schools where I live was decided in favor of the plaintiffs that it was allowable for them to evangelize by distributing written religious materials. This is the well-publicized “candy cane case.”

        http://federal-circuits.vlex.com/vid/doug-morgan-v-plano-independent-dis-320749887

        Those of a religious persuasion would have you believe that “religion is being outlawed,” when the exact opposite is the case.

      • At least I **think** that is what it says. I am NO lawyer, that’s for sure, and when I read this, I first think it was decided one way, and then I think….no, wait….it was decided the other way.

        All I can say for sure right now is that the right to bring religious materials to school has certainly been debated in the courts!

      • I looked a bit more and found this blog entry. Looks like I was wrong and the prohibition against evangelical materials was upheld, but then the ISD changed their policy, and the court has found no issues with it.

        “In 2005, after the suit was filed, the district adopted a new policy concerning the distribution of materials: 30 minutes before and after school; during any of the three annual parties; during recess; and, yes, during school hours, “but only passively at designated tables,” as the court put it. The district said, Look, passing out anything during school hours is disruptive, K? To which the court responded this week by declaring the 2005 policy good and constitutional.”

        So, religious materials can be brought to school, but only passively distributed.

        Sorry for my misinterpretation earlier, but a full reading (if you have a while) will show that I was wrong.

        This is from The Unwasted Life blog.

      • There is no legislation. It is mere interpretation. Fear of the ACLU.

      • Certainly not true. The legislation has been very carefully written and debated many, many times. The link above was to one **actual** case.

      • Rich, perhaps your right, I take Kate’s comment at face value and didn’t look into whether it was banned for individuals or if it was pertaining to school sponsorship. I thought maybe there was some recent ruling that banned saying ‘God’ or ‘Amen,’ nothing would surprise me.
        I agree no one should be coerced into praying or chanting or anything else. For that matter, Fuck saying the “pledge of allegiance.” Let me dig back and say how much I fucking hated saying that shit every day before class started. I was always fearful that if I didn’t drone it out like a mindless zombie every day that I saw going to get clocked in the back of the head with the butt of a rifle. Really? Is that how you manufacturer patriotic Americans? The best way to create loyalty is by choice, not coercion. I am very resentful for having had to endure that every morning. I am very patriotic about America’s freedoms and opportunities, not at all loyal to the tyrants that wrote that shit and mandate that kids recite it. Even my mom who is super religious did not have me baptised because she felt it should be my person choice and it would be meaningless if I didn’t truly feel that way with all my heart anyways.

        PS True to your blog’s name you should feel free to talk about any topic that free’s the animal, there is no need to limit yourself to Paleo.

      • Jorge

        I blogged a bit about the religious-socialist “pledge” (arguably the most anti-American thing ever devised) way back. I suppose you could find those posts by lugging in ‘pledge’ or ‘the pledge’ into the search function.

      • Actually, there have been severa cases extending the “Separation of Church and State.” One was against a Mormon girl, who had a necklace of the 10 commandments on; one was a Christian who wore a cross to her school. Those two I recall offhand, and I believe there was also one about a cross printed on a shirt, with some Christian slogan on it – but too lazy to look it up right now.

        “Separation of Church and State” is BS, and it is now virtually impossible to bring anything “religious” into pubic (spelling intentional) school. The Msulim headscarf (not the burkha, just the scarf) is forbidden in some places – seen as the same as “gang symbols”, for example. while this is a conflation of two things (can’t ban Baseball caps worn at funky angles, or ‘do rags, or … without banning head scarves – it’s just not “fair”. )

        How about we make it simple? Gang violence is met with more violence, with superior force. Survivors are executed.
        Everyone can dress how they feel is appropriate. If more blacks are in trouble for (whatever), well – tough shit. Same for whites and latinos and asians.

        Unfortunately, the Liberal ideal of “Equality” means EQUAL OUTCOMES. So the retard must become a millionaire, too. Well, if we’re ALL millionaires, what is the currency worth? Same as toilet paper, the numbers are meaningless, having the paper is meaningless, it’s no longer a store of value. It has become, by sheer volume and ubiquitous presence, worthless – inflated or devalued, the specifics don’t matter – EVERYONE has it, EVERYONE has the same amount, etc. So no one really has anything.

        I think Liberals live the “Everything I needed to learn, I learned in Kindergarten” poster, and are mentally incapable of being any better. They’ll never “graduate” to first grade; complex things like cause and effect are beyond their fragile little minds, because it implies we’re not all “equal”.

        Most of us here know better… :-)

      • Hmm, funny, Jean. I have so many lib friends, mostly all my gay friends–I used to live in urban lofts. Some are doctors, lawyers, phDs and such, I’m no conservative but I usually just keep away from the topic because I just don’t stack up one way or the other.

        It’s perhaps that I come from a more conservative upbringing that I often give them more slack, in terms of understanding a little about economics. Yep, lefties run circles around righties on religious matters, but righties run circles around lefties on simple economics.

        I have no idea why.

      • “and it is now virtually impossible to bring anything “religious” into pubic (spelling intentional) school.”

        Sorry, Jean, but I have to call bullshit on this.

        Beyond the simple fact that if it were true you’d see a firestorm from the right unlike any other, I just went and asked my school teacher wife, just now in her 30th year in CA at elementary and JH.

        She laughed. There is absolutely zero policy she’s aware of in CA against bringing religious stuff to school.

      • I actually wouldn’t be surprised if some elementary school teachers swooped in on some kid to stop him praying.

        The issue is, as you say, Richard, being forced to pray, not whether or not one is allowed to pray or carry a bible at school. But that doesn’t mean people, especially public sector employees won’t get it mixed up.

        Because most people are just that stupid.

        Take a look at how few people understand the difference between negative rights (the right to PURSUE happiness) and positive rights (the right do be given free stuff paid for by others). The right to pray or carry a bible in school is a negative right. Forcing everyone to pray is an infringement of a negative right, but how many people understand the difference?

      • It is up to each individual school district as to how they interprete a law that doesn’t exist. It’s called the “don’t offend your neighbor” law. No. In my area, central Texas, it is mandatory that no religious-ness comes into the schools. Unless it is Kwanzaa

      • I don’t have a problem with localization and decentralization of government services, especially of things like schools (as a step in the right direction). What you are talking about sounds more like the whim of local public sector administrators who are backed up by a powerful national public sector union, the Federal Gov and barely or not at all accountable to the local community.

        Incentives matter. The people who cut your check matter.

        I’ve no problem believing these petty tyrants would get it wrong when the President doesn’t seem to understand or willfully ignores the Constitution.

      • I pulled from national – live in NJ, and would prefer to stay away from “the land of fruits and nuts.” (As I’m sure is evident, my sanity hangs by a thread already…) ;-)
        {Shut up, Carlos! You’re thinking too loud!}

        Anyway – a quick Google turned up the following – not all are religious, one mentions a nose ring, but shows the same sort of stupidity, so I included it.
        http://skinnyreporter.com/schoolbans.html

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/jan/19/crucifix-court-nadia-eweida-ba (This one is about an employee, not a student)

        http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/02/kids_suspended.html & http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1975790/posts (Same incident – second link sums it up quite nicely, I think, as a Napoleon-complex – another problem of egoism and/or cluster B narcissism in our society.)

        http://card.wordpress.com/2007/01/14/school-bans-wearing-crucifix-more-discrimination-against-christians/ (Key point, Muslim and Sikh students not forced to remove THIER “religious” symbols while Christian girl forced to remove crucifix on necklace as “health and safety risk”.)

        http://www.kvia.com/news/25114175/detail.html

        http://christwire.org/2009/12/8-year-old-suspended-for-drawing-jesus-on-cross-with-x-over-his-eyes/

        http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/speakout/should-schools-be-allowed-to-ban-religious-symbols-to-protect-against-gang-violence

        http://www.city-data.com/forum/raleigh-durham-chapel-hill-cary/1085590-clayton-teen-suspended-school-wearing-nose-6.html
        (The nose ring commentary – includes other dodges used and the viciousness of our government in enforcing its standards – like, forcing students to go to science classes to learn evolution, regardless of religion / religious non-acceptance of evolutionary theory. Spot on from that regard.)

        http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/firstamendment/tinker.html (old story, shows the issue isn’t new, though – from 1965 and has nothing to do with religion, but rather with protesting the vietnam war.)

        http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/aclu-lawsuit-challenges-retaliatory-expulsion-student-under-unconstitutional

        http://www.akdart.com/zero.html (Seems a little right-moonbatty, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Lots of links to choose from that broaden this from a “religious” situation into DOZENS of other realms – all focusing on centralized power being abused in the name of “equality”)

        So, Ok, I broadened it a bit there at the end – but that’s just a google search, not even going to the sites (Mens News Daily, for example) where I originally read some of these stories.

        Please recall that Statism is, in fact, a religion as well – and it is the only one permitted in public schools.
        The state, that colletion of strangers who can’t keep the traffic flowing or the budget in the black, knows better than you how to do everything from manage your finances to school your children to care for your dog to feed your cat to insulate your house to heat your house to decide what type of windows and curtains and drapes you should be allowed to buy to… (You get the idea.)

        Just like a bureaucrat in Washington, DC, who ahs never been to a farm, knows how a farmer in Iowa should grow potatoes – land use, land size, irrigation, fertilizer, pesticides, transport to market, harvesting, labor relations, labor market in Iowa, price per pound of potatoes, breed of potato to grow, etc, etc, etc.

        Same As Carlos would do with ALL disciplining of a child… (How long before “timeout” is “detrimental to a child’s development” or “crushes the child’s spirit”, etc?)

        Slaver, indeed.

        “Give me the child for 6 years, he will remain a Bolshevik forever.” (Lenin, I believe)

      • “Unless it’s Kwanzaa” ? Really ?!?! Bullshit.
        If they’re doing Kwanzaa in, of all places, Central Texas, WITHOUT doing the usual ‘all inclusive’ shtick with X-mas and other celebrations, there would be a massive shit-storm.
        Just give-it-up Kate, you’re too eloquent to be uneducated or truly ignorant, so you know full well the difference between imposing religion and allowing it, you’re not convincing with this wide-eyed “oh my gosh look what they did” routine. You should apply to Fox though, you’d fit right in with the righteous outrage.

      • Think they would pay me?

        Dear, I have been involved in education for 24 years in one form or another. I started homeschooling my kids when it wasn’t legal in Texas. Yes, I broke the law…sort of. I am not bull shitting here. The “x-mas” shtick is now the HOLIDAY celebrations with an emphasis on Kwanzaa, oh y Cinco de Mayo….but that’s in May. No Christmas, Passover, Ramadan….nope. Easter bunnies are discouraged, but not “outlawed” yet. It’s Holiday….I don’t know where you are and what your school district calls it, but that’s the way it is here. And people are too stupid and complacent to shit-storm.

        “you’re too eloquent to be uneducated or truly ignorant, so you know full well the difference between imposing religion and allowing it”. Thanks, I guess. The constitution clearly states the government will NOT impose any religion on it’s citizens. ANY religion. It never said we weren’t allowed to express our beliefs in the public sector until the ACLU’s of the country started making a shit storms.

        Oh, don’t watch FOX. They are ignorant….as is CNN, MSNBC, and the rest.

        Happy Holidays.

      • “Think they would pay me?” -actually, yes. You web site is beautiful (really), you have quite the power of presentation working for you. This is why you frustrate me.
        If we could “express our beliefs in the public sector” without imposing them on others, you’d have to show me how.
        In a school setting, that’s even tougher, what would we do, a disclaimer at the beginning telling little kids that praying is optional? They don’t just want to fit in or anything, it’s not coercion no matter how you do it? Come on, I know you know this.
        And Dear, I am not involved in education, I’m an educator. Worked in tech.industry for 11 years during which I volunteered weekly at the middle and high-school level and since then switched to a university. So I teach full time and all my free time, kids of many ages, raised 3 of my own (2 step, one natural) and a few fostered. All religions have their own means of Religious education, it’s call a church/synagogue/mosque/temple etc. so in Academic education, being careful Not to indoctrinate them with any belief but giving them the tools to evaluate all ideas and theories is the whole point.
        Are there bizarre overreactions, on Both sides of the ‘religion in schools’ debate, sure. Does that mean there’s a war on christianity specifically, no.
        Meanwhile, I agree with you that all the networks are awful, but in this context, FOX came to mind because it is the pioneer of manufactured outrage, they’re just really really good at it :-)

      • How about this for a model? I lived in Germany in the late 60″s and went to a German school. One day a week was some sort of religious “group hug”. I don’t remember what it was called, but the Christians went one way, the Jews another and the “un-believers” and everything in between got an hour off. I was in the un-believer group. I wasn’t offended, the in-betweens weren’t offended. No one was offended because it was no big deal. It was no big deal until it became a big deal here in the US and the shit hit the fan. SHRUG

      • PS…I’m not saying we should have religious group hugs in our school. I’m say what I believe and what you believe and what they believe shouldn’t be a big deal. As Richard put it somewhere here…Leave me the fuck alone. As long as I don’t push my agenda on someone, then they shouldn’t push theirs on me….and they have. They won the school yard and the court house, etc. And they are trying to win more. Free speech isn’t free unless you agree with “them”

      • PPS..sorry, missed this before. “Academic education, being careful Not to indoctrinate them with any belief but giving them the tools to evaluate all ideas and theories is the whole point.” That’s not happening. All ideas and theories are NOT presented. It is well chosen. (example: Creation and evolution). I was involved with the Texas text book issue a while back. They wanted to eliminate the first 100 years of US history as not pertinent. Go figure…but that’s just an example of picking and choosing what is presented. Personally, as I did do, I gave my kids as much information as I could muster and they made their own choices…and we didn’t follow the same spiritual path.

        Oh, and thanks Marie. It is so much fun communicating with intelligence. ( “Kate looks around the room….just kidding, guys. )

      • Thank you too. Hmmm, I guess the guys aren’t the only ones who can bloody each other and then walk off arm in arm to get a drink, eh?
        “I gave my kids as much information as I could muster and they made their own choices…” – so interesting, so did I, sent to sunday school and everything, even though I’m a humanist, completely atheistic.

        So here’s the deal on the academic side: if creationism is taught in social studies, philosophy, liberal arts, that’s actually good, those are the disciplines that can best deal with the form of discourse that is not based on objective, experimentally verifiable facts and they can do it well.

        The problem is that creationism bills itself as a science. Science is very specific about the scientific method, that’s how it defines what is science and what is not. Creationism doesn’t fit the bill, firstly because there’s no experimentally verifiable predictions. It’s a theory, yes, but it’s not a scientific theory. That’s all.

      • Oh, you would have to bring that up! Creationism in it’s true form is a theory, I agree…but there is absolutely NO hard core evidence proving the Theory of Evolution. That is why it is still called a THEORY. Please don’t use Darwin…his scientific method was non existent. So, each is theory accepted by faith. Oh, I know there is some form of evolution. It is a scientific fact that small changes happen every day to various species….but show me where a fish becomes a human? No one has ever proved that. There is no experimentally verifiable evidence to that claim. “They” (who ever “they” are) say it is, but really? And who gives “them” the right to force that as science in the schools?

