Record High Number Of People Are Not Having Sex, The Young Lead The Pack

[LeeRoyJenkins]

Ray predicted Biden would win, or he was saying he wanted him to win? How do you know trump won? i mean we don't really know these things, people are debating whether bidens actually even in the white house. all we can do is watch the media sources which are unreliable and fake.

i agree as far as weinstein. if you are an owner of a company you have the right to ask people for any kinds of favors and they have the right to refuse/accept. this includes blood donations, sexual favors, or whatever else. the problem really only is when youre say a hiring manager or lower level person abusing that position. for instance, its against mcdonalds company policy for managers to be asking favors for people they hire. they dont want the publicity with it and want a fair hiring process. so a manager doing it is an issue. now if the owner of mcdonalds decides he wants to ask for favors from people he hires, he has that right. now this is obviously not really doable with mcdonalds anymore since its publicly owned, doesnt have a singular owner who sets policies etc. i havent looked into cosbys case but it seems like most of weinsteins incidents were cases where he asked women for favors and in return helped them get ahead in their careers?

true but i think sugar daddies may have to invest more. perhaps they can dangle the idea of a relationship while not wanting one, and abuse that potential.

the pair bonding concept may be something modern, in past times especially before religions or without religions there were many cases where men had multiple women and vice versa.

for this "Anyway, I'm not sure on this theory completely but - Anything that provides cheap access to sex will increase the negative consequences of hypergamy and female nature and decrease positive aspects of males. Because it removes the incentives for males to get better in order to attract the attention of women and get sex - so the many women left with shitty male options - will flock to the few at the top - leading to polygamy."

isnt this what many people had issue with and claimed is already occurring? i think it goes both ways, in the modern society, you have porn, only fans, escorts etc providing the demotivating factors, but the thing is due to the internet, even without these incentives available, women would still be going for the best. actually some men also only go for the best as well. even in modern times with the easy access, if you're looking for a relationship based on attraction you still have to do better. it seems its in the past, before porn and modern things that men actually could just get into an arranged marriage and not put as much effort into a relationship since societies were much smaller, and women were more dependent on men. even according to TRP, it's the modern day society that leads to the top tier men getting most of the women, whereas in the past you could be a subpar man and still have a stable relationship.

i dont think its a good mindset to have to be pursuing money or power or anything in order to "get" or buy women or seek approval from anyone else. those things have value in their own right, whether you have women or not.
porn should be free, for the same reasons youtube and many other things are free. they're actually not totally free it's just the advertisers are paying for the consumers. video games, movies, music tracks can be easily saved, recorded, transferred, uploaded as we have the technology to do so. Perhaps in the future we would also be able to create cars and clone them as easily as we can with videos today. porn etc is free because we have the technology to make it free.

nukes, weapons etc should only be available to people who can actually afford them. i don't think any random person off the street could afford them, youd probably need to be a billionaire and at that level you may simply be rich enough to where even if you cant directly buy it, you can just influence people who do have the power to use them/have access to them.
yup, we have the freedom to turn ourselves into chimeras if you want. with regards to animals, that varies. animals could be given rights similar to humans but on a case by case basis. if it's an animal you can legally kill, consume, and eat then its hard to justify and legally restrict what people can do with that animal. i personally like some animals and think they should be given rights, but this may be complex to implement. generally private property is protected much better than public property. the issues with animals etc are due to their presence on public property.

yup, regarding the masks stuff im not sure what the policy should be as far as dress code. should the government be able to restrict what you can and can't wear? probably not. that's something businesses should be able to dictate, but not governments. you can't touch people if they don't want to, but i'm not sure there should be any sort of minimal or maximal dress codes. the mask stuff is kind of an extension of the businesses or establishments saying things like "no shoes, no shirt, no service". a private business should definitely have the right, a public business, im not sure how that would work.

I think overall we come from such different moral ethical perspectives currently that continuing to chat is not going to be very fruitful. There are a lot of things that the controllers have in store that you seem completely ok with in the name of freedom. And that gets to the core of things - you know most of these "freedoms" have been engineered in a particular direction for a particular purpose right?

Question - you do realize we had the freedom to just go to the airport and buy a ticket and fly anywhere previously right (no TSA, no searches, no metal detectors, no ID)? This was in my lifetime. How do you square that current state with your acceptance that turning oneself into a chimera (or future offspring) is a freedom? Why is one okay, but not the other?

Finally, I have to call out the mask stuff. Your individual liberties, rights, and sovereignty DO NOT just disappear because you enter a business. A business is not allowed to mandate a mask. Now, they can play legal games and ask you to leave - and if you don't you are violating the law (trespassing). This is the reason masks were NOT mandated at any public institutions in the US... it was a weird little smoke and mirrors thing that got played on the populace.

If you went to a post office or court house, they had special signs that "we ask that guests masks" - but a law can only be passed by the legislative branch (assuming we're both in the U.S. for this). Every single mayoral/gubernatorial mask mandate (executive order/"mandate" - IE THEY JUST DECREE) - when prosecuted - has been thrown out... we live in a land of laws, not decree. There are no more kings.

The supreme court also ruled that temperature checks are unconstitutional (it was not in relation to covid, but previous case law that established temp checks are against the 4th amendment - when cops tried to use it to incriminate random people - probable cause was still necessary, and a warrant would be required to utilize this as a measure).

