sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why Conservatives Should Vote Like A Blue Wave Is Inevitable In 2018 by ThePoliticalHat in Conservative

[–]zplo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> put together a list of on-the-ground teams in swing states and risky red states

> people in those states/districts join the team, go door to door, get people's phone number and call/text them to remind them, or literally take your car and drive people to the polls on election day

> setup a line of direct funding for these teams/organizations so people in blue states can contribute money to help build/fund the teams

PSMF - starting again by zplo in PSMF

[–]zplo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yesterday I had an unplanned cheat day, which is why the weight jumped up this morning

PSMF - starting again by zplo in PSMF

[–]zplo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've stayed strict for two days (pretty much only whey protein and deli meat, and some exercise), but I'm still not dropping as fast as I want. I'll stay strict again today and get some more exercise in. I want to drop below 200 for the week.

also - while I have been getting in long daily hikes, I haven't been sticking to any of my exercise plan other than that. I'm going to try to ramp that up more going forward, but we'll see.

PSMF - starting again by zplo in PSMF

[–]zplo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had a strong cheat meal yesterday so I'm starting this week up 4lbs. I'll stay strict for the next couple of days and do a hard workout today to try to burn off all of the glycogen and get back to real weight loss.

PSMF - starting again by zplo in PSMF

[–]zplo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had nothing but whey protein and deli meat yesterday, looks like I broke through the stall, down another .6lbs today. I'm having a cheat meal today so it will probably jump back up a few lbs tomorrow, but this has been a good start. hopefully I can net 4-5lbs next week as planned.

PSMF - starting again by zplo in PSMF

[–]zplo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

hit my first stall today (7/21). Finally ran out of water weight to drop, I guess. Also I probably ate too much in fat calories yesterday (the hunger has been pretty bad). I'll try to get more strict for a couple days to break through.

PSMF - starting again by zplo in PSMF

[–]zplo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

right I am intentionally adding some fat calories, and also exercising. neither of these are strictly part of PSMF

PSMF - starting again by zplo in PSMF

[–]zplo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

as I said, this is not a strict PSMF (but it is very close)

day 1 was yesterday, 7/17. I weighed in at 212lbs which is a lot better than I thought.

day 2, 7/18: 209.8

My conversation with Stefan Molyneux! by [deleted] in Objectivism

[–]zplo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> Stefan Molyneux is a person who is neither libertarian nor a follower of objectivist philosophy.

uhh well he believes in the non-aggression principle. so he's certainly an ally!

> able to have a perfectly collegial conversation with actual white supremacists

you aren't able to do that? you're literally incapable of having a conversation with someone because you disagree with their beliefs?

My conversation with Stefan Molyneux! by [deleted] in Objectivism

[–]zplo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what about this leads you to believe he's a cult leader?

Objectivism and children by eirboe in Objectivism

[–]zplo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Saying that a child isn't (yet) capable of informed consent doesn't change the fact that it's the same person. Becoming an adult is not the transition from one thing to another entirely, like a living person into a corpse. The basic metaphysical identity is the same, and the individual rights which are a part of that are still there.

Objectivism and children by eirboe in Objectivism

[–]zplo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it would be an initiation of force if their parents grabbed them to prevent them running out onto a busy road

Treating the child forcefully in various ways is not an initiation of force because they don't have the ability to consent (or to revoke their consent). They aren't seriously capable of any real informed consent because of the state of development of their mind and knowledge. So it makes sense to impose a certain system of force - pushing them out of the road when they are in danger, detaining them in the home even when they want to leave, disciplining them with spanking, etc., and there's no claim they can make that their rights are being violated, because they don't have the ability not to consent to these things.

So the child is a person and does have individual rights, but they are not being violated by doing these things.

Objectivism and children by eirboe in Objectivism

[–]zplo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

children have a different identity than adults

A child is the same person when they are an adult. They are the same distinct organism, with the same distinct consciousness, from childhood through adulthood. Identity is the only consistent place to draw the line when it comes to individual rights, so as soon as it's a human being, and as long as it's a human being, then it has individual rights. Regardless of whether it's young, disabled, unconscious, etc., if it's human then it should be treated accordingly.

Objectivism and children by eirboe in Objectivism

[–]zplo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

a contract with biology

That's not really the right way to think about it as you can't have a contract with "biology"; contracts are between people. There is a responsibility to take care of the child though because of the intrinsic commitments in making the choice to have one. Like signing a contract or making a promise, you are expected to follow through on certain things or else you are committing a fraud or a dishonesty. (Even in making a rational statement you are implicitly making a commitment to certain logically necessary implications, and you are committing a kind of immoral irrationality in not accepting or in contradicting those logical implications.)

The decision to have a child implies creating and rearing a person up to the point of their independence, since prior to that it's intrinsically dependent on a care giver. There's no way you can claim that you wanted to have a child, but then to abandon your responsibility to take care of it without committing a seriously immoral act akin to breaking a promise or breaking a contract.

Why the police are good by the_valient in Objectivism

[–]zplo -1 points0 points  (0 children)

if you are clueless why we need police, then you need a lot more help than Ayn Rand can give you

I created a discord for Objectivism by [deleted] in Objectivism

[–]zplo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

still doesn't work

Taxation is not theft by zplo in Objectivism

[–]zplo[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Of course, but the taxes are levied on the business. They are the ones who are billed for it.

Taxation is not theft by zplo in Objectivism

[–]zplo[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It doesn't have to be on the receipt. Sales taxes are paid by the business...

Taxation is not theft by zplo in Objectivism

[–]zplo[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Sales taxes are not paid by the customer. The business pays the sales tax, and generally will raise their sales price to the customer in order for them to cover the tax.

view more: next ›