        I’m not an “the earth is 9000 years old” advocate, (I believe it is a lot older than that.) But I do believe God created all this and there are many scientists that agree.

        Let’s call it even. Neither is scientific fact. They are theories and should be treated as such.

      • I like red wine.

      • Exactly right, Marie. Creationism ought to be taugh alongside all other religious notions, in the realm of social studies.

        The whole ID thing is not about getting religion of creationism in school. It’s about getting them out the social studies, into science studies.

      • “It’s a theory, yes, but it’s not a scientific theory.”

        Theory is a scientific term, it is reserved for an hypothesis that has withstood rigorous testing and so becomes the best explanation until such time as it might be struck down or added to, precisioned, etc.

        Religion does not even yet qualify as a scientific hypothesis.

        It qualifies as speculation, but science does not deal in speculation formally. That is, there are a Brazillion speculations. Scientists begin to take note when one of those speculations has some testable and verifiable evidence behind it to move forward,

      • Oh, I hate how you just exposed your ignorance and scientific illiteracy there, Kate.

        “Creationism in it’s true form is a theory, I agree…but there is absolutely NO hard core evidence proving the Theory of Evolution.”

        Someday, this balderdash will be hopefully laid to rest. I fear not in my lifetime. It suffers the problem of being way below the curve of average or quotidian stupidity and ignorance that’s it’s really not worth dealing with and so ironically, it becomes Darwinian in scope.

        Anyone care to take it up?

      • NO, can’t call it even. This is where we diverge. I’m a scientist. There is no such thing as scientific ‘fact’, so no argument there. Science, in fact, insists that we test, retest etc.
        A scientific theory is named such only after the hypotheses that comprise it have been tested repeatedly, from many angles, by many experimenters. Even then, we call it a theory, it’s the highest level of certainty we can ever assign, like the theory of Gravity….400 years and going strong. Evolution has been supported by findings and experiments for more than 100 years now, and in more than one discipline (anthropology, sure, but biology, genetics, geology etc).
        “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” – T.Dobzhansky (a geneticist).
        There are always scientists who buck the prevailing science – they are 99.9% of the time wrong (like inventors-think Edison) but we value them because that 0.1% of the time when they are right is so important. Using the fact that there are a few out there to support, or actually to try to create creationism, isn’t an argument.
        Read up on evolution from all these fields, it’s fun, starting last century the scientific advances are remarkable, you needn’t go back to Darwin, he was after all a ‘natural philosopher’ , they hadn’t developed the scientific method yet, science was in it’s infancy. But he did embody it, he made observations, then formulated a hypothesis to explain them, and went so far as to make testable predictions. Those are the first 3 steps of the method.

      • But evolution has NOT withstood rigorous testing…..show me the money……Why can’t creation become the best explanation? Let’s just flip a coin. They are both theories that can’t be proven…They are both based on faith. So lets put both of them in the social studies realm.

        The word “Theory” is not a scientific term. It’s a noun meaning a conception or method of doing something…such a music. It is used in science, sure, to show a group of tested principals “assumed” to be correct, but… Just sayin’

      • Alright, one little thing

        “but show me where a fish becomes a human”

        Even Darwin foresaw this issue.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

        So, Kate, when you take a plane ride, do you actually see lines dividing states and countries?

      • Oops, nesting problem. Richard, of course I totally agree, and I love the way you express these ideas. I was answering Kate.

      • No, they aren’t there. They are man’s invention. What does that have to do with evolution? Ok, I;m not a scientist, but I was one on TV. No, really…my ex is a scientist, and yes, a believer in Christ. So I studied…a bit….Evolution taught in our schools is all speculation. AND IS TAUGHT AS FACT!! There are, as I said before, small evolve-ings like the Orioles in the Wikipedia (really?) article you linked me too. BUT where are the studies that show man came from pink slime at the beginning of time? That all species (what’s wrong with my use of the term) came from pink slime at the beginning of time…Again, I say….show me the money!

      • Kate, that’s exactly the point I’m making about ‘theory’. In plain english it doesn’t mean the same as it does in science. So an armchair theory and a scientific one are not the same.
        Where do you get the idea that evolution has not withstood testing? Richard is right, an argument from ignorance isn’t an argument.
        Show you the money? Well, go hang out at Barnes and Noble, start maybe with “The greatest show on earth: the evidence for evolution” (Richard Dawkins is a scientist above all else) and work your way backwards with the references eventually. You can’t argue if you’re not informed about the subject.

      • Ok. I will. But, if I find speculation, and not hard testing….which is what I have found before, then you can buy me a drink. If I do…..well…I’ll still believe God created the pink slime from which all has evolved…

      • Thank you, Marie. I’d considered using the “theory of gravity” deal but I’m a bit embossed to have used the same shtick hundreds of times.

      • “But evolution has NOT withstood rigorous testing”

        Sorry, but you’ve proven yourself a waste of time, worthy of dismissal.

      • I’m going to have to dismiss your ignorance now, but I invite you to continue to expose it, I’m even beyond helping you, such as pointing out obvious variables you don’t want to account for,

      • That’s the easy way out…Dismiss me because you can’t prove your theory…I will say again. I KNOW there is evolution to some degree. That IS proven…just right here in my garden…..but WHERE has anyone proven that man came from slime??? Don’t cop out, Sir Richard.

      • Deal! and vice versa, note that my fave is white wine, since you’ll be buying, just saying…
        And let go of the ‘pink slime’ will you – it was greyish-brown! Pink slime is what they add to burgers ;-)
        As for your back-up position, hey, that’s fine, in fact the Vatican has one-upped you on that, they accept evolution And cosmology all the way to the Big Bang (papal edict in the 50’s no less!) …and then go on to say that God created the Big Bang. *sigh*.

      • “such as pointing out obvious variables you don’t want to account for,”
        But you haven’t. Marie has sent me on a quest, and I accept it, even if only for a glass of wine….She’s the one who brought up this whole debate, and you dismiss my ignorance? Because we don’t agree? But it is your “house” so you can do what you want….. In this discourse it it obvious that you won’t change my mind as I won’t change yours. Does that warrant dismissal? Calling me ignorant? What if you are wrong? You may someday say, “Oh I remember that Kate lady. She was right all along and I called her ignorant.” Gee. What it may warrant is a change of subject like dead lifting or something, but please…

      • The “pink slime” thing was a joke since we are commenting on a Paleo blog.

        And please, don’t get me started on the Vatican,…mere puppets in an organized religion…..better stop there.

        Red it is….

      • Richard, I confess, I never get tired of using ‘theory of gravity’ -nothing makes the point about the scientific term “theory” so quickly. Efficient, effective a very ‘paleo’ snack.

      • “That’s the easy way out…Dismiss me because you can’t prove your theory…I will say again. I KNOW there is evolution to some degree. That IS proven…just right here in my garden…..but WHERE has anyone proven that man came from slime??? Don’t cop out, Sir Richard.”

        Nope.

        I already told you I was done with you. When I say that, I mean it, and I burn bridges.

        Redemption is possible, but the bar is high. That’s because it’s happened many time over 20 years. I’ve seen hundreds cure their own ignorance, and that is what you suffer from and I will not sugar coat it.

        I think I gave enough attention and time to you and your comments. But in the end, it seemed more like you got to what your end goal was from the beginning and I’ve seen it countless times.

        You get no more of my time or attention. And as you think to yourself whatever you think, remember that you’re at my place. I’m not at yours. I never, ever go to religious people’s blogs or websites to save the heathens for atheism.

        How come you’re here? Yea, to learn. Heard that one several dozen times before, too.

        You’re dismissed, Kate, because you are as yet, though I hold out hope, you are in their weird state that you are too ignorant to grasp your ignorance. I have no idea what that magical spark is that elevates so many to some enlightenment, but I hope it happens to you, some day.

        Yes, the above is condescending. There’s simply no other way to put it. Sorry.

      • I wish before you are so cock sure of your comments that you would read all my posts. I am pretty think skinned and may or may not stick around, even though I have been dismissed like a spoiled child. You show your ignorance in assuming that a small fraction of me…my beliefs in God…puts me in the Jerry Falwell Pat Robertson camp. Bull Shit. Kinda shows your true colors, sir. Dismiss all of me for only one part of my whole? That is prejudice Yes, I know what that means, in case others here think they have definitions of things when they don’t. I thought more highly of you. But, I was wrong. If redemption to you means taking on your atheism, which I hope it is not, then so be it. I won’t do that just so I can learn a little more about Paleo. There are other more informative sites than this one. That’s why I came here in the first place. I have really enjoyed the discourse, but like in so many other “Liberal” and “Conservative” platforms, if you don’t believe like the masses, you are dismissed and called ignorant. I am far from ignorant. Earlier…in another post I assume you didn’t read, I declared this to be your house and I would NEVER try to convince anyone to believe the way I do. Again, I say bull shit. Thank you for letting my at least defend my dismissal. The End

      • marie curious says:

        Say it ain’t so, don’t go!
        Lookit, he has declared a long time ago to have no patience with ignorance and of course anyone’s allowed to choose their level of involvement, not talking to you anymore personally isn’t condescending or a cop-out, it just is.
        When you make any arguments without significant information and knowledge of All sides/aspects (“ignorance’), you’ll get that. And you did, come on now, fess up.
        BUT, that is also a sound (if Really irritating) debate-base learning tactic : state the preconceived notion and see how it holds up. Socratic method of argument, wouldn’t you know? You’re a natural. You actually consider what comes back at you and address it. Not dogmatic. I noticed the Thick skin above, good, it’s very useful if you keep this up (which at least personally I hope you will, but hey, that’s just me).

      • “Lookit, he has declared a long time ago to have no patience with ignorance and of course anyone’s allowed to choose their level of involvement, not talking to you anymore personally isn’t condescending or a cop-out, it just is.”

        So he has declared me ignorant because I am not in the same mind set spiritually as he is. Bull Shit. That is arrogance, plain and simple. I don’t pretend to be smarter than anyone here. No one else has been asked to defend their platforms with links, treatises and quotes. Only I have because I believe something else. Shit,

        I even went to the dictionary and was counted as ignorant. I am not going to sit here and site all my references. This is a comment blog and if I am not allowed to comment based on what I do know, well, then what’s the point. I don’t have time for that. I am not here to convince anyone. I am stating an opinion. I see that very few others in here go to great lengths to “Prove” their opinions. . I read, I learn, I study. That’s what I do. He stated that my main reason for coming here was to convert all you heathens to bow down to Jesus. Oh, yea, right. I came here because I eat Meat.

        So, the owner of this blog doesn’t like my opinion….which I have said more that once, is my opinion. I have even offered to investigate further the Evolution Creation argument, to no avail. I just don’t sit here and spout. I am 54 years old, have been around the world more than once .I am not an idiot and Sir Richard has dismissed me with the wave of his Scepter. So be it

      • PS…BUT I really enjoy a stirred pot. So maybe I’ll be more careful on what I express my “opinion” on. After all, I am 54 and have the need to keep the synapses clicking. It keeps menopause at bay…which, by the way, only 1 of you addressed from a Paleo stand point.

      • Kate:

        dismissals are on a thread by thread basis around here and redemption is a click away.

        its always only about the same arguments I heard 35 years ago in high school and dismissed 25 yours ago.

        The good thing is that the purveyors of stupid myth and and stupid argument seem to as yet have little clue about the internet. thats a good thing. The sooner the sorts of “arguments” you put forth for a deity and creation get laughed out of existence the better.

        Believe it or not, I’m sad it came to this, but there are things that up with which, I will not put.

      • Like I said…it’s your house. I’m pretty tough. I!ve had a “fuck off” from more, well, ….you can’t get rid of me that fast. I am still Paleo and will, I Promise….hand on the Bible…never mention God again….maybe. Besides, how will I learn to improve my blog if I don’t learn, study and investigate…root out the negative and keep the positive….and, yes, your book, I can say from current reading, is positive…God bless…, oh. What do you say as a blessing? Anything? Good luck? That’s too random…anyway….

      • Kate:

        You’re new here, have amazing spirit, don’t give up easily, put up the best fight you can. You’re both gracious and biting. Sweet, forgiving, and acerbic.

        It’s time I said some nice things about you, and I mean them.

  17. I’m warming to the idea of not voting. I’ll probably go voting one more time purely out of cowardly reasons so as not to have to explain to family and friends. Path of least resistance.
    I have come to believe that people/individuals themselves have to change or no system will work. The fault is in the people not the system as the system is made by people and could be unmake easily enough. Depressingly: I don’t see things changing any time soon.

    The thing about religion, It’s not the believes themselves that are the problem, but that people apparently lack the skill to separate fact from fiction. Something that shows itself in everything people do.

    • “The thing about religion, It’s not the believes themselves that are the problem, but that people apparently lack the skill to separate fact from fiction”
      According to many religous books, you have to accept the religion as fiction or else you get killed and/or go to hell. What your saying is the same pussy shit that agnostics have been saying for years, and it’s a whole bunch of crap.

      • So what do you think? Bow down and just gobble up all that shit? I’m not saying you should go into churches and loudly exclaim “I’m an non-believer and proud of it”, but at the very least you could do is not fall for all that bullshit in your own mind. I don’t think many even get that far. Or do you disagree on that as well?

      • Clarify what you just said, and keep in mind, my comment reflects the insanity of religious tolerance. I don’t believe anyone should tolerate or find “truth” in the deceitful dribbling of slave owners and rapists that wrote the Abrahamic and other religious texts.

      • It’s you who needs to clarify. Your original reply did not make clear where you stand. Hence the question: “So what do you think?” You implied I was talking pussy shit, so what is the non-pussy shit view?

      • So let’s clear it up, and be done with it. You stated “The thing about religion, It’s not the believes themselves that are the problem”, the problem IS the religion AND the people who follow it. When Ancel Keys stated that saturated fat kills people, that incorrect view was the problem, along with the politicians and people who followed it. In the same way, when saul of tarsus wrote that women are lower than man in the new testament, that incorrect view was the problem along with the adherents of that religion. That is the “non-pussy shit” view.

      • So what? If every human being had the ability to separate fact from fiction then how could a belief like “woman is lower than man” stay in existence unless it is true? The believe itself is NOT the core problem, because any believe can be easily swapped for any other belief. Attacking different beliefs no matter how wrong they are is an endless quest. (not that it shouldn’t be done on occasion) It’s better if everybody learned to be sceptical and seek facts.

      • “It’s better if everybody learned to be sceptical and seek facts.”

        Oh my. Well, for 20 years I’ve conducted an experiment. I ridicule stupidity wherever I see it. I even make fun of my loved ones, sometimes, for their religious beliefs and I do so in public so everyone can judge how they wish.

        And I’m more than willing to be told to go fuck off for a good cause,

        I don’t have time to expound but I have a 20 year experiment running that shows me that laughter (in the ridiculing sense) is the best medicine.

      • Robert

        My solemn view is to first of all and rule number one:

        Don’t mix pussy and shit.