A business can't just mandate bio surveillance information (your temperature) - they can ASK for it.... but the idea it's required is ridiculous and violates a number of laws (State & Federal). The problem is this is all new, nuanced, people don't realize that to keep and assert ones rights you have to literally FIGHT BACK - you have to go to court and argue with a lawyer (the system doesn't just back off by itself) and to some extent is based on intent. Did you ask that person to leave your business because they wouldn't comply? Yes - clear violation of their rights. Did you ask because they were disturbing other customers? That's a different story. The no shirt/shoes thing is ridiculous and I see people in gas stations all the time disobeying this - this is a meme argument that is put forth by people wanting you to not fully think about what's going on and the huge steeling of rights that's going on right now.

You do realize 100% of communication is privatized worldwide right now? Take phones - 100% of devices, software, physical communication lines (towers), ISPs, etc. are private. Are you saying you're okay with censorship because of this fact? You've mentioned some things in this very back/forth that would make around 80% of the population very uncomfortable. Should you be censored due to that? The external (non-peat world) KNOWS sugar is the problem when it comes to disease and diabetes. We know it's far more nuanced than that.... but... should it (sugar) be banned? Should those advocating for it's use or being "pro-sugar" be censored? There's a lot of "sugar-misinformation" out there, and we need to make sure that people are clear on what's right and real and that's why we've created a list of pro-sugar activitists and are censoring them from social media, and text messages, etc. In time we will win this war on sugar.

 

[Sam321]

It's trauma, meaninglessness, and smart devices.

 

[Broken man]

I think everything is intertwined with the metabolic function.

Ye

 

[Regina]

I think overall we come from such different moral ethical perspectives currently that continuing to chat is not going to be very fruitful. There are a lot of things that the controllers have in store that you seem completely ok with in the name of freedom. And that gets to the core of things - you know most of these "freedoms" have been engineered in a particular direction for a particular purpose right?

Question - you do realize we had the freedom to just go to the airport and buy a ticket and fly anywhere previously right (no TSA, no searches, no metal detectors, no ID)? This was in my lifetime. How do you square that current state with your acceptance that turning oneself into a chimera (or future offspring) is a freedom? Why is one okay, but not the other?

Finally, I have to call out the mask stuff. Your individual liberties, rights, and sovereignty DO NOT just disappear because you enter a business. A business is not allowed to mandate a mask. Now, they can play legal games and ask you to leave - and if you don't you are violating the law (trespassing). This is the reason masks were NOT mandated at any public institutions in the US... it was a weird little smoke and mirrors thing that got played on the populace.

If you went to a post office or court house, they had special signs that "we ask that guests masks" - but a law can only be passed by the legislative branch (assuming we're both in the U.S. for this). Every single mayoral/gubernatorial mask mandate (executive order/"mandate" - IE THEY JUST DECREE) - when prosecuted - has been thrown out... we live in a land of laws, not decree. There are no more kings.

The supreme court also ruled that temperature checks are unconstitutional (it was not in relation to covid, but previous case law that established temp checks are against the 4th amendment - when cops tried to use it to incriminate random people - probable cause was still necessary, and a warrant would be required to utilize this as a measure).

A business can't just mandate bio surveillance information (your temperature) - they can ASK for it.... but the idea it's required is ridiculous and violates a number of laws (State & Federal). The problem is this is all new, nuanced, people don't realize that to keep and assert ones rights you have to literally FIGHT BACK - you have to go to court and argue with a lawyer (the system doesn't just back off by itself) and to some extent is based on intent. Did you ask that person to leave your business because they wouldn't comply? Yes - clear violation of their rights. Did you ask because they were disturbing other customers? That's a different story. The no shirt/shoes thing is ridiculous and I see people in gas stations all the time disobeying this - this is a meme argument that is put forth by people wanting you to not fully think about what's going on and the huge steeling of rights that's going on right now.

You do realize 100% of communication is privatized worldwide right now? Take phones - 100% of devices, software, physical communication lines (towers), ISPs, etc. are private. Are you saying you're okay with censorship because of this fact? You've mentioned some things in this very back/forth that would make around 80% of the population very uncomfortable. Should you be censored due to that? The external (non-peat world) KNOWS sugar is the problem when it comes to disease and diabetes. We know it's far more nuanced than that.... but... should it (sugar) be banned? Should those advocating for it's use or being "pro-sugar" be censored? There's a lot of "sugar-misinformation" out there, and we need to make sure that people are clear on what's right and real and that's why we've created a list of pro-sugar activitists and are censoring them from social media, and text messages, etc. In time we will win this war on sugar.

 

[LeeRoyJenkins]

Here is a psychology and economics professor (one of the few ones that really understands psychology instead of only regurgitate what is written in the textbooks they happen to read during school) who describes himself as "shaken to the core" after he recently did a literature review of psychology studies on young people. He says "either everything we have known about psychology is wrong, or we have a new subspecies of humans". He references studies that show that anxiety and depression among young women have increased 5x in a decade (and mentions studies finding the pandemic increased it 3 times from that, so in 12-13 years it would mean 15x increase). He talks about how women have become masculine, narcissistic. While men have become feminine, and both sexes psychopathic, lacking a true self. He links women's astronomical increase in anxiety to narcissism, arguing the traits go hand in hand. He says young people don't have real emotions, even if many of them think they do, but they instead simulate emotions (psychopathic trait). Hookup culture and casual sex is a direct result of this shift. They use other people as dildos, they don't make love and are incompatible with longterm relationship. He analyzed a database of anonymized chat logs from dating sites, and concluded that the ability to communicate has vanished, there is nothing of substance exchanged in the discussions. "dystopia is here, it is not science fiction any more"

I picked out the most relevant points considering the topic at hand, but the whole video is certainly recommended.

