Congratulations to him on such incredible progress. All I can really say beyond that is... keep going. Much of what he's showing is actually stubborn subcutaneous fat reserves, not excess skin.

"This isn’t really bad news, believe it or not. It actually means that you’re almost there. It means that your “loose skin” isn’t necessarily out of your control. If indeed it is simply stubborn subcutaneous fat, once you manage to lose the excess fat, the “loose skin” might just disappear along with it. In fact, I’d imagine that most such cases of “loose skin” can and will be remedied in this manner. Men, get down to around 10-12% body fat before you start considering surgery or anything drastic. Women, get down to 15-17% body fat before taking any surgical steps." Read more: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-to-get-rid-of-excess-skin-after-major-weight-loss/#ixzz3UtOlXdsV

Yep, I understand and agree with your comment.

I think part of the problem is that people aren't going to the source for their information regarding the outcomes of studies, etc. I think many people see click-bait and end up getting linked to sites that seem legit but almost invariably tout homeopathic remedies, have a "flu beating" supplement or book to sell you or harbour some other ulterior agenda. These sites often quote studies but fail to provide citations.

I'd further argue that since many people have a distrust of corporations/government and most have an instinct to protect themselves and their children, there is a tendency towards confirmation bias when they are doing their research.

With that said, we still need to be aware that new information from studies is surfacing all the time and questions about safety or efficacy should not be ignored.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Was I not clear?

My kids just used normal old-fashioned baby bottles, but we filled them with weed and beer instead of milk. It kept them so docile and quiet.

Homeopathic remedies FTW.

Hi Engels,

I just wanted to address what is a common misconception about the teachings of Jesus Christ, which is that He taught the oneness of mankind, or that we could all achieve some kind of evolutionary process of consciousness expansion. This is simply false; Jesus Christ taught that He is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that there is no other way to reach God except through Him. He taught that we are all sinners, alienated from God, and that His suffering and death on the cross and resurrection from death was the universal atonement for our sins and the hope of all mankind, which we receive by putting our faith and trust in Him.

The popular culture has distorted our understanding of Jesus, but this distortion is easily remedied by studying the scriptures. A reading of the gospel of John, for instance, will show you that the Jesus you have heard about and the Jesus of the bible couldn't be more different. I would challenge you to do so and learn more about Jesus Christ of Nazareth, who He truly was and was not, and what He taught about Himself. It is a question He posed to His disciples:

Matthew 16:13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
Matthew 16:14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
Matthew 16:15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"

Greed is the hole you dig in your own heart, a hole that grows ever deeper the more you try to fill it. It's an attempt to fulfill your life by filling it with 'things', which in turn only makes your life more empty.
The remedy to greed is simple. Pay attention to the difference between 'need' and 'want', and when you can see that you have far more than you 'need', be grateful and happy in your good fortune rather than bitter in the knowledge that you can't have everything you 'want'. If you follow that simple rule, your life will automatically be more fulfilled and feel less empty.

...aaaaand if wasn't for programmed, systemic societal dysfunction your attitudes towards a tool in a toolbox wouldn't be as remedial and absurd at face-value.

If you eat too much dirt you'll die, therefore, to keep crazies from eating dirt, we'll keep 'em away from dirt....Brilliant, son-You yourself ever been evaluated by a mental health professional??

You know why he got flagged as an enemy of the State, right? The reason being is that the 'state' in the United States of Unconsciousness has effectively cornered the market on cradle-to-grave programming of yet another generation's children.

Obedience
Conformity
Control
Marketing
Career Assignment
Instruction (how to be a dutiful wage-slave)

Check a local public school library and required textbooks in the U.S. for the latest version of history re-written, remedial English, science, maths texts-The majority of texts in school libraries???.....Fucking picture-books. Pathetic, and glaringly obvious the agenda and purpose.

The police state wants children as smart/ignorant as the cunts running the show need them to be....to be conveniently mind-fucked on-demand.