      • For myself, I take a middle road. Not intellectually or on the blog, of course. On the other hand, I recognize that things like marriages, funerals and other things that take place in churches are really a culture-religion hybrid, and so I part with the militant who want to inappropriately toss shit where it does not need to be tossed–or the civic square nativity scene, for that matter.

        In fact, I acknowledge that a lot of the culture any rational person might cherish is bound up so some extent in religious heritage.

        I think the Jews are perhaps best at drawing those distinction. There are many, many atheist Jews who nonetheless go to Synagogue and engage in their cultural heritage.

      • I’ve found “cultural heritage” justifies a lot of the same baggage and irrational fiction that goes along with religious hogwash. Cooking soffrito as part of someone’s heritage is fine and good, but more often then not “culture” means “does not want to change/excuse for abuse.” My view on this could be biased on the fact that I work for a child abuse agency, and I constantly hear the assault of children justified by “cultural practices” and getting a break for it.
        If you look at cultural practices like “tough love” it generally means beating the shit out of innocent people who cling to their caregiver because of survival mechanisms. It’s amazing how you can still get away with beating up a 4 years old who has no choice in what happens to them and has no defense, but if you hit a woman you are demonized. I strongly believe you should be demonized for both, no matter what culture.
        Just got way off subject, but rants happen.

      • Ah, I hear you, Carlos. Thanks for the important added perspective.

        But I have to say that you have chosen to work in outlier world, I salute you for it, but I do not think its relevant to most, or even a whole lot. I got a few whippings, as did my bros, and though I would do things differently now, were I to be charged with bringing up a human child, I don’t thing we’re all that fragile, provided its not chronic abuse, which it was not in our case and I would imagine, for most.

        So, atheist anarchist for life, but not shitter on every single thing people somehow find of value,

      • Fair enough. One thing though, you stated you “do not think its relevant to most.”
        — 94% of 3- and 4-year-olds have been spanked at least once during the past year, according to one study.

        — 74% of mothers believe spanking is acceptable for kids ages 1 to 3, says another study.

        — 61% of parents condone spanking as a “regular form of punishment” for young children, according to a different study.

        http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/08/living/parents-spanking-p/index.html?hpt=li_bn3
        “Spanking” is to assualt what “tax” is to “theft”. A term used to justify and undermind violence.

        I really liked this excerpt:
        “Why is it okay for an adult to hit a child when it isn’t even acceptable for an adult to pick on someone his own size?” asks Murray Straus, Ph.D., professor of sociology and codirector of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire. “There have been plenty of times when my colleagues have disagreed with me or made me upset, but that doesn’t give me the right to haul off and hit ‘em.”

        In this case, whether or not an adult “deserves” to be smacked is a moot point. It’s simply unacceptable (and will land the smacker in a lot of trouble). Why is it, then, that children might “deserve” a swat and receive one? Because we’re big and they’re small — a morally and ethically indefensible reason.

        Another anarchist, a guy by the name of Stefan Molyneux (freedomainradio.com) goes into the relationship between the State, Religion, and Abuse in his “bomb in the brain series” on youtube, and his many podcasts. I recommend everyone to check him out.

      • “Because we’re big and they’re small — a morally and ethically indefensible reason.”

        No, that is NOT why children are spanked. They are spanked by parents who care about them because we are responsible for their health and safety, and if they are unwilling to cooperate by request, it is necessary for us to focus their attention with a short lesson. I certainly do not condone hurting children. That includes not allowing them to play in the street. If it takes a quick lesson delivered with “violence,” since that is what you prefer to call it, then so be it. Better a swat on the butt that they will remember, than a crushed skull from being run over. (Yes, I am capable of physically restraining children from playing in the street, and that will keep them safe for now, but at some point they need to learn to control **themselves** from playing in the street, even though Mommy and Daddy aren’t there right now.)

        When I was a child I got maybe two spankings. On one occasion it was because I refused to do what my mother told me and she said I was going to get a spanking if I didn’t do it. I chose the actions AND the consequence.

        The other time, I did something that was hurtful to another person. I also deserved to be spanked that time, too. It’s been 55+ years and I still remember those lessons, and I appreciate that my parents cared enough to teach me.

        Not every spanking is a good thing. Not every spanking is a bad thing. It’s contextual and always will be. Thank goodness people like you aren’t (yet) able to force parents to give up their parenting responsibilities.

      • Carlos, let me look at this closer later, but I just want to put up that my mom who just turned 74 last week perhaps has the best argument I’ve heard for spanking children.

        It’s simply training, and where we don’t live in the forest where there are dangers in that context, we live in moder society with a whole new set. Her very, very, very biggest fear was a young child running off into the steet, just like dogs do if they see something that interests them. She wanted to absolutely assure that when she yelled stop, it was instant, and she figured that fear was the best, most sure way to accomplish that.

        I think that some physical training or punishment of the young is appropriate before you can reason with them and use rational incentive. The problem is, it all gets lumped in. My moms reasoning, along with the deadbeat who’s just trying to make themself feel better.

      • replace the term”parent” with “husband” and “child” with “wife” and you’ll start to get my point.

      • I should add, the modern solution is to smother the living fuck out of them every second, so they never get even a whiff of exlporation. But they’re “safe”

      • Not even close! My husband is NOT responsible for my health and safety, and therefore, he has no reason to physically restrain OR punish me. He has no right to try to “teach” me any lessons. We are adults.

        Adults are not the same thing as children.

      • That’s a straw man, Richard, and you know that. I’m simply stating, don’t hit your fucking kid.

      • Well, there IS a happy medium. I was never a helicopter parent, but I see some that are. Allowing a child a good bit of freedom and ability to explore is not the same thing as abandoning them to experience any risk that comes along.

      • “Not even close! My husband is NOT responsible for my health and safety, and therefore, he has no reason to physically restrain OR punish me. He has no right to try to “teach” me any lessons. We are adults.

        You’re right. Children are in an even weaker position. They rely on you for knowledge, shelter, love, and physical development. And you’re going to fucking hit them?

      • YES!!! Get that straight: YES!!!! And they will not be harmed. Who the fuck do you think you are to tell me how to raise my children? They are not harmed, they were never harmed (Ask them! They are 38 and 40 years old!), but they learned things that kept them safe and healthy.

        YES.

      • Huh? What are you referring to, here? Now that the thread isn’t nested ad infinitum, what?

        Who’s advocating abuse of women?

      • He’s saying that a parent has no more right to spank a child than a husband has to hit his wife.

        Pure bullshit.

      • I suppose he also believes that a mama bear cub should be imprisoned for whacking her cub, to keep him from doing something that will cause him harm.

      • ” Who the fuck do you think you are to tell me how to raise my children?”
        True colors. I’m not going to FORCE you to do something, I will STATE what’s fucked up in society though. Like I said before, I work for a child abuse agency. After someone assualts their child, and I let them know how child abuse leads to brain damage and is generally bad for a developing person, they always say “who are you to tell me how to raise my kids?”
        I am someone, along with the people I work with, who spreads education regarding child abuse and peaceful parenting. The united states is in the dark ages when it comes to parenting, and there’s a small amount of people trying to change that.

      • “They are not harmed, they were never harmed (Ask them! They are 38 and 40 years old!), ”
        Turns out, most kids will defend the practices of their parents, because their parents taught them what they believe.

      • The problem is that you don’t have enough brain power to understand that there are good parents and bad. NOT ALL OF EVEN THE GOOD ONES, though, parent according to your ideas and those of the people you work with.

        There’s no question that there are parents that are harmful to their kids, but the standard is not, “do they spank?” The standard is “do they abuse,” and they are not the same, even if you think they are! YOU are the one in need of education!

      • And oh, one more thing: I believe you have every right to your opinion, and I wouldn’t want to try to change it, except peacefully.

        HOWEVER, you should not have the force of law behind you to keep a non-abusive person from parenting their child.

      • “Turns out, most kids will defend the practices of their parents, because their parents taught them what they believe.”

        And of course, you, in your infinite wisdom, know more than I, than my son, and than my daughter do about what our lives were like, and you should have the authority do **anything*** with me or them?

        Fortunately, both of my children were taught to think for themselves. I see this every day when they argue with me, and even when they tell me I’m wrong, which they do….when I’m wrong, which happens frequently.

        You are beyond deluded. Again, I don’t care if you have an opinion that is different than mine, but it scares the crap out of me to think you have any, ANY authority of law.

      • You already did your damage, so I’ll let you stew in your rationalizations rather than continue this argument.
        To everyone else, realize that violence begets violence and that includes “spanking”. Do research on peaceful parenting, there’s whole nations who don’t condone any spanking and have awesome people (24 different nations, in fact).

      • You are the one rationalizing….but I don’t mind one bit. Just stay out of my business.

        Violence is violent. Spanking is NOT violent if it’s not a violent spanking. Again, the momma bear and her cub. The mamma lion. This is natural, normal behavior, when lives are in danger.

        I would have been doing my children a disservice not to have kept them from harm.

      • A spanking on the butt is a far cry from a smack upside the head.

        That’s like saying a man who looks at a good looking woman is a rapist.

      • You fail at metaphors, Shane.

      • And by methaphor, I mean analogy.

      • No, it’s not.

        It’s not, and you apparently don’t wish to entertain the distinction between honestly doing it from an animal teaching standpoint, so they will listen to you unquestioningly (actually, not reasoning, but more like a dog that detects inflection and so forth), for their own good, and chronic beatings because of various family dis functionality.

        So now who is the doctronarian?

      • We agree on this point. We train our children so when they are 55 they aren’t running out in front of cars. No one here said it was right to beat the shit out of them, but a good scare…as we would do to a beloved pet, is sometimes required.
        And, no, the Bible does not say “spare the rod, spoil the child”. It does say “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”

      • Oh, my.

        You need to engage some of the distinction and logic yu preach, Carlos. Amazing you’ve fallen for this logical fallacy. You work with outliers. You really thing “hitting kids” is the problem. That if only all these trailer trash just don’t hit their kids, all will be OK?

        Classic cause/effect reversal.

      • “the modern solution is to smother the living fuck out of them every second, so they never get even a whiff of exlporation. But they’re “safe””

        That’s called helicopter parenting.

      • Oops, sorry gharness. I should read all these posts first ….

      • First, I’m not being a “doctronarian” in the same way you’re not a “doctronarian” when you say government is immoral and evil.
        My position is not only coming from an empathetic/emotional view, but one based on science as well. The development of a child’s brain is stunted by spanking – yes, spanking. Here’s some studies to back it: (I must recomend checking out the Bomb in the Brain Series By Stefan Molyneux. It’s a wonderful lecture and powerpoint on the subject. Also, look at the Adverse Childhood Experience Study),
        http://www.healing-arts.org/tir/perry_childhood_trauma_the_neurobilogy_of_adaptation_states.pdf
        http://www.cavalcadeproductions.com/ace-study.html
        http://psychohistory.com/originsofwar/03_psychology_neurobiology.html
        http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/focus/earlybrain/earlybraina.cfm
        http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=childhood-adverse-event-life-expectancy-abuse-mortality
        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091006115140.htm

      • “To everyone else, realize that violence begets violence and that includes “spanking”. Do research on peaceful parenting, there’s whole nations who don’t condone any spanking and have awesome people (24 different nations, in fact).”

        Yea, next up’ the FOOD Questionarire!!!!

        Ever occurs to you, dear Carlos–and sorry to get all in the way of your Standar World Discipline (SWD)–but if a country “doesn’t condone spanking” then do you really expect that parents are going to report that they swat their little children now and then to get their attention?

        I’ve lived in two foreign countries and visited about 30 and I’ve seen the swats here and there everywhere I’ve lived.

        Ever consider that you work in a bit of a cloistered echo chamber?

      • Yeah, and I don’t need a study to tell me what happens when a car runs over a kid’s head.

        You think I just dreamed that up? Well, let me tell you: one of my earliest memories is of lying on the street pavement, with a car wheel sliding by my face, literally touching my head. I was looking up, and I still remember the frightened look of the driver of that car, staring down at me. I had appeared out of **nowhere** and fortunately, I tripped, just one step short of fatality. Otherwise, I can assure you, I’d not be involved in this discussion, and my 38 and 40-year old children would have never existed to have been so horribly “abused.”

        Yes, I remember someone calling to me to stop, but for some reason I just couldn’t process that in my brain. I was three years old, and I was running. That was all I knew. That’s all ANY 3-year-old knows, is what feels good at the moment. Paddling doesn’t feel good at the moment, and that’s why sometimes a little paddling is needed.

        If you don’t like that, tough. This is the Free the **Animal** blog, and we are animals.

        Why didn’t you quit when you said you were going to?

        I guess it’s okay to not do what you say you are going to do, if you don’t feel like it. And you think I want YOU teaching my kids?

      • I spank my child, I’m an abuser.

        I look at a woman, I’m a rapist.

        I dunno, they are both pretty retarded statements.

        I was abused as a child. It had nothing to do with spanking. Spanking wasn’t a gateway drug. It didn’t start with spanking and lead to abuse. Spanking was not the problem, the problem was a parent with their head screwed on incorrectly.

      • See Kate. Virtually everyone who sticks around long enough gets my worst behavior, and sometimes, a solemn nod.

      • Carlos,

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091006115140.htm

        “Conducted by Kaiser Permanente in San Diego and the CDC, the study looked at the long-term effects of these childhood experiences: undergoing verbal or physical abuse, having a battered mother and witnessing domestic violence, living in a household with substance abuse or mental illness, having an incarcerated household member or having parents who separated or divorced.”

        Don’t see spanking in there.

        http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=childhood-adverse-event-life-expectancy-abuse-mortality

        “The study, published this week in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, reports that participants who were exposed to six or more different types of adverse childhood events (ACEs), such as physical or sexual abuse, were also 54 percent more likely to die during the 10-year period of the study. ”

        Again, no spanking here.

        http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/focus/earlybrain/earlybraina.cfm

        Bad link.

        http://psychohistory.com/originsofwar/03_psychology_neurobiology.html

        Makes no claims that spanking is abuse or causes brain damage.

        http://www.cavalcadeproductions.com/ace-study.html

        No mention of spanking.

        http://www.healing-arts.org/tir/perry_childhood_trauma_the_neurobilogy_of_adaptation_states.pdf

        Wow that’s hard to read. Anyways, again no mention of spanking. Lot’s of mentions of abuse and so on.

        Can a child abuser hide behind the “spanking” label? Yes. Does that mean all parents who spank their children are abusers? I suppose your stance is obvious.

        If you have a study that says definitively that spanking a child on their bottom is causing harm, please share. I’m open minded enough to read it and make my decision. The papers you’ve shown so far do not make me reach that connection.

      • Carlos, those studies are necessarily going to suffer from the problem of selection bias.

        There is simply no way to do such studies objectively.

        “I’m brain damaged. We’re you spanked?”

        And so on.