So pretty much in line with some of the more realistic posters in this thread, and not surprisingly those receive the most pushback from people that are in denial, or ignorant of the significant change in society over past 10-15 years.

One of the more interesting speculations he has made is that this is partially a result of the loss of privacy. Without privacy you cannot have intimacy. Without privacy you cannot have real emotions, as you spend your formative years behind a mask, making you emotionally scarred for life, psychopathic.

This video was insane, thank you for sharing. This matches my experience COMPLETELY, along with the timeline...

 

[Dr. B]

I think overall we come from such different moral ethical perspectives currently that continuing to chat is not going to be very fruitful. There are a lot of things that the controllers have in store that you seem completely ok with in the name of freedom. And that gets to the core of things - you know most of these "freedoms" have been engineered in a particular direction for a particular purpose right?

Question - you do realize we had the freedom to just go to the airport and buy a ticket and fly anywhere previously right (no TSA, no searches, no metal detectors, no ID)? This was in my lifetime. How do you square that current state with your acceptance that turning oneself into a chimera (or future offspring) is a freedom? Why is one okay, but not the other?

Finally, I have to call out the mask stuff. Your individual liberties, rights, and sovereignty DO NOT just disappear because you enter a business. A business is not allowed to mandate a mask. Now, they can play legal games and ask you to leave - and if you don't you are violating the law (trespassing). This is the reason masks were NOT mandated at any public institutions in the US... it was a weird little smoke and mirrors thing that got played on the populace.

If you went to a post office or court house, they had special signs that "we ask that guests masks" - but a law can only be passed by the legislative branch (assuming we're both in the U.S. for this). Every single mayoral/gubernatorial mask mandate (executive order/"mandate" - IE THEY JUST DECREE) - when prosecuted - has been thrown out... we live in a land of laws, not decree. There are no more kings.

The supreme court also ruled that temperature checks are unconstitutional (it was not in relation to covid, but previous case law that established temp checks are against the 4th amendment - when cops tried to use it to incriminate random people - probable cause was still necessary, and a warrant would be required to utilize this as a measure).

A business can't just mandate bio surveillance information (your temperature) - they can ASK for it.... but the idea it's required is ridiculous and violates a number of laws (State & Federal). The problem is this is all new, nuanced, people don't realize that to keep and assert ones rights you have to literally FIGHT BACK - you have to go to court and argue with a lawyer (the system doesn't just back off by itself) and to some extent is based on intent. Did you ask that person to leave your business because they wouldn't comply? Yes - clear violation of their rights. Did you ask because they were disturbing other customers? That's a different story. The no shirt/shoes thing is ridiculous and I see people in gas stations all the time disobeying this - this is a meme argument that is put forth by people wanting you to not fully think about what's going on and the huge steeling of rights that's going on right now.

You do realize 100% of communication is privatized worldwide right now? Take phones - 100% of devices, software, physical communication lines (towers), ISPs, etc. are private. Are you saying you're okay with censorship because of this fact? You've mentioned some things in this very back/forth that would make around 80% of the population very uncomfortable. Should you be censored due to that? The external (non-peat world) KNOWS sugar is the problem when it comes to disease and diabetes. We know it's far more nuanced than that.... but... should it (sugar) be banned? Should those advocating for it's use or being "pro-sugar" be censored? There's a lot of "sugar-misinformation" out there, and we need to make sure that people are clear on what's right and real and that's why we've created a list of pro-sugar activitists and are censoring them from social media, and text messages, etc. In time we will win this war on sugar.

our freedoms are in some ways, very open. but in other ways, very restricted. we are not currently in a totally free society that libertarians talk about. the libertarian thought from my understanding is you basically get as close to anarchy as you possibly can, while still having a few basic functions of government. things like the military, court system and police system. as far as the police, they are only meant to be there when someone violates the right to life, liberty, property. so no anti prostitution, anti drug laws, no public nudity laws, etc. the view on roads and speed limits varies, some thinks the government is responsible, whereas some think everything should be privatized.

"Question - you do realize we had the freedom to just go to the airport and buy a ticket and fly anywhere previously right (no TSA, no searches, no metal detectors, no ID)? This was in my lifetime. How do you square that current state with your acceptance that turning oneself into a chimera (or future offspring) is a freedom? Why is one okay, but not the other?"

these two things have absolutely no relation to each other. Going to an airport, buying a ticket etc depends on whether it's a private company or government entity. I don't see where I said one is okay but not the other, moreover, the two things have absolutely no relation to each other in any shape or form. Turning yourself into a chimera is a personal decision. Any harm done is to yourself, and to future offspring if you choose to have them. You have full control and rights to abuse your body. hence why you can also eat terribly, get xrays vaccines all the time and choose to have kids. so yeah, I mean if there's no companies willing to help you turn into a chimera, then there's not much you can do unless you figure it out on your own.