Is it working?? One has but to check the world-view of the 'millennials' to gauge the effectiveness of the mindfuck.

Innocent people being convicted has nothing to do with prisons. That's a problem with our legal system (and one that would be need to be remedied before enacting any major changes to the punishments for conviction).

As for the other things, I've already covered them pretty extensively in my previous posts. The punishment for illegal breeding would either be execution or forced sterilization. Sounds harsh but the ends justify the means in this particular case. We already do it to animals and animals breeding is a lot less dangerous than people breeding.

Umm, I'm not sure how your response is relevant to my comment...

Thalidomide was a drug given to pregnant women for nausea iirc which caused horrible defects in children. It was a classic case of a drug that was not regulated properly and should never been allowed on the market.

The reason why drugs undergo testing is because sometimes the side effects are far worse than any benefit they might provide. ShakaUVM was going on about deregulation, but if he'd watched the vid he would have seen the segment on a homeopathic remedy (ie. unregulated) which caused deaths and severe reactions. Perhaps if there was regulation, those people wouldn't be dead...

@RedSky

Crossing your fingers and waiting for the tooth fairy to fix everything is not a valid response to global crises. That is what passivity amounts to whether your eventual, hoped for remedy is shiny's simple-minded faith or failed economic models that got us into this mess in the first place, or unforeseeable scientific advances that may never come.

You've been using the most preposterously optimistic projections available, okay, let's assume they're correct and we level off at somewhere around nine to eleven billion. You want all of these people to live worthwhile, prosperous lives; well that's at least five times as many high energy consuming, 21st century humans as we've ever actually been able to support.

This coming at the end of an economic and technological bubble of readily available, dense energy supply for which we have no replacement; relative efficiency gains in spending that energy that can never be replicated (because efficiency doesn't go above 100%); casual environmental damage that cannot continue; and diminishing returns in every scientific field, where advancement is always becoming more difficult and more expensive.

This isn't a pessimistic view. Humanity has a bright future, all we have to do to secure it is stop creating more and more people out of nothing for no reason. Barring extra-terrestrial threats like meteorites, solar flares and relativistic missiles launched by hostile alien species; we have the knowledge we need to build a civilisation capable of enduring for millions of years, or burn out in a couple of hundred.

I'm only upvoting this because of a strong belief against circumcision.

Otherwise, a lot of her arguments are poorly presented, and I have a personal gripe against this trend of internet videos where jump-cutting and over-editing is accepted as a remedy for the inability to communicate ones thoughts.

Wow. Interesting discussion going on here, and I say "interesting" because there's a lot of conflict between people who share the same vision of what society should be, but place blame for the reasons why it's not (in the context of this video) in completely different pieces from one another.
I've never posted to a thread this long before because I assume that it will get lost in the shuffle/argument/whatever, but I wanted to share how I broke the scene down and what I gathered from the video.
The fundamental problem here, which is subjective so I understand if someone doesn't agree, is that:
"most people" would not be comfortable walking down the street in this neighborhood.
"Most people" want safety, or more specifically; as much of a chance to not fear for their lives while existing.
What would remedy this? The hard rule of law? Or let it pan out as-is. The former has never stopped me from an action that society might not agree with. I don't run people over or shoot guns into the air because I believe in not hurting others, and both those actions either do, or have a decent chance to.
On the other hand, I really believe this is one step removed from a war-zone. Not to mistakenly define this scenario as a binary gradient between order or chaos, but if one group of friends became violently entangled with another group of friends, that's exactly what would result: armed, faction opposition.
Most people seem to argue over the solutions we know of, rather than the problems that exist, but it seems to me that none of those are working.
So I guess my question is: how would you make these neighborhoods "safe" for non-violent people to live in that isn't attributed to some form of government?

My fix if I were an adult on the school system would be to perhaps sponsor a support group-type action-awareness campaign to empower the bullied kids through a kind of humiliation campaign against the most egregious of offenders and perpetrators.