      • Carlos Morales says:

        OVERLY LONG POST:
        I understand your skepticism of such studies, Richard. So if you want to ignore them or dismiss them, I completely understand. Much like studies on human cancer, it is hard to do completely controlled studies on spanking. You are correct that I’m coming from a bias view, but so are people who’ve been spanked and rationalize it by stating that “they turned out fine”. I was hit as a child, and I’m well aware that there are consequences on my psyche because of that. Understanding those limitatioins:

        The neurobiology of the brain, and results of trauma being inflicted upon it, reveals a strong correlation between “taught” violence rather than “inherited” violence. Studies on the neurobiology of abused children, like those done by Doctor Bruce D. Perry, have shown a correlation between a lack of brain development and traumatic events that occurred during childhood (Perry, 2000). In Dr. Perry’s neurological studies on children, he found that when children were threatened, a host of different physiological changes would occur within the neurological system. In cases where threats continued, a “user-dependent” change occurred within the area of the brain that responds to stress. One of these alterations occurs within the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. In studies done on animal models, the constant activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis degrades different areas of the body, including the hippocampus—which is responsible for cognitive abilities, long-term memory, spatial awareness, and is located in the limbic system; this also occurs within abused children.

        Two other systems that become sensitized by constant stressful experiences are the dopaminergic and noradrenergic neurochemical systems. As a result of these neurochemical systems being augmented by stressful experiences, there can be changes in impulse control, sleep issues (including insomnia and narcolepsy), loss of ability in fine motor control, and issues in multiple functions mediated by the catecholamine. The catecholamines, also known as the fight or flight hormones, mediate different motor function, emotions, and cognitive thinking, and an increase in sensitization of the catecholamines by constant trauma can lead to the degradation and malfunction in many of these functions. According to Dr. Perry, there is a use-dependent change within the brain’s catecholamine systems following traumatic experiences in a child.

        The orbito-frontal cortex (located in the area of the brain right behind the eyes) is responsible for merging emotional responses started in the limbic system, while higher reasoning, such as language and planning, are accomplished in the cerebral cortex’s prefrontal lobex. All of these parts must work together to form a healthy human being. Abused children have smaller corpus collosums and poorly integrated cerebral hemispheres in comparison to non-abused children. A poor integration of hemispheres along with a lack of development in the orbito-frontal cortex causes a lack of cause-effect thinking, inability to accurately recognize others emotions, an inability to understand one’s own emotions or have a coherent sense of self, and a lack of “conscience” which leads to sociopathic tendencies (Perry, 2000)..
        Perry, B. (2000). Traumatized children: How childhood trauma influences brain development. The Journal of the California Alliance for the Mentally Ill , 48-51.
        Another study that tested the effects of corporal punishment on children was done by Doctor Murray Straus. His longitudinal study of two age groups revealed a greater probability of post-traumatic stress syndromes, as well as a lower IQ in individuals who have been spanked. Globally, countries where spanking occurs more often correlate with lower IQ rates.
        Straus, M. (2000) Development of children’s cognitive ability: A longitudinal study of two nationally representative age cohorts. The Journal of aggression maltreatment and trauma, 159-185.

        http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/brain-and-behavior/articles/2009/09/15/early-spankings-make-for-aggressive-toddlers
        Kids spanked at age 1 also had worse performance on cognitive tests at age 3

        Like smoking, spanking is not only harmful, it is entirely unnecessary, because there are far more effective and emotionally healthy alternatives. And these alternatives work in the long-term (which spanking does not) because they establish a pattern of good behavior that is motivated by the simple, genuine desire to reciprocate love. As Dr. Elliott Barker has written, “Kids who have their needs met early by loving parents … are subjected totally and thoroughly to the most effective form of ‘discipline’ conceivable: they don’t do what you don’t want them to do because they love you so much!”

        Behavior that is based on fear can last only until the child is old enough not to fear defying the parent. Punishment builds anger and resentment within the child that will inevitably be expressed at a future time (angry teenagers do not fall from the sky). In contrast, behavior that is based on mutual love and trust will last through all the years of a child’s life, and through the entire length of the parent-child relationship. There is little that is more rewarding for a parent than the enjoyment of an enduring, loving and close tie with their child over many years.

        Given all of this, let’s revise the spanking argument:

        I was spanked.
        I’m fine, but I wish I were happier and more productive, and better able to love and trust others.
        Since spanking is both unnecessary and harmful, it should never be allowed. Our government should ban this harmful practice, as have over 25 countries around the world.

        http://www.naturalchild.org/jan_hunt/spanked.html

        http://nospank.net/straus15.pdf

        http://www.stophitting.com/index.php?page=factsvsopinions

        Or: You can watch this youtube video that kind of summarizes all these findings
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONNRfflggBg&feature=player_embedded#!

      • I’m glad I’m nto posting under my actual name.
        Carlos, I’d gut you like a fish for saying shit like that to me in public. Let me explain WHY, though.

        I’m involved with a single mom who has an abusive background – beaten regularly by her mom. She overcompensated by NEVER TOUCHING her daughter in your idea of “violence.”

        Her daughter repaid this “kindness” by beating the living SNOT out of mom a few weeks back. Had we not had a friend there at the time, I doubt that “innocent” c*nt would’ve stopped before beating her mother to death.

        Dysfunction breeds dysfunction. You’d take away the fastest, best, most effective method of disciplining an impulse-driven, hormone-controlled, irrational, foolish animal, and replace it with WHAT, exactly? Ritalin? Other drugs? What, you think a three-year-old understands “death” as a concept? I can’t believe that.

        On the other hand, that same three-year-old understands that grabbing the knife is a BAD IDEA because LAST time, Mommy slapped his ass a few times. Or would you prefer the three-year-old (TYO from now on) learn that the stove is hot by grabbing the heating element? Or that climbing to the top of the refrigerator is a bad idea because they fell and broke their neck? Or cushed their skull?

        Please join us in reality. NONE of us advocate ABUSE. But without instilling SOME kind of discipline, in a language the subject (child) understands, there will be a great INCREASE in “Abuse” cases – called NEGLECT.

        You can’t have it both ways. Rational argument doesn’t work with a TYO. Timeouts are meaningless when the child just escapes into imagination. And if you’ll prosecute us regardless, I’ll err on the side of corporal punishment – ESPECIALLY given the outcome of “no contact” discipline I note above.

        Amazing how we survived leaded paint, riding bicycles without helmets, skating without helmets and knee and wrist guards, and had guns as children, and went hunting and fishing, and deal with DDT and ChemLawn and God only knows what else. So GOOD we have people like you to know “protect” us from the consequences of our actions! It’s always (the man’s / the Man’s (Whitey’s)/the Jews/the Niggers/the womans) fault! Let’s sue for damages!”

        Part of the problem is, we don’t have ENOUGH violence these days. Toy guns (forget real ones) are outlawed, children can’t play Tag or Cops and Robers, or even SOCCER, ’cause it’s too “competitive”… SOMEONE will feel left out. And the ones who act “exuberant” anyway are drugged and labeled “problem children”.

        Making me ill, so I’ll shut up. Just don’t get too close, I have a LONG memory, and this attitude is a MAJOR problem in society – destroying us as surely as it destroyed Rome.

      • Carlos Morales says:

        “I’m glad I’m nto posting under my actual name.
        Carlos, I’d gut you like a fish for saying shit like that to me in public. Let me explain WHY, though.”
        Thanks for proving my point.

      • Have any of these nations accomplished anything recently?
        Other than rolling over for the Nazis about 50 years ago, I mean.

      • Glad to oblige.

        I’ve found that “civilization” as a concept is now only benefitting those who are unwilling to be civilized.

        So GLAD TO OBLIGE. I’ll even up the ante, and carve out the cancer myself, up close and personal.
        I’m going to hell anyway – I have nothing to lose. Eternity in hell is eternity, can’t change that sentence.
        But I can still leave the world better than I found it.

        More of a legacy than you’ll leave.

      • BTW, the point about nto posting under my actual name is because the details of the incident should remain private, not because of the threat.
        As noted, I’ve already done the crime, and will in future do the time – threats don’t mean much, especially on an internet forum.

      • “Our government should ban this harmful practice, as have over 25 countries around the world.”

        Right. And we always obey our government, as I am sure those countries do, too. This is NOT a world I would be wiling to live in. The next step, and it’s already in the works, from what you have demonstrated, is that busybodies like you will find ways to take our children away from us, and raise them in warehouses. Oh wait, that’s already been tried…I don’t think that turned out very well in Romania. The reasons may have been different, but the end result was the same.

        What we should ban are people who think they know better than we do, how we should raise our children.

        Spanking IS NOT inherently and of itself ABUSE. People who have been spanked for reason can be, have been, and are still, fucking brilliant…if they were fucking brilliant to start with. People who have been spanked are not by definition bereft of love. People are **different**. I have one child who’d do anything to avoid disappointing the parents. I have one who wanted to explore. He DIDN’T fear losing our love, because he knew he had it!

        Children don’t all behave or respond in the same way, like you think they do. You. Are. Wrong.

        Thank the (nonexistent) GOD that you don’t have the right to take children away. At least not yet.

      • Nice segue to Nassim Taleb’s new book.

        This chapter: How To Barbell A Soccer Mom
        http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/education.pdf

        “…soccer moms try to eliminate the trial-and-error, the antifragility from children’s lives, move them away from the ecological, and transform them into nerds working on pre-existing (soccer-mum compatible) maps of reality. Good students, but nerds, that is like computers except slower than the machines. Further, they are now totally untrained to handle ambiguity”

      • Yea, Carlos, I know about Molyneuz (search the blog) and generally like his stuff.

        I do not like the failure to distinguish between physical training of pre-rational humans by parents who are behaving totally naturally, and abusers just getting their frustrations out.

        It’s a kind of very ho-hum deal for me. Most people were spanked as kids, many people spank their young kids. I think people just kind of get it, and they get were the line is.

      • Carlos:

        “I understand your skepticism of such studies, Richard. So if you want to ignore them or dismiss them, I completely understand. ”

        It’s not so much that.

        It’s a weird thing hard to put my finger on. It’s like I’m reading a bunch of studies showing that living out in the cold by a campfire, hunting for food, etc., etc., affects our development adversely (no doubt, against some standard of development determined by the researchers).

        This is simply not an issue for me. Sorry. I’m confident that true abusers will be dealt with one way or another and I applaud efforts—especially private ones to counsel and educate—to minister or intervene in these problems and incidentally, if divorce were seen as a value rather than a stigma it would go a long way toward curbing abuse (you can thank your fucking churches for that bullshit: preach against sex so they marry young, then guilt them into staying together and having lots of kids). Hell, in that context It amazes me that the streets are net littered with dead babies.

        At any rate, I think we’re at odds because this is very close to home for you and far away for me. I don’t have kids and never will.

      • To quickly add something.

        I am not advocating for swats on the bottom to be essential. If you don’t have to, or we socially evolve better means over time, that’s fine.

        I object the oh so familiar wide brush that paints everyone as an abuser because someone decided we were enlightened before our time.

      • Jscott:

        Taleb’s Antifragle isn’t out yet, is it? I actually have an advanced PDF copy he emailed me. He’s referenced some stuff from my book in his.

        …Which is pretty fucking cool.

      • I often hear the “child” argument as a libertarian gotcha. In its stupidest form it goes something like this:

        If everyone has the right to bear arms, then five-year-olds ought be able to have their own guns.

        It’s also often used to conflate legalizing drugs with selling heroin in schools.

        Carlos makes this classic mistake when he equates swatting your kid with beating your wife.

        -Because some people beat their kids, we should make spanking illegal.

        -Because some people abuse drugs, we should make drugs illegal.

        -Because some people murder people with guns we should make guns illegal (except for cops and other benevolent agents of the State).

        Child abuse is already illegal, but Carlos would like to make spanking illegal, for the childrunz of course. I’m sure that nothing could possibly go wrong with giving the state more power to intervene in people’s lives.

        Let’s take a look at this incident:

        http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/30/why-was-william-reddie-so-agitated

        In short, someone called the cops because Reddie was having a loud telephone conversation, whereupon the cops discovered that Reddie was a pot smoker, which automatically triggered the chain of events that led to his death. Is it a mystery that Reddie “appeared agitated” when cops burst into his home while he was in the middle of an argument, that he was again “agitated” when CPS workers dropped in and threatened to take away his son, or that he was even more agitated when they came by to follow through on that threat?

        Carlos, since you are such an expert on childhood trauma perhaps you can tell me what is more emotionally scarring for a 3 year-0ld: having a father who smokes pot or seeing your father murdered in front of you by police officers? Except the toxicology report showed not THC or alcohol in the dead man’s system, so we only have the benevolent officer’s word for that. And we all know that cops never, ever, ever lie.

        How’s that war on a plant working out?

        Oh, but I can hear you saying already, this time it will be different. Yeah, I’m sure no bitter, vengeful neighbor or ex-spouse will ever abuse your proposed legislation. I’m sure no cop will use the excuse, “I heard a spank” to invade someone’s home and shoot their dog.

        Fuck off, slaver.

      • Must have taken place here in Austin, Texas. We are known for cops waving their big guns.

      • I never stated I want spanking to become illegal (that was an exaggeration someone made during this very lengthy argument), I’m an anarchist. There’s no way I could say it’s wrong to hit your kids, but it’s okay for the government to use violence against others. When I stated that there are a number of nations that made spanking illegal, I was not insinuating that that’s what the US government should do. By the way, I really don’t see how the view that hitting kids isn’t necessary caused the fall of Rome.
        “this attitude is a MAJOR problem in society – destroying us as surely as it destroyed Rome.”
        Come on, Jean. Then again, you want to kill me, so go fuck yourself.

      • “having a father who smokes pot or seeing your father murdered in front of you by police officers?”
        Did I say that I was for the drug war, government, or cops? Nope. If I was for any of these things, Sean, then your argument would be completely valid against me. But, I didn’t. I’m far from being a “slaver”.

      • You wrote:

        “Since spanking is both unnecessary and harmful, it should never be allowed. Our government should ban this harmful practice, as have over 25 countries around the world.”

        Really, you didn’t say you wanted spanking to become illegal? REALLY? How else does our government “ban” a process other than by a law? You didn’t say “discourage” – you said “BAN.” That is NOT an exaggeration.

      • Now I completely understand where the misunderstanding came from:
        that quote was from this article:
        http://www.naturalchild.org/jan_hunt/spanked.html

        I should have put it in quotations, the article goes into other aspects. I do not agree with the article as a whole, I do believe it is interesting. Sorry for the confusion, that was my fault and I appologize for it.

      • Okay, Carlos, I take it back, you aren’t a slaver, you just quote them ;)

        BTW, the War on Domestic Violence, while not as well known as the War on Drugs or the War on Terror has also had the same backlash effects where the cure is worse than the disease. Another reason why I have a big problem with legislating spanking. Domestic violence is a murkier issue than drugs or terrorism, in my mind, at least, but another case where a war on a noun (or an adjective and a noun) has allowed the State to overreach its authority even more, causing way more problems than it cures.

      • “Okay, Carlos, I take it back, you aren’t a slaver, you just quote them ”
        Fair enough, I’ll take that criticism and do better to not do that again.

      • “replace the term”parent” with “husband” and “child” with “wife” and you’ll start to get my point.”

        I still find this to be a false equivalence, though. The rights of children are not the same as the rights of adults. Again, this is a murky issue, what ought to be the age of sexual consent? Should this age be the same as the age one can buy cigs or booze or enlist in the army or vote. But the point that children have a different set of rights than adults still stands. Parents are benevolent dictators.