"Finally, I have to call out the mask stuff. Your individual liberties, rights, and sovereignty DO NOT just disappear because you enter a business. A business is not allowed to mandate a mask. Now, they can play legal games and ask you to leave - and if you don't you are violating the law (trespassing). This is the reason masks were NOT mandated at any public institutions in the US... it was a weird little smoke and mirrors thing that got played on the populace."

This is false. A business can do whatever they want, a business could even ask people to strip for them in order to shop with them. businesses have the right to discriminate for any reason. now obviously this is something most businesses dont engage in because its bad for publicity, bad for business income, and because in the modern world there probably are ways where people can sue a business for discrimination. even though, in an actual free society, businesses would be free to discriminate, to ask for favors for doing services, etc. your individual liberties, rights, etc, include the right to run a business which requires people to do favors for shopping there. contract law allows pretty much anything to occur as long as it's voluntary on both sides. businesses are not obligated to sell or do business with anyone who wants to do business with them.

"The supreme court also ruled that temperature checks are unconstitutional (it was not in relation to covid, but previous case law that established temp checks are against the 4th amendment - when cops tried to use it to incriminate random people - probable cause was still necessary, and a warrant would be required to utilize this as a measure)."

what does this mean, like what incrimination was being done by cops testing people's temperature? is this something related to covid laws where cops were arresting people that had temps indicating fever?

"A business can't just mandate bio surveillance information (your temperature) - they can ASK for it.... but the idea it's required is ridiculous and violates a number of laws (State & Federal). The problem is this is all new, nuanced, people don't realize that to keep and assert ones rights you have to literally FIGHT BACK - you have to go to court and argue with a lawyer (the system doesn't just back off by itself) and to some extent is based on intent. Did you ask that person to leave your business because they wouldn't comply? Yes - clear violation of their rights. Did you ask because they were disturbing other customers? That's a different story. The no shirt/shoes thing is ridiculous and I see people in gas stations all the time disobeying this - this is a meme argument that is put forth by people wanting you to not fully think about what's going on and the huge steeling of rights that's going on right now."

but you don't have a right to shop at, or enter the business in the first place. doing business with someone is a privilege, and a voluntary transaction. you have a right to life, liberty, property. that means your personal life, liberty, property. it does not include shopping anywhere. yes, I mean functionally, in most cases, you can shop basically anywhere you want to. but that's because most businesses will accept any customers they can, and like having customers. they are not, however, obligated to do so. just like if you owned a business or owned a house, you can pick and choose when it's open, who can enter, how they can enter, when they can and can't enter, etc. I don't know what the modern laws are but in a free society a business absolutely could say something like "we require you to allow us to check your temperature before entering" and then you have the choice to either agree and shop there, or find a different business. that freedom extends to both sides. so consumers can all demand we're not shopping until you give us some free items with each purchase. businesses can demand the same thing.
the no shoes/no shirt thing is a valid thing a business could require. it's probably not enforced much, especially not in a place like gas stations, because they probably want the business. there's different discussions going on here but the point is, individuals have rights, and those rights include opening up a business with any sorts of rules you want. i dont know what the current specifics are, but in a free society, you could in fact open up a grocery store, and have the requirement that everyone shopping there has to wear a mask, wear a full ninja outfit, or be fully nude. now, obviously, this would limit your customers, perhaps give negative publicity, and cause you to lose business. but you would still have the right to implement those rules, and it would be up to the consumers to either agree, or disagree and find a different place. whether this would fly in the modern world I have no idea, but we aren't in a 100% free society to begin with. we have a bunch of restrictive laws, rules, regulations that probably shouldn't be there. some laws are biased against businesses, some are biased against consumers, etc.

"You do realize 100% of communication is privatized worldwide right now? Take phones - 100% of devices, software, physical communication lines (towers), ISPs, etc. are private. Are you saying you're okay with censorship because of this fact? You've mentioned some things in this very back/forth that would make around 80% of the population very uncomfortable. Should you be censored due to that? The external (non-peat world) KNOWS sugar is the problem when it comes to disease and diabetes. We know it's far more nuanced than that.... but... should it (sugar) be banned? Should those advocating for it's use or being "pro-sugar" be censored? There's a lot of "sugar-misinformation" out there, and we need to make sure that people are clear on what's right and real and that's why we've created a list of pro-sugar activitists and are censoring them from social media, and text messages, etc. In time we will win this war on sugar."

It may be privatized, but there's many issues there. namely, there's a bunch of barriers to entry in pretty much any industry, and those shouldnt be there. government should not be giving any sort of favors to any companies, businesses, industries, etc. private companies can use and sell your data as long as it's included in the contract and you agree to it. they can censor as long as it's done by agreement. the problem isn't really the private companies in of themselves it's that government has been used or abused to restrict competition, create regulations that shouldn't be there, create other laws which restrict competition and provide advantages to certain industries or companies.
Should sugar be banned? No, absolutely not.
Should whole foods, walmart etc be allowed to stop selling any sugar or sugar products? yes.
should the government be able to ban or restrict sugar? No, and they shouldnt be banning or restricting any other plants, chemicals, drugs, foods either. people should have the freedom to use and consume anything, whether it's harmful or harmless.
as far as should people be censored, this depends on the nature of a multitude of things. no censorship should exist in a public setting, but censorship can exist in a private setting. I haven't looked deep enough into some aspects of this, but isn't the internet itself a public good the way the air you breathe is? or is it owned by private entities? if that's the case there shouldn't be censorship on the internet as a whole, but specific companies/websites can censor things that appear on their own website. now if you have something like twitter which is a public company, there has to be decisions made involving the actual shareholders. so the shareholders should have to have a majority vote to decide on rules, regulations of the company.

 

[LeeRoyJenkins]

our freedoms are in some ways, very open. but in other ways, very restricted. we are not currently in a totally free society that libertarians talk about. the libertarian thought from my understanding is you basically get as close to anarchy as you possibly can, while still having a few basic functions of government. things like the military, court system and police system. as far as the police, they are only meant to be there when someone violates the right to life, liberty, property. so no anti prostitution, anti drug laws, no public nudity laws, etc. the view on roads and speed limits varies, some thinks the government is responsible, whereas some think everything should be privatized.

"Question - you do realize we had the freedom to just go to the airport and buy a ticket and fly anywhere previously right (no TSA, no searches, no metal detectors, no ID)? This was in my lifetime. How do you square that current state with your acceptance that turning oneself into a chimera (or future offspring) is a freedom? Why is one okay, but not the other?"

these two things have absolutely no relation to each other. Going to an airport, buying a ticket etc depends on whether it's a private company or government entity. I don't see where I said one is okay but not the other, moreover, the two things have absolutely no relation to each other in any shape or form. Turning yourself into a chimera is a personal decision. Any harm done is to yourself, and to future offspring if you choose to have them. You have full control and rights to abuse your body. hence why you can also eat terribly, get xrays vaccines all the time and choose to have kids. so yeah, I mean if there's no companies willing to help you turn into a chimera, then there's not much you can do unless you figure it out on your own.

"Finally, I have to call out the mask stuff. Your individual liberties, rights, and sovereignty DO NOT just disappear because you enter a business. A business is not allowed to mandate a mask. Now, they can play legal games and ask you to leave - and if you don't you are violating the law (trespassing). This is the reason masks were NOT mandated at any public institutions in the US... it was a weird little smoke and mirrors thing that got played on the populace."

This is false. A business can do whatever they want, a business could even ask people to strip for them in order to shop with them. businesses have the right to discriminate for any reason. now obviously this is something most businesses dont engage in because its bad for publicity, bad for business income, and because in the modern world there probably are ways where people can sue a business for discrimination. even though, in an actual free society, businesses would be free to discriminate, to ask for favors for doing services, etc. your individual liberties, rights, etc, include the right to run a business which requires people to do favors for shopping there. contract law allows pretty much anything to occur as long as it's voluntary on both sides. businesses are not obligated to sell or do business with anyone who wants to do business with them.

"The supreme court also ruled that temperature checks are unconstitutional (it was not in relation to covid, but previous case law that established temp checks are against the 4th amendment - when cops tried to use it to incriminate random people - probable cause was still necessary, and a warrant would be required to utilize this as a measure)."

what does this mean, like what incrimination was being done by cops testing people's temperature? is this something related to covid laws where cops were arresting people that had temps indicating fever?

"A business can't just mandate bio surveillance information (your temperature) - they can ASK for it.... but the idea it's required is ridiculous and violates a number of laws (State & Federal). The problem is this is all new, nuanced, people don't realize that to keep and assert ones rights you have to literally FIGHT BACK - you have to go to court and argue with a lawyer (the system doesn't just back off by itself) and to some extent is based on intent. Did you ask that person to leave your business because they wouldn't comply? Yes - clear violation of their rights. Did you ask because they were disturbing other customers? That's a different story. The no shirt/shoes thing is ridiculous and I see people in gas stations all the time disobeying this - this is a meme argument that is put forth by people wanting you to not fully think about what's going on and the huge steeling of rights that's going on right now."

but you don't have a right to shop at, or enter the business in the first place. doing business with someone is a privilege, and a voluntary transaction. you have a right to life, liberty, property. that means your personal life, liberty, property. it does not include shopping anywhere. yes, I mean functionally, in most cases, you can shop basically anywhere you want to. but that's because most businesses will accept any customers they can, and like having customers. they are not, however, obligated to do so. just like if you owned a business or owned a house, you can pick and choose when it's open, who can enter, how they can enter, when they can and can't enter, etc. I don't know what the modern laws are but in a free society a business absolutely could say something like "we require you to allow us to check your temperature before entering" and then you have the choice to either agree and shop there, or find a different business. that freedom extends to both sides. so consumers can all demand we're not shopping until you give us some free items with each purchase. businesses can demand the same thing.
the no shoes/no shirt thing is a valid thing a business could require. it's probably not enforced much, especially not in a place like gas stations, because they probably want the business. there's different discussions going on here but the point is, individuals have rights, and those rights include opening up a business with any sorts of rules you want. i dont know what the current specifics are, but in a free society, you could in fact open up a grocery store, and have the requirement that everyone shopping there has to wear a mask, wear a full ninja outfit, or be fully nude. now, obviously, this would limit your customers, perhaps give negative publicity, and cause you to lose business. but you would still have the right to implement those rules, and it would be up to the consumers to either agree, or disagree and find a different place. whether this would fly in the modern world I have no idea, but we aren't in a 100% free society to begin with. we have a bunch of restrictive laws, rules, regulations that probably shouldn't be there. some laws are biased against businesses, some are biased against consumers, etc.