        I could also talk about when I spank my wife but that’s probably way too much information.

      • “what ought to be the age of sexual consent?”

        There’s a saying, “if there’s grass on the field, play ball!”

        But that’s troublesome now, with girls attaining puberty in some cases years before normal to do so.

        Add another to your list of murky issues. It troubles me that the law generally makes little to no distinction I’m aware of between sex with, say, a consenting 15-yr old girl and a pre-pubescent one. I don’t think it’s at all the same sorts of people in general that do these things. Not to mention, not all 15-yr-old girls are created physically or emotionally equal, either.

      • “if there’s grass on the field, play ball!”

        If that counts for men as well, I would have been able to have sex with a 30 year old when I was 9. Obviously you didn’t mean it that way, I’ve just always been grossed out by that thought.
        You’re assesment of early puberty is spot on, there’s girls who start their period at 10 now a days.
        It’s murky as hell, but the fact that in some states it’s illegal for to 14 year olds to have sex with each other, and if they do so they’re both considered sexual offenders, is pretty silly. Don’t understand how that works. On top of that, if a 15 year old girl sends a picture of herself partially nude to another 15 year old on myface, they’re both jailed for child porn.

      • Yeah the age of consent is pretty murky. To quote Cheech and Chong:

        REPORTER: So Coach, lets talk about your record….

        COACH: What the hell you wanna talk about my record for? Man, I DONE MY TIME….. I PAID MY DEBT TO SOCIETY! How the hell I know she was 13 – she looked 15 anyway…

        I don’t think there’s any sort of hard and fast solution to this. 17 year old guys being stigmatize for life as sex offenders for banging their 16 year old girlfriends is definitely not the solution. On the other hand Roman Polanski is an asshole.

      • “On the other hand Roman Polanski is an asshole.”
        Absofuckinglutely

      • I hold Gallier and Richard the Francophile, personally responsible for the Polanski debacle.

        Okay not really, but I had to spend eight years being personally responsible for all the dumb shit Bush did. Luckily for me, few people in Europe have a problem with Obama, so now I don’t have to constantly explain to them why they should go fuck themselves.

      • For sure by some of the insanity that goes on now, a whole lot of us would be in jail or register “sex offenders” for life. It’s harder to imagine a greater evil than criminalizing normal behavior, especially normal kid behavior.

        That said, if only I had been able to bang some of those hot 30yr old teachers when I was nine, or 10, or whatever.

        I knew a guy in the Navy who claimed to have performed oral sex on his teenage babysitter when he was 8 or so. He was soundly proud of the fact.

        different strokes. I do draw the line at correction of course, and what makes it thorny is when can a kid be said to have really consented. So, I think most of this stuff would be better evaluated on a case by case basis.

      • Age, especially in physically, emotionally and socially growing kids is highly individual and arbitrary, and I think, becoming moreso with access to information via the Internet. Compare what’s available now to that several years old playboy magazine from 1968 you had stashed out behind the shed.

      • Sean, “I could also talk about when I spank my wife….”
        Ooops, you’re channeling Monty Pythons, again :-)

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtcSYPjJbgg

      • Marie,

        All males are secretly searching for Castle Anthrax.

      • Marie wins the Internet.

      • :-0 :-) :-)

      • Carlos, you say:

        ” Our government should ban this harmful practice, as have over 25 countries around the world.”

        What else does ban mean, if not make illegal?

        How about you try something a little more effective – change society so that they adopt your “better parenting without spanking” mantra?

        First I think you’d have to prove it works. Second you’d have to make it easy, since most people are fucking lazy.

        Good luck with it.

      • Odd, I attempted to post my last comment last night… oh well.

        I’ve done a fair amount of google-ing for non spanking parenting and haven’t found anything very convincing.

        Anecdotally, most parents I know who do not spank have the worst behaving kids.

      • “Anecdotally, most parents I know who do not spank have the worst behaving kids.”

        Me too.

        But I’m biased. It may only be 99.9999999%

        I’m probably fucking missing a variable, somewhere.

    • I love seeing the seed of a tiny little thought. The possibility of going against the grain.

      Best wishes, Robert, whatever you decide.

  18. Kind of extrapulated from your post: The beauty of atheism is that you’re no body’s bitch. You can learn all about the universe without accepting bullshit that someone with a special collar, hat, or badge states. You can live without the fear of heaven or hell, and have relationships that are based on positivity and choice rather than obligation and fear

  19. Derrick says:

    Democracy does work. The influence and judgement of our peers weighs strong on the human conscience; The problem is centralization.

    I have long held the belief that one of the chief problems of our American society is how taxes are levied. When most of our money goes to some faceless mass in Washington D.C. to be distributed by faraway congressmen and the corporate lobbyists whispering in their ears, there is not a lot we can do about it. I don’t know about you, but it makes me feel powerless.

    Now, lets flip that. Suddenly, most of your tax dollars go to your city. You and your friends can march on city hall and string up any dirty, lying politician, and he knows that you can and will.

    A bit less of your money will go to your county, then state, and finally the federal government.

    • “Democracy does work. The influence and judgement of our peers weighs strong on the human conscience; The problem is centralization.”

      Much wisdom, there. So does….gasp….communism. The issue is scale and, as Derrick points out, centralization.

      Compare a hunter gatherer group of 50 individuals to hundreds of millions.

    • “Democracy does work. The influence and judgement of our peers weighs strong on the human conscience;”
      So, should you get married to a women based off of a vote? Should you accept truth over falsehoods over a vote? Democracy is tyranny through majority rule, whether or not it’s centralized is not the problem. You should choose what you want to do, as long as you don’t use coercion against others.
      And the problem with taxation is not centralization, the problem is that it’s fucking theft.

      • Derrick says:

        Taxation is theft? You are a fool.

      • Nice retort, asshole. If you don’t pay taxes, you go to jail. If you refuse to go to jail, you get shot.

      • Derrick:

        First, Carlos is absolutely right. The ultimate penalty is death, and I believe I have a blog way way back about that, about how even, hypothetically you could face the death penalty for a traffic violation.

        Because, you.cannot ultimately defy the state even if 100% in the moral, rational, logical and evidentiary right; at a point, you must surrender. If you do not and defend yourself because you are right, you will be killed. The state is the terrestrial form of God.

        Taxation, in legal terms, is a “lawful taking.” why is it lawful? The one with the gun makes the rules, they say it’s lawful, and the bargain is that they’ll try to protect you against “unlawful takings.”

        Now you get to go split hairs, but I warn you, I once began a thread in a newsgroup in USENET in about 1994 called “taxation is theft” and it lasted for years. There is nothing you can come up with that I haven’t seen before. But you’re welcome to try.

      • Derrick says:

        We live in a scoiety. Someone has to pave the streets, and as much as I dislike it, someone has to pay people to not starve on those streets. As citizens of this society, we must pay for its upkeep.

        How much? That’s always in question. However, to call taxation theft and to cry for its outlaw is insanity. All of the money you make is done so in the bounds of this construct, and so returning a portion of it to see that it continues is a small price to pay.

      • “We live in a scoiety”

        Who’s “we” and whose “society?”

      • While I’m at it, can you name “someone” for me.

        I’d like to buy him some soup and a beer.

        Because I really only deal with individuals. I don’t deal in conceptual collectives. Unless he’s a real her or she, “someone” can go get fucked.

      • “However, to call taxation theft and to cry for its outlaw is insanity. All of the money you make is done so in the bounds of this construct, and so returning a portion of it to see that it continues is a small price to pay.”

        That’s “social contract” gibberish for those who don’t know. Google it.

        People actually “return” large portions to people they actually deem as giving them value in return.

        Taxation is theft. It’s legalized theft, and until you admit such a basic reality, you’re not honest enough to debate with me.

        Let me give you a clue. The law already defines taxation as a taking.

        You’re trying to defend what the law has already admitted. Because you’re very ignorant, and you don’t know how to take it from that admission to a principled argument.

        and that’s because you can’t.

        In the end, the only justification for taxation is force, which itself can’t be morally justified.

        But yea, I know, you like your ROADZZZZ.

      • Carlos:

        One should no more ascribe the machinations required to hold an election between hundreds of millions than you should ascribe the democratic or communist working of an HG group to modern society.

        I doubt HG groups set up voting booths. more importantly, I doubt they vote in secret. They discuss, out in the open, taking each other to task, bully, acquiesce to better arguments and eventually find synthesis.

        That is a democratic process, so just own up to it.

        There is no getting around the idea that nobody should be forced, everyone should get a say and argument, and nobody has to put up with it if they find the decision beyond their level of outrage,

        The only problem is, it only really works around a campfire with a lot of grassfed meat on the grill.

      • If that’s what ou mean by democracy, then I’m with you 100%.

      • Now, everyone, see how easy that was?

        “There are no conflicts of interest between honest men.”

        Who wrote that? (you don’t get to answer, Carlos)

      • Joao Eira says:

        Honest? I don’t know but change it to rational and it was Ayn Rand.

      • Hmmm, long time ago, so I must be misremembering, if that’s the case, mine is better and more widely integrated.

        There are rational predators, but no honest ones.

      • Well, I’m certainly going to be making a name for myself here today…
        Not as I recalled, but I’m guessing IMDB would be closer to correct than my memory here:
        Mickey: You’ll never understand, Wayne. You and me, we’re not even the same species. I used to be you, then I evolved. From where you’re standing, you’re a man. From where I’m standing, you’re an ape. You’re not even an ape. You’re a media person. Media’s like the weather, only it’s man-made weather. Murder? It’s pure. You’re the one made it impure. You’re buying and selling fear. You say “why?” I say “why bother?”

        Pure certainly works for honest as well.
        I’d say Predators are, generally, VERY honest: You know from the get-go that they see you as a meal. That they are generally stronger and faster than you, and may be as smart or cunning.

        How can they not be honest? I’d like examples, myself. I think only HUMAN predators are dishonest, dissembling… Government and busybodies. Government thinks all we have is theirs by proxy, and busybodies think “there oughta be a law ..!!!” or “… for the children!”
        And then demand more government. Same coin, opposite side.

        Remember, Vote Ron Jeremy, at least you’ll KNOW you’re getting screwed!

      • I’m talking about humans. Predation isn’t honest because it goes against human nature. We’re animals, but rational ones.

        There is an _element_ of honesty in common predators, but it’s only the pure animal part. Such as a thief who doesn’t pretend that he’s actually benefitting you, unlike the political structure.

  20. Statism – the worst of all religions.

    Funny how so many people who criticize religious people for believing in things for which there is no proof still believe in the almighty State, no matter how much evidence is stacked up against it.

    AnCap 4 life.

    – JLL

    • And see now, those who question whether I know exactly what it is I’m doing?

      I’m creating the cool club of Paleo, and I have a head start.

    • Jeremy Voluntaryist says:

      Statism is just another religion that people cling to because they’re not mentally strong enough to stop clinging to the fairy tale that is government.

  21. Luke Terry says:

    Richard,

    Somewhat off topic, but germane to your last tweet, I want to thank you profligately for running such an open forum on your blog. *Every* other paleo blog out there that I’m aware of is over-moderated to the point where it’s nothing more than a back-slapping echo chamber for bloggers to be congradulated on their prowess, or, at best, to receive some mild and contributory links related to the post. Very few if any other bloggers tolerate any sort of open exchange of ideas. This space is needed and valuable especially as this movement expands and grows, and I dare say this is one of the most influential paleo/primal blogs. You broke open the CT discussion into a wider sphere, as an example. You talk politics and religion, and maybe even relish it, two areas other bloggers pale with dread to discuss.

    People think you’re a dick, but you encourage free expression. If that’s what being a dick means, count me in. At the same time, if being ‘nice’ is stifling expression and conversation, I want no part of this ‘niceness.’ At some point, I’ll begin blogging again (I had a blog a long time ago, deleted it because I grew out of it), and I hope to take a similar tack that you’ve taken here.

    We need to tackle these issues head-on, and not skirt them because it makes some people ‘uncomfortable.’ If people want to be comfortable and unchallenged in their lifestyle or their assumptions, they best sit back on the couch, grab a corporate beer and eat some processed express-meal.

    Carry on. Viva La Raza.

    • Ok, I think I’ll tweet the link to this comment, Luke, you called me a dick :)

      • Luke Terry says:

        Technically, I said “people think you’re a dick.” Thus absolving myself of direct blame via employing a hypothetical, plural, third person. Hey, I almost went to law school. I know about these things.

        But as the owner of a Yang Implement, I am partial to them. Dicks are useful. In fact, none of us would be here without them. Dicks are indispensable.

        Thus, as a man, it was meant as a compliment. We must retake that term, as men, and no longer allow it to be used as an insult. I, for one, believe “dick” to be a term of endearment, and use it as such.

        When people call me a “dick,” I wink, smile, and say thanks.

      • I don’t even want to know what a Yang Implement is, and I’m more afraid of the “implement” part.

        Yea, I knew what you meant. That’s why I shamelessly whored it on twitter. Maybe even FB, but that was like a few dozen comments ago and you’re old news by now.

  22. Hi Richard,
    First, this is my first comment and I’d like to say nice blog and fuck you for stopping the daily posts during the first week I started reading…
    Second, the suggestion of the author of the Liberty Link you posted is to return power to the states so that people can vote with their feet and move to another state that has laws more inline with their views. I don’t know if you really are disgusted with Ron Paul or if you just feel to need to jab everyone and so you take a shot at him, but he very much does seem to be the champion of the 10th amendment which tells the Federal government to fuck off. I’ll flex my middle finger by voting for Paul wether nominated or not, and likely again in the next election regardless if he is still around, politically or living.
    And for someone who likes to mouth off like you do, please don’t tell me you still live in CA!? There’s more government and taxes there than in most of the rest of the country….well, unless you’re illegal, I hear the tax money they collect has to go somewhere…

    • Jorge:

      Now that’s the fuckin’ spirit, man! Thank you for the very well placed fuck off, and a decent fuck you outline of how you’re going to handle things.

      I hope that was your worst behavior and even if it wasn’t, I’ll just take it for what it is.

    • Jorge

      To follow up, I live in Cali for the weather and breathtaking scenery from Sierras to coast. I’ll put up with a lot for that. Life is short. I’m capable.

      Search my blog for Ron Paul. I’m not just talking out my ass. I do know ALL he’s about. Every single little tiny thing. And it’s pointless. You can not vote your way out of this. Voting is what got yu into this.

      • Richard,
        I am originally from South Florida, but live in NC now (job out of college). I get totally the weather and breathtaking scenery thing. Florida may not have the Sierras, but there are plenty of mounds, curves, and scenery imported from all over the world :) But your a married man and I’m a 29yo bachelor so perhaps our idea of scenery is a little different. Fl also doesn’t have income tax… I will move back there one day and to the beach.
        True, you cannot vote your way out of this. The solution is and always has been change people’s minds about how they view society, treat others, and what is truly virtuous. Same with America’s health and the Paleo lifestyle.