"You do realize 100% of communication is privatized worldwide right now? Take phones - 100% of devices, software, physical communication lines (towers), ISPs, etc. are private. Are you saying you're okay with censorship because of this fact? You've mentioned some things in this very back/forth that would make around 80% of the population very uncomfortable. Should you be censored due to that? The external (non-peat world) KNOWS sugar is the problem when it comes to disease and diabetes. We know it's far more nuanced than that.... but... should it (sugar) be banned? Should those advocating for it's use or being "pro-sugar" be censored? There's a lot of "sugar-misinformation" out there, and we need to make sure that people are clear on what's right and real and that's why we've created a list of pro-sugar activitists and are censoring them from social media, and text messages, etc. In time we will win this war on sugar."

It may be privatized, but there's many issues there. namely, there's a bunch of barriers to entry in pretty much any industry, and those shouldnt be there. government should not be giving any sort of favors to any companies, businesses, industries, etc. private companies can use and sell your data as long as it's included in the contract and you agree to it. they can censor as long as it's done by agreement. the problem isn't really the private companies in of themselves it's that government has been used or abused to restrict competition, create regulations that shouldn't be there, create other laws which restrict competition and provide advantages to certain industries or companies.
Should sugar be banned? No, absolutely not.
Should whole foods, walmart etc be allowed to stop selling any sugar or sugar products? yes.
should the government be able to ban or restrict sugar? No, and they shouldnt be banning or restricting any other plants, chemicals, drugs, foods either. people should have the freedom to use and consume anything, whether it's harmful or harmless.
as far as should people be censored, this depends on the nature of a multitude of things. no censorship should exist in a public setting, but censorship can exist in a private setting. I haven't looked deep enough into some aspects of this, but isn't the internet itself a public good the way the air you breathe is? or is it owned by private entities? if that's the case there shouldn't be censorship on the internet as a whole, but specific companies/websites can censor things that appear on their own website. now if you have something like twitter which is a public company, there has to be decisions made involving the actual shareholders. so the shareholders should have to have a majority vote to decide on rules, regulations of the company.

You are very disillusioned. The very businesses you cheer for from a rights perspective, were in many cases, directly created by, funded, or are controlled behind the scenes by government, the military, and intelligence apparatus (often with public dollars). Google was a darpa project and has integrated all kinds of milint entities including keyhole (cia/Google maps). Amazon has connections to darpa, the Cia, and pentagon.

Go check out the cia's VC (VENTURE CAPITAL) division. Fb was a pentagon program.. its rumored much of of boring companies new work are old gov. Tunnels, many created by nasa. Even on a local level this happens all the time with large corporations. (Gifts from local municipalities for land, tax incentives, cash, etc.)... it's one reason we know the huge riots in Minneapolis are faked/planned/coordinated (happy to elaborate).

I didn't even get into the implications of banking as well. Which is wholly privatized 99% of transactions on the major cc networks (notably visa). A business tried not to accept cash during the pandemic (for a health service) I informed them that was illegal and they accept it...

I started looking at this whole picture (money) more when PayPal and visa shut down Snowden and saw we were heading for (and had the tools in place for a long tkme) a black mirror-type credit system and easy blackout of dissidents.the only question would be.... how would the populace go along with it? And who would be the dissidents (at the time the worst thing anyone was, was against the u.s. wars in the middle east).

Businesses literally can not discriminate based on race, gender or disability status. There have been laws on the books for nearly 50 years and every single business in existence knows this (you have to have accommodation for wheel chairs for example). Or are you arguing for that as well? In my state there are now laws against use of temp checks. ALSO in my state, funny enough, we're laws specifically AGAINST mask use (because of precedents re the kkk, and robberies). Businesses and local gov still mandated them, people complied. But like I said, not a single dollar was collected, and cases were thrown out (costing a lot of money to the local tax payers btw).

Sounds like you're arguing for companies to have more rights than individuals and more power than government (although as I've explained many of the big guys are one and the same).

Can you give me a little bit of your background, age, general location, work experience?

 

[LeeRoyJenkins]

The internet, for all intents and purposes is private, even though technically as a whole it's not. Obviously big sites and systems are private (fb, twitter) backend (cdn aws) that runs most sites/infrastructure... private. All on ramps (isps) are NOT utilities, but private.

 

[Dr. B]

You are very disillusioned. The very businesses you cheer for from a rights perspective, were in many cases, directly created by, funded, or are controlled behind the scenes by government, the military, and intelligence apparatus (often with public dollars). Google was a darpa project and has integrated all kinds of milint entities including keyhole (cia/Google maps). Amazon has connections to darpa, the Cia, and pentagon.

Go check out the cia's VC (VENTURE CAPITAL) division. Fb was a pentagon program.. its rumored much of of boring companies new work are old gov. Tunnels, many created by nasa. Even on a local level this happens all the time with large corporations. (Gifts from local municipalities for land, tax incentives, cash, etc.)... it's one reason we know the huge riots in Minneapolis are faked/planned/coordinated (happy to elaborate).

I didn't even get into the implications of banking as well. Which is wholly privatized 99% of transactions on the major cc networks (notably visa). A business tried not to accept cash during the pandemic (for a health service) I informed them that was illegal and they accept it...

I started looking at this whole picture (money) more when PayPal and visa shut down Snowden and saw we were heading for (and had the tools in place for a long tkme) a black mirror-type credit system and easy blackout of dissidents.the only question would be.... how would the populace go along with it? And who would be the dissidents (at the time the worst thing anyone was, was against the u.s. wars in the middle east).

Businesses literally can not discriminate based on race, gender or disability status. There have been laws on the books for nearly 50 years and every single business in existence knows this (you have to have accommodation for wheel chairs for example). Or are you arguing for that as well? In my state there are now laws against use of temp checks. ALSO in my state, funny enough, we're laws specifically AGAINST mask use (because of precedents re the kkk, and robberies). Businesses and local gov still mandated them, people complied. But like I said, not a single dollar was collected, and cases were thrown out (costing a lot of money to the local tax payers btw).

Sounds like you're arguing for companies to have more rights than individuals and more power than government (although as I've explained many of the big guys are one and the same).

Can you give me a little bit of your background, age, general location, work experience?

You are very disillusioned. The very businesses you cheer for from a rights perspective, were in many cases, directly created by, funded, or are controlled behind the scenes by government, the military, and intelligence apparatus (often with public dollars). Google was a darpa project and has integrated all kinds of milint entities including keyhole (cia/Google maps). Amazon has connections to darpa, the Cia, and pentagon.

If that's the case then the problem is them being funded and controlled by the government or affiliated with the government. generally speaking, individuals should have equal rights and those rights extend to their businesses. you can choose each individual person you let into your house, sleep with, trade with, spend time with, correct? that includes who you choose to do business with.

Go check out the cia's VC (VENTURE CAPITAL) division. Fb was a pentagon program.. its rumored much of of boring companies new work are old gov. Tunnels, many created by nasa. Even on a local level this happens all the time with large corporations. (Gifts from local municipalities for land, tax incentives, cash, etc.)... it's one reason we know the huge riots in Minneapolis are faked/planned/coordinated (happy to elaborate).

this may or may not be true but it's besides the point. if you as an individual create the facebook website, you should have the right to ask for any favors from anyone in order for them to use your site. it's your site, under your ownership, means you get to set the rules and people have to agree or find their own site or make their own site. if youre talking about government corruption and other things, that's obviously wrong, but that has nothing to do with whether people should have rights. can you elaborate on the Minneapolis riots. there may be elements of them being faked, but at least on social media and even in real life there's plenty of people who supported the riots or believed they were justified etc.

I didn't even get into the implications of banking as well. Which is wholly privatized 99% of transactions on the major cc networks (notably visa). A business tried not to accept cash during the pandemic (for a health service) I informed them that was illegal and they accept it...

might have helped you then, but this is another example of modern corruption/unfairness. businesses and individuals have the freedom to accept or not accept any form of payment or currency. and currency in itself should not be under government control etc.

I started looking at this whole picture (money) more when PayPal and visa shut down Snowden and saw we were heading for (and had the tools in place for a long tkme) a black mirror-type credit system and easy blackout of dissidents.the only question would be.... how would the populace go along with it? And who would be the dissidents (at the time the worst thing anyone was, was against the u.s. wars in the middle east).

whyd they shut him down and whats that mean? were they forced to do it? did they do it willingly? did they steal property of his? a credit card maker is not obligated to do business with anyone.

Businesses literally can not discriminate based on race, gender or disability status. There have been laws on the books for nearly 50 years and every single business in existence knows this (you have to have accommodation for wheel chairs for example). Or are you arguing for that as well? In my state there are now laws against use of temp checks. ALSO in my state, funny enough, we're laws specifically AGAINST mask use (because of precedents re the kkk, and robberies). Businesses and local gov still mandated them, people complied. But like I said, not a single dollar was collected, and cases were thrown out (costing a lot of money to the local tax payers btw).

right, and if that's the case, it's wrong. in a free society, you get to choose who you do business with, trade with, sleep with, work with, spend time with, let into your house, business, etc. that includes discrimination in numerous forms. a business should have the right to discriminate, just like an individual should. only government should be prohibited from discriminating in themselves. they should not be in the business of deciding or controlling discrimination that citizens engage in. you don't have the right to steal, attack people, damage their property, etc. but should you have the right to refuse doing business with anyone, for any reason? in a free society you would have that right.

Can you give me a little bit of your background, age, general location, work experience?

im in the US, late 20s, ive worked a variety of jobs in retail and IT, college graduate. taken many economics courses in college, done a lot of reading on the subject.

 

[LeeRoyJenkins]

Have you studied the history of money, notably the federal reserve? I believe a nation's currency should definitely be in the hands of the government (at least not private banks as we have it today). We have executives from various large banking institutions, asset managers, etc. with vested interests in toppling the country, investments in China, as just a few examples. Fed policy affects every facet of everyone's lives globally (and particularly in the United states). Just reviewing Jerome Powells background he is a Carlyle group alum... as in one of the groups involved in 911 and the bin ladens.

 

[InChristAlone]

@LeeRoyJenkins I changed my mind on the porn thing. I was in a crap place in my life when I wrote that. Morals and values with an awe and reverence for sex for me and my family now. Will never masturbate to porn again. The desire is gone. I have control over my mind now. Helps when you have a partner who wants you as much as you want them. Porn is absolutely destroying society. Making both sexes weaker.