  23. “not some fantasy in the sky or fiery pits”

    I tend to find baking soda and some coconut oil fix the fiery pits pretty well.

  24. Richard,

    Aren’t you married? I know this will probably bring the royal wratch of Richard down on me, but seems to me you are (and correctly so IMO) totally against religion and democracy. But being married totally contradicts all of that!

    Explain yourself now, smart guy

    • Religion has nothing to do with marriage whatsoever. Sheeple have co-opted marriage and attempted to make it so, but it is not so.

      Secondly, marriage has nothing to do with democracy. Nobody is forcing Richard or Beatrice(rix?) to do anything.

    • Joao Eira says:

      Holy shit, being married contradicts democracy. Run to the hills now because you can’t fuck you wife, honey.

      Totally serious now, but seriously?

      I guess the brain benefits of eating Paleo don’t pass down to everyone.

      • Yeah, you’re right. Child brides in Afghanistan are totally involved in the democratic process.

        Whoops. Guess ‘Joao Eira’ is some fancy French term for ‘going full retard’.

    • Dan. I simply loved Beatrice enough to understand that it was important to her to make our 5 year time together “official” in the eyes of her family and friends. On a level, she could not help be feel “left out” a bit. She never walked down that isle in front of people who care about her.

      I got it.

      We got married on a rock by a raging sea at Rocky Point, halfway between Carmel & Big Sur. The minister the restaurant hired had had a few, which amused me.

      • I could be rude and complain about you giving in to your lady (bless her for being with you ) and going against your strong held anarchist beliefs. But I won’t. You did a good thing and if I knew you better, I would shake your hand. It is a truly beautiful place there around Big Sur…..hmmm, maybe proof of God?

      • Kate:

        Are you weird?

        “and going against your strong held anarchist beliefs.”

        That’s so fucking funny I can’t even stop laughing. Do you have any concept of what it is to not hold any particular beliefs very strongly?

        Oh, wait, I do hold a couple strongly, stated generally, not at you:

        1. Mind your own fucking business

        2. Leave me the fuck alone

      • And here I was complementing you. I call bullshit this time. I think there are many more beliefs you hold strongly. No 1- You strongly believe your don’t strongly believe in anything. Why do you blog if you want to be left the fuck alone?

      • Those statements are in the context of the force of the state.

      • Jeremy Voluntaryist says:

        Exchanging vows of love with someone does not go against any Anarchist principles. The State just needs to stay the fuck out of everyone’s personal life and we need to quit asking for permission to say those vows (or make a private contract) with people we love. We don’t need a “marriage license” any more than I need a masturbation license.

      • If you’re not firing blanks, some states require a license

  25. I haven’t read all of the post, have a shitload of studying to do, but I wanted to point out a problem with handing over our ‘safety’ to the government (apologies, Richard, if you’ve covered this in the post and I just haven’t gotten to it yet): the single most prescribed diet in the United States, and indeed the world, is the high carbohydrate, high grain, low fat, low protein, high sugar diet. This diet is preached less with scientific fervor than religious ideology; the Paleo community is well aware of where this diet leads, and what the implications of it are. And yet the US government, and the medical community, and all other medical specialties that trickle down from that, enforce this diet with zombie-like incantations and ritualistic sandwich sacrifice.

    Things got better, for me personally, the minute I tore off the shackles of the system’s ‘inherent wisdom’ and started scarfing down ten eggs a day and consuming two pounds of beef on weekends. Also, bacon. Just, y’know, in everything. The price I’ve paid for mentioning that in public is amazing: my classmates in nursing school have entirely ostracized me, and today was a beautiful thing: while they sat around a separate lunch table dining on their collective grains and sugary drinks, I ate, well, nothing, because my fast ends in the afternoon when I can lift. Anyway, it’s the same routine every day: they’re miserable after lunch, drowsy, headaches, upset stomachs, diarrhea, so on and so forth. And I’m in elevated spirits and answering hard questions.

    I ask them why, and they inform me that OTHERS have decided that it must be so. When does it end?

  26. I see you have a soft spot in your heart for the Republicans (you send vitriol their way, but it’s much lighter than the stuff you give the Democrats).

    Anyway, parties are retarded. But give me Obama/Clinton over the likes of Bush/Palin. I go for Obama/Clinton not based on their party, but based on competency. “Under” Obama, a guy gets raided for dope. Not acceptable, I agree on that.

    Under Bush, thousands of people die after raiding the wrong country. (And the guy still would have gotten harassed for his dispensary)

    Lesser of two evils.

    BTW, the Founding Fathers are hilariously overrated on so many levels. While what they wrote was admirable (for the most part), when you look at the context in which they wrote it (slaughtering native Americans, slavery, women can’t vote, etc), it’s laughably hypocritical.

    • AFan:

      I pretty much agree with most of that. But trust me, I loath republican politicians in many ways more. That’s because i hate frauds more than I hate liars and republicans with the possible exception of Paul are frauds.

      I see democrat and republican voters differently however. I know a ton of both, and the families are split. For the democrats, I mostly see mind numbing ignorance. A lot of entitlement. A -10th grade understanding of basic economics, if such a thing was even possible. For republicans, I see faith and a desire to impose it on others. But I also see a lot of “hearts in the right place,” in a manner of speaking. I see a lot of destructive like envy on the other side.

      I agree about the founders. I rarely ever reference them unless it’s just a quote that makes sense.

      Slavery is America’s Original Sin.

    • Oh, please. I’m no fan of Bush, but Obama has been worse on just about everything. We’re still playing policeman of the world, just shifting troops and priorities around. (The same was true under Clinton…remember he and Madeline Albright’s pet war in Bosnia?) Obama has also outspent every previous president by a long shot…and no, he can’t blame Bush on that. His exorbitant and wasteful stimulus was supposed to keep the unemployment rate below 8.5%, and instead it skyrockted over that level for 3 years. His legislation, such as Health Care and Dodd-Frank, are mostrous bills over 2,000 pages. They have tons of uninteneded (?) consequences that wreck small businesses and industries without touching the real troublemakers (big banks, Fed, etc.).

      The entire crony capitalist/lemon socialist regime is stronger than ever. This is where huge corporations team up with the gov’t to regulate out competition and ensure “revolving door” jobs between corporate execs /politicians/gov’t regulators…oh, and bail out the “too big to fails.” And after promising “transparency,” he’s done nothing but take away rights (NDAA, etc.) and fed us lies/propaganda as bad as anything in 1984.

      http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs-saved-created-congressional-districts-exist/story?id=9097853

      Here’s the kind of hope and change he’s given. All hail Monsanto and their gov’t enablers. Welcome to fascist Barakistan.

      http://lewrockwell.com/rep3/feds-seize-farmer-bank-accounts.html

  27. So if government sux, what about currency? Should it die too? They seem fairly related to me.

    Genuinely curious how it all fits together.

    • “So if government sux, what about currency? Should it die too?”

      Nothing should really die, at least not in a violent, sudden sense. I’d simply like the not on of the need of government, a coercive state, to evolve away.

      Google private currency. You don’t need a state to have mediums of exchange.

    • Currency is a topic that could by itself produce 300 posts. If you look at the history of currency and where we are at this moment in the U.S. and Euro the end game is pretty clear.

      To the extent the purpose of government is to provide a currency, then the government is arguably one giant scam.

      /also want to point out that our currency says “Federal Reserve Note” not “U.S. Treasury Money”

    • The Currency system has the government by the balls. It is not related at all and is in fact its own private company.

      • I’ve never bought into the currency conspiracy theories. Of that the Fed is a private company, etc. I saw that debunked several times when it was a big deal in the mid 90s and left it there.

        No matter the makeup of the currency, the state can still wield totalitarian power. Consider the Russian Ruble during the USSR. As I recal, it wasn’t even traceable on currency exchanges. It did serve as a medium of exchange.

        I just think the whole thing is a red herring. The real problem is that the state can inflate the currency at will, but that has nothing to do with some smoke filled room with a cabal of men in suits pulling the world’s strings.

      • gallier2 says:

        The fed scam (and similarly the ECB scam) is not in the money printing itself and it is also not in the private nature of central bank and most “conspiracist” have that completely wrong. The scam is in charging interests on that fiat money. The idea behind interests is normally to cover the risks of lending money. The bank that has the power to create money (be it a state bank or a private bank) has no risk. Any interest due on money creation is therefore an abuse of the privilege. One then only needs to know the difference between an exponential (interests) and a linear function (economic growth) in mathematics to know where the whole thing is headed to.

      • Gallier

        You’re talking about fractional reserve, but private banks with private currencies used to create money too in advancing a loan, and charge interest on it, that interest being sufficient to cover operating costs and return a profit. I see nothing wrong with that, so long as done in a private setting with no possibility of bailout.

        I think this ability to create money through extending credit is a MUCH underrated financial innovation. It gives people the chance to essentially sell their future labor and productivity now, at a cost.

      • I should stipulate: no possibility of bailout for EITHER the bank OR the depositors. If you want deposit insurance, then buy a policy at your own expense.

      • I guess with regards to power & coerciveness I don’t see much difference between the Bank and the State. Maybe the State is worse (less honest), since the Bank doesn’t need to pretend to have other priorities.

        But the State more or less lets me do what I want; the Bank has a lot more control over my day-to-day survival. I can’t just hunt my own food, build my own house, attract females, get my broadband, etc. without $$$.

      • Try opening a bank without a federal or state charter.

        There is a rich history of private banks going way back. Banking, per se, is not the problem. Banking in principle (ie as any business) is an enormous and essential value for a modern society.

        Look at it this way. There has always been means to borrow money…friends, family, that old smart grandma down the street, loan sharks, whatever. They could only ever loan what they had. Banking is how money is created, expanded to fill the demand for it and LOWER interest rates, make credit easier to obtain of safer (a wage garnishment vs. fewer fingers, etc).

        The problem is the state, where banks get bailed out and depositors get bailed out and it is no longer and issue of community, reputation, sound business practices and on and on.

      • “But the State more or less lets me do what I want”

        the United States has well over 5,000 Federal Laws, which doesn’t include the hundreds of thousands of laws that are implemented within different states, counties, cities, and towns. The chance of not breaking a law is astronomical. By making these laws so convoluted, it allows the government to indict anyone of anything any time; in other words, complete control.

      • gallier2 says:

        No, I wasn’t talking about fractional reserve. That’s only a mechanism to extend the money supply and don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating the abolishment of banking or blaming banking and money creation per se.
        The “illegitimacy” in the current system is not in its basic mechanism, as is often posited by alternate news sources, but in the “overcharging” of the service given. This, gives the concerned actors a leverage of power they wouldn’t have gotten in the first. After that undue power is acquired it’s difficult to revert. This skewing of the power play is a long term thing and has been ongoing for several centuries and can even be traced back to the Renaissance. The reformation, especially Calvinism is part of that for example. I will not develope here in a drive-by shooting comment because of lack of time, people have written books on that subject.

      • Gallier2

        Fair enough.

  28. “The real problem is that the state can inflate the currency at will, but that has nothing to do with some smoke filled room with a cabal of men in suits pulling the world’s strings.”

    Here’s the top “smoke filled room with a cabal of men in suits pulling the world strings”
    http://go.worldbank.org/WM8TMERJO0

    At least you can’t say you weren’t warned.

  29. Hi Richard!
    I’ve been reading your blog for a while now and find it thought provoking. This post and it’s follow-up comments even more so. I often feel powerless in our system of government so the choice to opt out and no longer participate in a system that I cannot affect does hold some appeal. The problem is “Evil will succeed if good men do nothing.” So, I read the paragraph beginning with, “But now we come to the hard part…” several times and I still don’t see how this inaction can accomplish any positive effects. How can a nation of pure individualists with no central guidance make highways & railways that cross the country. What about bridges, utilities, education and defense? I’m not writing these things to disagree so much as to understand how it could work because it is definitely time for a change.

    I found myself wanting to join in on several other threads that wound through this discussion but in the interest of brevity, I’ll just talk about corporal punishment vs no corporal punishment. I can only write on a personal level. My parents did the best they could but some punishment was indeed “spanking” (which is a term I will use for striking the bottom of a child in a premeditated, consistent, relatively proportional way) some punishments were punches and slaps out of anger, and some were real beatings with belts etc. As a child, I pretty much perceived it all as beatings. Nowhere in my brain was the thought that my parents were doing it because they loved me, or wanted to teach me or keep me safe. All I knew was that I was getting hit for something and I was damn sure going to avoid this punishment next time by whatever means necessary EXCEPT not doing the behavior. So, in my case, the biggest criticism of corporal punishment is that it didn’t work and just pissed me off. In my opinion, corporal punishment may teach children not to engage in certain behaviors but the overarching lesson they learn is that it is okay to enforce your will upon others using brute force and/or that it is okay for people who say they love you to hit you.

    When my daughter was born I was determined to be a more even-tempered parent. She did get a few spankings in the toddler years but as with me, it seemed to do absolutely no good. One day, I sat her down and told her that it was wrong for anyone to hit her. Anyone. Me, her friends, (in my mind I was thinking future significant others), anyone. I never regretted it. I sent her to her room, I took things/privileges away, I went to my own room, I praised her when it was appropriate. In every argument, she got one “yeah but”. In other words, if she could make a good enough argument or bring new information to the table, I’d let her win the argument. If not, hell could freeze over. Our disagreements were very short and her arguments very concise. Now she’s 32 years old and I’m proud of her. She was an N=1 experiment as was I. In the spirit of critical thinking, I encourage parents to consider whether they are hitting (spanking – whatever) their children repeatedly for the same behaviors. If it’s not working, find another way. If it does work but they’re beating the shit out of their siblings or the dog, find another way. You’re not teaching what you want to teach.

    • “In my opinion, corporal punishment may teach children not to engage in certain behaviors but the overarching lesson they learn is that it is okay to enforce your will upon others using brute force and/or that it is okay for people who say they love you to hit you.”

      Well fucking put, Bud. Much better put then my post and entirely fucking commendable. Your daughter’s lucky to have such an open-minded dad as yourself.

      • I haven’t had a chance to read Bud’s comment, yet, but I do think it’s important to draw a distinction between a swat on the behind for a 3-4 yr old and beating. The former is done because their undivided attention is required, often for their own safety, and the latter is abuse, often to assuage one’s own frustrations. I also do not think its appropriate to swat kids once they are old enough to be reasoned with, incentivized, or punished in other ways, like sending them to bed without dinner.

      • Well fucking put, Richard. Much better put than any post above and entirely fucking commendable. As a mom, I totally agree. Once my kids got to be about 5, spanking no longer needed. Before that, nothing else registered. It’s just that simple.

      • Hey Richard,
        I agree with the distinction you drew but my previous post has a lot of nuance regarding corporal punishment that I think a lot of parents don’t consider. We often think we’re teaching our kids one thing only to discover we’ve taught them another.

        Also, I’m still interested in understanding how to positively effect change in a system by opting out of it.

      • -
        “positively effect change in a system by opting out of it.”
        The system itself is inherently coercive and immoral. It’s built to fail and is entirely unsustainable because it leeches off of the productive class until they produce no more. There’s an interesting speech on it, look up “the story of your enslavement”.
        By trying to “Work with in it” you’re condoning the system, and falling for the same trap that millions have done before you. By voting, you are stating that it’s okay for the government to use its power (big or small) as long as it suits you.

      • Carlos, I featured that story of our enslavement Molaneaux video sometime back in a post.

      • I agree with the concept. The problem I’m having is answering the question,”And then what?”

      • When it comes to getting rid of slavery, “and then what?” doesn’t really matter. The very fact that central planning doesn’t work proves that we have no idea what it would look like after the slave owners stop running the economoy – but that doesn’t matter. There’s plenty of anarchists who will go on about how things would look without the state – from Herman-Hoppe to Rothbard and Molyneux (to a small extent) – but the truth is, we have no idea. Just like no one in the 80’s could imagine the internet and the iphone, we cannot imagine how the world would look like without the constraints and shackles that “our rulers” have placed on us.

      • Jeremy Voluntaryist says:

        Well put dude. I’m still in the habit of trying to “solve” people’s mental hang up of not having an all seeing, all powerful government to fall back on. I don’t remember who said it but I saw a quote awhile ago that stuck and (paraphrasing) it said “It’s not my job to prove to you that anarchism will work. It’s going to eventually happen whether you want it to or not. So it’s YOUR job to figure out what YOU are going to do to prepare for it.”
        Remember, 99% of our current lives are lived in a completely anarchistic fashion. We relate to people, we work, we play, etc without anyone forcing us to do those things.

      • “Remember, 99% of our current lives are lived in a completely anarchistic fashion.”

        Remember?

        Hell, no one even gets the idea and when you tell them that, as I have for going on 10 years, I get a look of bewilderment.

        The sate has done a remarkable job of taking credit for virtually every good thing in your lives. They do an equally good job in pawning off the blame for the bad things on that 99%.

      • Carlos

        Welcome to my small band of anarchist who’ve sworn off designing Utopias.

        You must have been an anarchist for a while, because it’s kinda a natural impulse tinitially o attempt to answer those who can’t imagine life without stealing from others to pay for their assurance and guarantees.

      • It’s difficult to not get into that bullshit discussion with people yelling “what about the fucking roads/public utilities?” And honestly, it took me awhile to just realize that it doesn’t matter, because I have no idea what’ll happen when taxation ends and I’m not going to act like a fortune teller to ease people’s feelings regarding anarchism.

      • Richard you should read Bud’s comment because he presents a very interesting and relevant question:

        How can a nation of pure individualists with no central guidance make highways & railways that cross the country. What about bridges, utilities, education and defense?

        ROADZZZ!!!!!!

        I encourage parents to consider whether they are hitting (spanking – whatever) their children repeatedly for the same behaviors. If it’s not working, find another way. If it does work but they’re beating the shit out of their siblings or the dog, find another way. You’re not teaching what you want to teach.

        I have a five year old that I spank, sorry hit, occasionally. We hang out a lot and we usually resolve our problems without this horrible violence but occasionally it’s a couple swats to the ass and some time in the room. I wish I could live up to the high standards of Bud and Carlos but I’m frankly a medieval asshole.

        Also, I have the bizarre notion that children should not be bribed, do this and I will give you that, say ice cream. But what the fuck do I know, I’m already a self-admitted medieval asshole.

      • I do engage in parental bribery, but I always feel guilty about it. Much more guilty than the occasional swat, I mean soul-destroying hit on the ass, that I wantonly engage in.

        In the spirit of critical thinking, Bud, boys are actually a lot more headstrong than girls, in general.

        As Stephan Guyenet recently quoted, “…Otzi carried a large genomic region known as the ‘Y chromosome’, which significantly increases the risk of traipsing about in the a*se-end of nowhere with very little protective clothing, and getting shot by arrows”

      • Sean,
        ROADZZZ! “a very interesting and relevant question” ? ….you are very bad to be baiting people like that, very very bad, you should be spanked – oops :-)

      • Silence, FOUL TEMPTRESS!!!

      • “The peril is too perilous!”

      • Sir Robin == the average sheeple

      • GALAHAD: “Oh, let me have just a little bit of peril?”
        LANCELOT: “No. It’s unhealthy.”

        ta-da, full circle to health and imposed guidelines thereof….just for your blog Richard – really, where the hell else would this fit? :-)

      • You know, I’m beginning to think I need to put a warning sign up for the comment section.

        Any suggestions?

      • Feed the animal at your own risk

      • Yes! I know we shouldn’t vote Richard, but I had to, that’s spot-on :-)

      • Good one, Kate.

        You probably don’t know this but my original idea for a name was “Feed the Animal,” but the domain was not available. I played with different words and voila!

        And I’m so glad.

      • Marie, private voting is a-ok, becaue it’s a private matter and private parties get to use whatever method of decision they like.

      • Thanks, good point. I was being rather facetious (very bad of me…but no, I won’t go there again!)

      • Hi Sean,
        The point of my post wasn’t to morally judge people who spank their kids. The point was to make people think about what they are teaching their kids and to make sure what they do works. I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that bribery can be even more abusive than corporal punishment. The thing that several posters point out is that little kids don’t think like we do and they use that to justify hitting them. The problem I have with that is a kid will break things down way simpler than we realize and it will get us results we don’t expect.
        For instance, if you scream at a kid to come to you (instead of wondering out into the street) and then swat their behind and yell at them some more when you yank them back out of the path of the oncoming bus – which direction do you think they are going to go next time you holler at them? My guess is away.

      • “which direction do you think they are going to go next time you holler at them? My guess is away”
        Nope, that’s confusing dogs with kids. Yes, it works exactly like that with dogs (I have 4 and more earlier -the family’s into animal rescue), but not with kids (raised 3). It also works that way for Abused children (fostered a few). Abused kids can never be spanked. It really sounds somewhere above like you were abused as a child, not just spanked, it’s got to be coloring your perception, no?

      • Not even dogs. My two stop dead in their tracks when “daddy” says the word, in the right way. They ignore “mommy” when they want to, no matter how she says it, and it pisses her off. :)

      • Our past always colors our perception. That’s why I argue for paying attention to what works and what doesn’t work as well as being aware that short term actions may have long term consequences.

        I thought I made it clear that I was basing most of this opinion on my past experience. As I said in my original post, “All I knew was that I was getting hit for something and I was damn sure going to avoid this punishment next time by whatever means necessary EXCEPT not doing the behavior.”

      • Bud, your past experience isn’t about spanking, it’s about abuse, that’s what I’m trying to point out. So you’re extrapolating widely. Kids who aren’t/haven’t been abused can be spanked without inducing the reaction you described.

      • Richard, it’s because you never beat the living daylights out of them. Those of mine who were abused before I got them cower/slink away or pee themselves if I just raise my voice. They don’t obey the command and may actually run into danger. Those I’ve had since very young don’t have that problem -but yes, my husband’s voice works soooo much better…he reminds me, beating chest :-)

      • Marie,
        No I get what you’re saying. You’re saying,”In limited doses, in appropriate circumstances, corporal punishment is effective.” I don’t disagree. All I’m saying is parents need to pay attention if the thing they use as punishment doesn’t work. Rather like Richard’s point that voting just encourages a broken system.

      • Has a lot to do with breeding. I’ve had experience with many, black labs growing up, but I’ve found my dog love in rat terriers. Vicious little killers, but they have a toal off switch and they love humans.

        Look them up. They are very curious. And no, nothing like Russel’s which I loathe.

      • By the way, a few years ago we attended a dog show where my bitch got a bunch of awards, right before we had her spayed, because we have an unfixed male… Anyway, show sponsored by the Sacramento Pit Bull Association or something like that. It was basically a pit bull and rat terrier show. Hundreds of amazingly ripped pit bull specimens, but all properly raised. As such, they are surprisingly docile-every damn one-and would cower when my ratites would growl or snarl at them.

      • marie curious says:

        “They are very curious:”
        -o.k., that was too cute -you’ve been eating more potatoes, haven’t you?
        Nope, sorry, two of our ‘dogs’ are some pomeranian mix, they are fast, affectionate, cooperative and better ‘mousers’ out by the shed than the cats, but I don’t consider them dogs. If it doesn’t even reach my knee, it ain’t a dog, k? :-)

      • ratting terriers were specifically bread to be vermin killers and they are WAY better than cats. Cats kill vermin or birds to eat. Ratting terrier kill them to kill them. In the UK, they used to have pens set up and place bets, like cock fights….

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat-baiting

        Billy, one bull terrier has the record at about 120 rat kills in 8 minutes.

        The rat terrier is an American breed, often call the American Rat Terrier. It was bread as vermin control for farms in the 30s. I’ve seen accounts of old barn vermin eradication-one from Teddy Rosevelt- where they would introduce rat terriers and one the space of some hours they would have over 1000 dead rats.

        Mine hate squirrels and kitty cats equally. Just mentioning either sends them into a killing frenzy.

        And then they come, curl up next to you, more loving than a cat.

        Really, amazing creatures if anyone care to look into it.

      • Jeremy Voluntaryist says:

        Different breed but similar. My wife has a 4 pound silky terrier that goes bonkers over birds and other small mammals. But very gentle with the kids.

        My pitbull was super gentle with the kids but had issues with adult men as soon as they put a baseball cap on. We can only figure that whoever owned him before we adopted him wore a ball cap. He was obviously abused and would piss himself if you yelled.

      • Sad. There is a lot of pit bull hate and I never bought into it. Then I went to that show with hundreds of pits and to a dog, unbelievably gentle tame, pure sweethearts–almost funny, really, given their sinister ripped appearance.

        It’s a cause-effect reversal. The cause is that assholes for some deranged reason want mean dogs and they overwhelmingly choose pits, and they raise them to be mean.

      • Very sad. Pit bulls are some of the most abused animals I see. And for that reason, they’re bullish-ripped, so assholes pick them for some choice meanness training aka abuse.

      • I have a Bullmastiff – The true lion of the dog world.

      • marie curious says:

        Bud, o.k., in that case just please don’t use the reactions to abuse as an example of how plain spanking can cause a a problem. Do, by all means, point out that anyone needs to be careful about spanking deteriorating into abuse. It’s the logic of the thing, ya’know?

      • Jeremy Voluntaryist says:

        In the mind of a child, who looks up to their parents for EVERYTHING, where does a spanking end, and abuse start? We wouldn’t hit a co-worker to work something out. We wouldn’t hit our spouse because they weren’t behaving how we wanted. If it’s assault to hit an adult, why is it accepted by society that we should be hitting our children?

        “Traumatic experiences in early life can leave emotional scars. But a new study suggests that violence in childhood may leave a genetic mark as well. Researchers have found that children who are physically abused and bullied tend to have shorter telomeres — structures at the tips of chromosomes whose shrinkage has been linked to aging and disease.”
        http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/04/childhood-stress-leaves-genetic.html?ref=hp

      • And so we come full circle. You must not be reading; only replying. Let’s posit a scenario. You and I are walking down the street – two adults. You decide you want to run out in the street and play. Well, sorry, but I don’t give two shits whether you do that or not. I certainly don’t care enough to force you to stay on the sidewalk.

        If however you were my child, I would force you -yes force you to stay on the sidewalk. If it took swatting to do that, I’d swat away. And I’d figure if you wanted to get mad, blame me, figure I’m the devil and treated you horribly as a child…well, at least you’d be alive to have those emotions.

        This discussion is totally stupid. Adults are not children. Children are not adults. Children are not stupid. They learn. They eventually realize that their parents kept them safe for a reason. But if they want to get mad at me. Well, tough shit.

        It has been said a hundred times on this thread: a spanking is not necessarily physical abuse. You can yell “abuse” a thousand times and it DOES NOT make it so. We all know what abuse is! There is a difference! I can only conclude that some of you are slow learners, and what is scary is: you want to take over the world.

        Bah.

      • Jeremy

        I am only talking about “prerational” children, for lack of a better term. It’s in the 2-4 range where they are mobile, but can’t yet be reasoned with.

        And it’s not beating. It’s a swat, to get their attention. Ever observe even wild animals training their small young? They’re gentle, but sometimes forcefully so.

      • I spanked my kids…..not very often, but as a last resort. I asked my daughter today if she spanks her almost 2 yo. She said the same, after nothing else works..time out, taking toys away…she has to spank, what she is finding is this little smarty prefers the spanking over time out because it’s quick, over right away and she can go about her play.

      • traderpaul says:

        “…I do think it’s important to draw a distinction between a swat on the behind for a 3-4 yr old and beating. The former is done because their undivided attention is required, often for their own safety, and the latter is abuse, often to assuage one’s own frustrations. I also do not think its appropriate to swat kids once they are old enough to be reasoned with, incentivized, or punished in other ways, like sending them to bed without dinner.”

        This kind of thinking is exactly what allows the state to get its foot in the door, to believe that a little bit of pain and violence sometimes needs to be inflicted on the people you love, for their own sake. It is a total falsehood. Spanking young children is used as a parenting shortcut when proper parenting is deemed too difficult or time consuming.

        Just a quick spanking (when it’s really nneded) or just a 5% income tax. We’re not talking child abuse or a 50% income tax.

      • traderpaul,
        “This kind of thinking is exactly what allow the state….to believe that a little bit of pain and violence sometimes needs to be inflicted on the people you love, for their own sake.”

        Stretching, stretching…nope, it didn’t make it, that rubber-band-analogy snapped.

        It’s the reverse, by conflating spanking with abuse, the state can get a foot in the door of how people raise their kids. Content matters, quantity matters – like calories, o.k.?

      • traderpaul says:

        In the case of abuse. It doesn’t. Abuse always starts out as a quick spanking. It’s when the quick spanking doesn’t get the desired results that the abuse starts.

        The point I was trying to make is that the state will always get its foot in the door, for whatever reason, by making their initial intrusion into our lives small, innocuous and reasonable (and for our own sake).

      • I give up. “When the quick spanking doesn’t get the desired results….” – where did you get this notion? Never seen a parent spank a child and, you know, just stop?!

      • traderpaul says:

        Marie
        This wasn’t an arm wrestle. No need to give up.
        Please read my 2nd paragraph. Just like Richards comment regarding small and calculated punishments.

      • traderpaul says:

        I give up. “When the quick spanking doesn’t get the desired results….” – where did you get this notion? Never seen a parent spank a child and, you know, just stop?!

        My gosh. Are your child beatings, I mean spankings, so severe that your child always got the message after the first incident?

      • Cute. But wrong, nonetheless. Learn a thing or two about child psychology, especially abused children, and come back. Equating spanking with abuse with state authority is as old as the hills (or the hippies) and debunked, thoroughly, and by the only thing that matters, observation and experimental verification.
        Or, just raise a kid (or two or three…).

      • Jeremy Voluntaryist says:

        If it was debunked, those of us that think it’s wrong to initiate aggression against other people (including children) must not have gotten the memo.

        I’ve 4 kids now and grew up in a home with my parents raising another couple dozen kids besides their own. You can see first hand when a child is hit to correct a behavior they learn very quickly that they deal with their own problems by lashing out and hitting. If you yell in your home, your children will yell. It’s a very simple thing to grasp but because society has grasped the concept that it’s ok to abuse, I mean spank, a child it’s so ingrained in their psyche that people refuse to let go of the idea. Much like other myths such as government and religion.