 

[Dr. B]

@LeeRoyJenkins I changed my mind on the porn thing. I was in a crap place in my life when I wrote that. Morals and values with an awe and reverence for sex for me and my family now. Will never masturbate to porn again. The desire is gone. I have control over my mind now. Helps when you have a partner who wants you as much as you want them. Porn is absolutely destroying society. Making both sexes weaker.

do you mean mentally/morally weaker? or physically.

Have you studied the history of money, notably the federal reserve? I believe a nation's currency should definitely be in the hands of the government (at least not private banks as we have it today). We have executives from various large banking institutions, asset managers, etc. with vested interests in toppling the country, investments in China, as just a few examples. Fed policy affects every facet of everyone's lives globally (and particularly in the United states). Just reviewing Jerome Powells background he is a Carlyle group alum... as in one of the groups involved in 911 and the bin ladens.

apparently in a free society there would be many competing currencies. i dont think the issue is the privatization, more so its that it's a singular bank given all the power (federal reserve) and the power to force other people to accept a specific currency, and restrict other forms of currency. technically the currency should just be a bill guaranteeing a specific amount of gold, so there shouldn't be anyone with specific control/power over that. the government's role should just be to prevent fraud, theft, scamming, not issuing currency itself or forcing people to accept specific currencies, restricting currencies etc.

there's also other issues like bank bailouts, airline bailouts etc which in addition to being favoritism are just morally wrong and theft since you're using taxpayer dollars and giving them to companies. if a company is failing you have to let it fail, or they have to find a way to bring their company back, without trying to use taxpayer funds for it.

 

[LeeRoyJenkins]

G

@LeeRoyJenkins I changed my mind on the porn thing. I was in a crap place in my life when I wrote that. Morals and values with an awe and reverence for sex for me and my family now. Will never masturbate to porn again. The desire is gone. I have control over my mind now. Helps when you have a partner who wants you as much as you want them. Porn is absolutely destroying society. Making both sexes weaker.

Awesome. What helped you control your mind?

 

[LeeRoyJenkins]

What if letting them fail caused systemic collapse that lead to the death of tens of millions or more?

do you mean mentally/morally weaker? or physically.


apparently in a free society there would be many competing currencies. i dont think the issue is the privatization, more so its that it's a singular bank given all the power (federal reserve) and the power to force other people to accept a specific currency, and restrict other forms of currency. technically the currency should just be a bill guaranteeing a specific amount of gold, so there shouldn't be anyone with specific control/power over that. the government's role should just be to prevent fraud, theft, scamming, not issuing currency itself or forcing people to accept specific currencies, restricting currencies etc.

there's also other issues like bank bailouts, airline bailouts etc which in addition to being favoritism are just morally wrong and theft since you're using taxpayer dollars and giving them to companies. if a company is failing you have to let it fail, or they have to find a way to bring their company back, without trying to use taxpayer funds for it.

 

[Dr. B]

What if letting them fail caused systemic collapse that lead to the death of tens of millions or more?

it's the way life works and the way government works. there's always excuses, there's always a way you can use your money to help. technically, there's probably millions around the world whom could be helped by using some of your money for food/water/medicine/etc. does that mean the government or another entity can take money from you by force to give it to someone because people will die? it's not justifiable imo. now as far as airline stocks or bank collapses, that is even less justifiable since those may indirectly affect some people but won't kill people directly to begin with.

 

[InChristAlone]

do you mean mentally/morally weaker? or physically.

Everything. Physically because the intensity of the high can cause big drops in performance. Mentally because it becomes addictive and one starts to become perverted and have intrusive thoughts about people they see. And biggest thing of all is that its a false reality when we fantasize about sex instead of using that power for either real intimacy or getting stuff done in our life.

G

Awesome. What helped you control your mind?

Actually it was more about having a healthy level of shame surrounding it. Shame is what stops us from going too far and keeps our reverence for life intact. Toxic shame creates a false self and addiction. Feeling our shame is the only way through.

 

[stoic]

Actually it was more about having a healthy level of shame surrounding it. Shame is what stops us from going too far and keeps our reverence for life intact. Toxic shame creates a false self and addiction. Feeling our shame is the only way through.

Shame raises serotonin, so it tends to be counterproductive.

I would focus more on the positive appeal of the alternatives.

 

[Jon2547]

The idea of family is no longer of any value to many, ergo, the lack of drive for procreation.

 

[Dr. B]

Everything. Physically because the intensity of the high can cause big drops in performance. Mentally because it becomes addictive and one starts to become perverted and have intrusive thoughts about people they see. And biggest thing of all is that its a false reality when we fantasize about sex instead of using that power for either real intimacy or getting stuff done in our life.



Actually it was more about having a healthy level of shame surrounding it. Shame is what stops us from going too far and keeps our reverence for life intact. Toxic shame creates a false self and addiction. Feeling our shame is the only way through.

i see. IMO and experience any performance drops/issues are much more related to metabolism, endocrine dysfunction, etc. At one point I was regularly using porn maybe every few days or weekly, then I got into nofap and it was much more limited, to maybe once every few months, every 6 months etc, which helped energy and overall performance. the only times I've had serious issues with any health issues has been due to poor metabolic function, usually from trying some new supplements or eating bad foods repeatedly!

The idea of family is no longer of any value to many, ergo, the lack of drive for procreation.

im not sure it has any value in itself, varies on personal preference. i dont think Peat has any kids or grandkids?

 

[Jon2547]

A society that does not value family will lose the drive to procreate.