      • traderpaul says:

        Marie
        Spanking is abuse on a smaller scale.
        No different from a 5% tax versus a 50% tax.
        We believe in the value of the state because we believe that some coercion and violence is acceptable, thats what our loving parents gave us.

      • We believe? Really ? Who’s we?
        Look, the emotional development of Abused children does stall or get dramatically delayed, so yes, abused children and later adults will often accept violence by authority. Everyone else is able to grow-up, ‘we’ do not then believe anything of the sort.

      • traderpaul says:

        Marie
        Sorry for using “we” when I meant people who believe in state coercion and violence.
        Have you not noticed how many grown ups believe that just a little state coercion and violence is acceptable and necessary. Where does that belief come from? Does it not go hand in hand with the belief its alright and necessary to occasionally spank your children, in order to protect them?
        Spanking is violence that is meted out on a small socially acceptable scale.

      • traderpaul,
        this thread has no more replies at the bottom, so I don’t know where it’ll stick this, but here goes :
        You say : “Does it not go hand in hand with the belief its alright and necessary to occasionally spank your children, in order to protect them?”
        It’s not a causal relationship, it isn’t even a two-way correlation.

        Yes, people who think violence and coercion is acceptable from the state, or, you should note, from their spouses (!), or even from their bosses, do think, in large numbers (this was studied I think most extensively post-war and in the 50’s -Dr.Spock’s era) that ‘corporal punishment’ is acceptable for children.

        Annnnd? the reverse does Not hold true.
        People who think spanking is o.k. for Pre-Rational children do Not usually think it’s acceptable from the state or authority figures, let alone their spouses.

        Nor do the spanked kids themselves – it’s not hard to study that, the vast majority of kids are spanked in extreme situations (especially danger) up to about age 4-5 so there’s a wide pool to draw on.
        The key is, the kids do grow up. A signal characteristic of child abuse is delayed emotional development/failure to mature. Children who are ‘just’ spanked when young don’t have this problem.
        Hey, some of them grow up to be peaceful anarchist humanists (and can you get a more loving state-of-being than that?) ;-)

      • Marie

        The nesting appears to have gotten a bit weirded, because I changed some setting, emptied the cashe, etc. now it’s working as it should. Nesting goes 6 levels deep. When a comment reply gets to that sixth level, then it is the top comment for that thread and all replies get put under it, in chrono order.

        This means that since its not nested, adept commenters will take note, reply from that 6th nested comment and then reference what they are replying too, just like in the old days.

      • Yup, which I did. No problem, just pointing it out to avoid confusion. How you manage such an extensive, and sometimes rapid-fire, comment section, I always marvel….and THANKS for the ability to remove subscriptions Per Post, your challenge to trolls was picked up by a vegan some posts back and it flooded my email this morning until I saw the way to stop it. :-0

      • Marie

        Actually, I checked. Not a troll but a zealot. She dropped a bunch of comments on that post a couple of weeks back, got a bunch of responses and repid fired responses this morning.

        Now she’s getting responses back and Martin Levec is doing most or all of the work.

      • Awe, poor guy, there’s no point I think in arguing with ‘true believers’ ;-)

  30. Marie, we agree. Mine were around 3. I was spanked twice as a kid. Once I don’t remember why, but the other was because in school, I wrapped my arm in a scarf and lied about it being broken. I was spanked. I remember it as if it were yesterday.

    I never got caught again.

    • I’m glad. But I’ve a question, did you never do something like that again or did you just not get caught;-)

  31. I think I’ll plead the 5th…. :)

    • Ah Kate, I think we could be friends :-) If you didn’t live in such a messed-up state we might even come to agree on more things (natch!).

  32. What do you have against Texas? :) Yes, I agree. We prolly agree on quite a bit. Messed up or not.

  33. ;-)

  34. Oh dear. Richard, I just realized I’ve been flipping back and forth from marie to marie curious – there’s only one marie of any sort as far as I’ve seen on this blogs comments in the last few months and I’ve gotten careless. You and some of the regulars know, but I’m sorry, I hope no confusion to anyone else. Is there a way to fix that?

    • “I just realized I’ve been flipping back and forth from marie to marie curious”

      Hmmm, now I’ve heard of bi-curious, but what’s marie curious?

      “Is there a way to fix that?”

      I doubt it. Sounds to me like you’re……curious.

      (No, can’t fix all that other than manual, post by post. Pick a gender and stick with it.) hahahahah :)

  35. Theory: (which is true of course, but I’ll let it sink in a little..)

    Human brains “evolved” a conscience and religion..
    http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=human+brain+evolved+religion&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=pXOZT9rrDY_qgQfL2ZnsBg&ved=0CBgQgQMwAA

    No other animal could give a rats ass about God – So who’s right – every other fucking living animal on earth – or us humans running around thinking some stupid dude in the clouds created us and will judge us depending on who we kill or how much money we have donated?

  36. Last time I noticed my dogs could give a rats ass about blogging, if the car works or what to wear to work. so who’s right?

  37. Lol. I could lay around all day and wait for chicken jerky…but how would I pay for this computer?….shoot…where’s the chicken jerky? Move over dogs

  38. study Ancient eqyption Mythology and early Pagan stuff. I went to your blog and posted a direct link (if you approve it) – study their information, and if you have the balls – debate with them. You’s soon realize what religion and God is.

    Oh and stop thinking your better than your dogs

  39. Mark. I promised to look into that site later today when I don’t have watermelons to plant. And I do have the “balls”. But sometimes debating with “educated” swollen heads is like debating with an un-educated liberal (or conservative to be fair)…They are always right whether they are or not.

    My dogs will help in the garden….they love to dig in the dirt. Oh, but wait. They also dig up what shouldn’t be dug up. Hmmm Sure glad I have a brain to know the difference.

    Oh, and what we as mere men made of religions and gods isn’t necessarily right either.

    • Oh, I hit submit too soon. My dogs have brains, dog brains. Created or evolved…whatever….Our Schipperke could run this country much better than what’s in office today, but he is a dog and would rather lick his balls and eat jerky.

  40. “They are always right whether they are or not.”

    so true. When you realize God is just the Sun, Moon, and the stars, let me know.

    your dogs are digging up what they feel is right – who are you to judge? Face it – they are always right. They will kick your ass in the game of surival. But “thank God” you can avoid actually having to survive nowadays.

    “Oh, and what we as mere men made of religions and gods isn’t necessarily right either”

    No shit – it’s far from right

  41. I have a great respect for your passion Richard, and your elbows-out, no-holds-barred comments policy. I enjoy and I’m sure I will continue to enjoy your well-researched and extensively thought out posts even as you drift further from diet and fitness and into life, the universe, and everything. That being said, I’m going to say to you what I have wanted to say to many baby boomers who don’t have the balls to deal with my blinding rage…..

    Fuck you, you baby boomer asshole.

    Your generation is not allowed to throw up it’s hands and go “Oh well the whole thing is fucked. Experiment failed. Good luck future generations.” The experiment continues and you’re still in this maze with us, however Walden you want to get. You helped fuck up the system and now you’ve got to help unfuck it. You left the generation of your parents in positions of power and then complain things are going to hell.

    You are still a part of this tribe. You can either abdicate responsibility with the faux-intellectual “What if they had an election and no one showed up?” or you can dig down, find your cajones, and act like a real human animal. It is the responsibility of the tribal elders to mentor and guide the next generation. Hell, even elephants mentor their young.

    And the Boomer generation has a lot to teach. The civil rights movement? Feminism? A man on the fucking moon? The home computer? So many revolutions. So many fundamental changes in the way the nation has approached things. My generation needs the tools you used to change the world. We need to know how to defend our ideals and change the world to start reflecting our values. In the days of SOPA, HR 1986, and CISPA we desperately, desperately need your wisdom and support.

    If you’re going to waste the sliver of power the zoo gives you by walking away from the system, maybe instead you could use that sliver to give us post-boomers a leg up instead. What if they held an election and no one came? I have a better question: what if the average age of our representatives dropped 15-20 years in the next election? I’ll admit, I don’t know. I don’t know if it would make things better. But goddammit, I want the chance to find out. Don

    Help us and mentor us if you don’t have any better ideas. But don’t you DARE throw up your hands and say “It’s fucked. I’m outta here.”

    • Gah, very stupid typo at the end of the penultimate paragraph. This is what happen when you type angry kids. Always take time to proofread.

    • “Your generation is not allowed…”

      You’ll get nowhere with my like that. I’m no more responsible for the way things are fucked up because I’m a boomer (and frankly, this all started WAY before then) than I’m responsible for slavery because I’m white and of European descent.

      “It is the responsibility of the tribal elders to mentor and guide the next generation.”

      And just what do you think I’m doing, in the widest and most effective way I can. I write. Moreover, I engage, just as I’m doing right here.

      You want my advice? Stop thinking in terms of how you and yours get to figure way to live and have assurances and guarantees at the expense of others. This ship is a rust bucket and it’s going down, eventually. Good fucking riddance.

      Instead, you are you Xer friends need to discuss how you can best support each other going forward, say little urban or suburban—or eve rural—little hunter gatherer groups of 30-50. That’s just one idea.

      Forget about the rest of it. This is life. Just take your chances with it.

      • I have to comment here…I agree with Ricardo. We didn’t fuck up the system, we did our part. My parents voted, their father’s voted…and what we get when we vote is government…..and it’s pretty lousy. Let’s say some voice of reason comes along and says he”ll do this, he’ll do that…well when he is elected, he just becomes part of the system. Nothing happens. We, you and me, can’t change that. It’s been that way from the beginning. Give a man power and he abuses it.

        There are ways to make a change. Richard, for one, writes. Look how many people he influences. I started homeschooling back when we had to hide. We grouped together, banged our drum loudly and we got it to change. Homeschooling is now a respected way to educate ..in less than 25 years. SOPA and PIPA were they changed by our elected officials? No, there was more drum banging and group hugs and we saw a change.

        A friend of mine said….I know he was kidding….when an elected official has done his term, shoot him. Makes others really think twice before they want to be an elected official.

      • When I was in my teens I thought Ronald Reagan, if he could just get elected, would change everything and assuage my idealistic yearnings. I followed every single tidbit of every single primary and watched every single minute of the Rebublican convention…in 1975. Ford got the nomination, Carter beat his ass, and we got “stagflation” high unemployment and high interest rates like young folks have never seen.

        You know the rest of the story, eight years and it did not make one bit of difference. Government is a million times bigger, costs a million times more, and there are a million more laws. And we have more people per capita in jail than all but about 2 dogshit countries and far more than any industrialized, 1st world country. We lock people up for smoking dope. Can you even believe that, in 2012? In 1982-3 when I was pretty much stoned 24/7 while in college, had someone told me that 30 years later, in 2012 we’d be locking up even more people I’d have laughed at you.

        So count me “resigned,” LXV, in spite of the fact that I love your intelligence and spirit to pieces.

        I predict that should things run their course as they have for the last 30-40 years when I was interested in being involved and changing things, you’ll be even more dissilusined than then I am now.

  42. “Help us and mentor us if you don’t have any better ideas. But don’t you DARE throw up your hands and say “It’s fucked. I’m outta here.”

    That exactly what he did. We all need to say “fuck this – I’m outta here”

    The truth is bitter sometimes

    • And where do you see that leaving us? How do you see it making things better next year, ten years from now, fifty years from now? Am I making a rash assumption that you even want things to get better? Or do you just want out? Do you really not care about what happens to the younger generations of this country, of this tribe?

      I’m post Generation X. I’ve got a whole hell of a lot of years left on this planet and in this country. Maybe I’m not old enough to have a properly refined sense of cynicism, but I cannot stomach this attitude. Where did the optimism go? Where did the fight go? How can this attitude of “well, it’s failed and I hope things will be better by the time my grandkids are adults” become so damn pervasive among my parent’s generation?

      How can you say the system is inherently flawed without taking the time and effort to try to make a change. Good god, Senator Byrd held office until he was 92, almost 40 years. And the only change you can think that will make a difference is to give up?

      The Boomer generation ushered in whole new shifts in thought with feminism, the civil rights, consumerism, communication, and technology. You’ve seen these changes, and you really think the only thing that will make a difference is to opt out?

      You’ve seen young people, severely lacking in focus but not in passion, make the news with the Occupy movement for over 6 months, and your thought is that letting the whole thing sink is the way to go? Not to help them find focus?

      You toothless hound.

      “That’s exactly what he did.”
      And I maintain that he is wrong to do so. Every K type reproducer fights for it’s young. Every human tribe has elders to guide the youth. Leaving the tribe is just as damaging as the other tendency Boomers have – consuming their young.

      • OK… then vote.

        I’m the worst person to ask about what I think should happen for the future. The future needs to collapse on all fronts, environmental, population, and financially – and its inevitable. We all on a train with no brakes I’m afraid. The earth needs to heal and we need to fuck off.

      • I don’t think total collapse is necessary at all and I sure hope it never happens. Should things persist, especially with more and more living off the productive efforts of others, such collapse is inevitable.

        There is nothing about the “system” to fix. The only thing to fix is people themselves. They simply have to stop looking to this fantasy called government, as though it was God on Earth, to guarantee and assure their life, make it safe, take all the risk out.

        People talk about the “free rider” problem but it usually pertains to markets or sacred services. The government and the state itself is the hugest “free rider” problem ever.

      • Jeremy Voluntaryist says:

        “How can you say the system is inherently flawed without taking the time and effort to try to make a change.”

        That doesn’t even make sense. Why would you have to get involved in something to know that it doesn’t work?

  43. Richard: Post idea for you, and it’s very Primal. “Healthy Stool”

    I’ve always been able to know that my bullmastiff is healthy just by looking at her poop… Now I’m checking mine out LOL

    These folks seem knowledgable on the subject:
    http://coolinginflammation.blogspot.ca/
    http://www.gutsense.org/gutsense/about_gs.html

    • Probably true. My older rat terrier, now 13, developed a digestion problem while we were away in Italy in 2010. Drinking tons of water until he threw up (no diabetes), wouldn’t eat, etc. that was diagnosed as pancreatitis. It took putting him on a saline drip for a day (Peter Hyperlipid’s suggestion) to get that better, but then he began to eat like crazy, lose weight, and poop like a horse (more volume than he ate). He was becoming emaciated no matter how much he ate. Diagnosed as pancreatic insufficiency. So for the last year and a half, he gets a rounded 1/2 tsp of desiccated pig pancrease mixed in his food. And about a half gram of CLO every day. He gained weight, has reasonable but not perfect poop, and does quite well for his age.

  44. sonny says:

    hey richard, if Obama ate dog, then is that good.. from a paleo perspective I mean?

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Posts RSS ← Why Do Human Animals Behave Like That? [...]

  2. [...] wish I had a nickel for every admonishment to not go there. But, there are minds out there. Notice, nearly 500 comments on my post about failed government, failed institutional religion, and how people get chewed [...]

  3. [...] Why Do Human Animals Behave Like That? [...]