Kung Fu instruction from a 'real' kung fu master for a solid year to lay down the foundation for defense as well...Maybe some Krav Maga?? Teach em the cockpuncher defense and have a team of girls protect the smaller, less-confident boys??
I'd get real creative..

Humiliate the alpha in the herd and they tend to slink the fuck off and take their friends with em...

I dealt with douchebags by confusing the shit out of them-In the 10th grade I made great friends with the junior-varsity cheerleaders in my remedial math class, and sat at the cheerleader table at lunch, pissed some jocks off for a while until I started telling them what their GF's were talking about them....then the started coming to me for advice...Helps when you can get them weed as well

Do you think The Wire paid for their production assistants' healthcare? Did they make more than the $50/day for their 12 hour days (if they weren't working for free as "interns" for the 'privilege' of 'paying their dues' in 'the industry')?

Haha, of course, "liberals" get a pass from other "liberals", but no pass for the Kochtopus (even though the Kochs give way more money to charities than The Wire would even be able to). Plus, The Wire gets a PR benefit that they need in order to film in Baltimore in the first place so I assure you that their reasons aren't purely altruistic.

"but they continuously ran charity after charity, on top of the money the production poured into the local economy."

How does this top Koch? Or the Waltons? Or, the other David Simon? Or Perkins. Are you keeping track of who contributes to what or not and how much?

How is one David Simon "contributing" more than the other one?
And why should he get a hypocrisy "free pass?" (Especially when this hypocrisy amounts to just another PR stunt.)

"His point about a lack of guilt, the shamelessness on part of two mentioned individuals, still stands though."

Yeah? Like you know (the other) David Simon and can vouch for his "lack of guilt?" And "guilt" about what? Having money? Being successful?

"So if a privileged individual actively weakens society to further increase his own wealth"

Does he? Really? How? And how are you doing more for "society" than that? Who are you and what exactly is your great "contribution" to society?

Since the 'inequality' hobgoblin keeps making appearances, this article may help put that to rest.

Two main causes of inequality: profit (good) and central bank currency inflation (bad). When you (or anyone else) profit, you increase income 'inequality', in a good way. When central banks inflate currency, they create income 'inequality,' in a bad way. Let's not conflate one with the other. And anyone so misinformed as to ignore central banks as the overwhelming source of undesirable income inequality cannot really contribute much to the debate or to providing solutions. All other remedial measures that ignore the main cause will not only fail but create countless new problems.

"i admit my utter failure in expressing my position and decide to use someone i highly admire who could explain it better."

If your position is the same as Chomsky's, I understand that position. I have heard Chomsky talk about it repeatedly. (Here's a take on Chomsky by David Gordon with which I tend to agree).

"i want to understand why you choose your flavor of libertarianism."

If you want to understand my position, why send me Chomsky to explain YOUR position? Why not read what I sent you? Or what I've recommended that you read? Or simply respond to my comments?? This is NOT how you "understand" another position: by stating your own (or, someone else's, in this case, Chomsky's).

"which i dont because you never address the elephant in the room."

If the 'elephant' is all the conjectures you've seen about corporations/business taking over in evil ways, then I've already explained that those scenarios cannot happen under anarchy. That's not how business works in a government-free market.

"it appears to me your style of libertarianism is circa 1790."

I don't even know what this means...

"even Blankfist agreed that corporate power and influence MUST be restructured and possibly returned to temporary partnerships"

Let me restate it again then for you, since you seemed to have missed my position the first few times I've said it. Maybe I didn't say it enough times:

If you can do any of this, with no initiation of violence, zero, never initiating any physical violence against anyone's person or property, then I'm for it, whether you want to call it socialism, communism, anarchism, capitalism, whatever. But the requirement is zero initiation of violence. None. I don't know how you can have that with any form of syndicalism or socialism, unless everyone unanimously agrees on everything and that is quite rare. I doubt that it can happen except in the smallest groups, and even then, it's in specific and circumscribed ways. That is why a private property system is the only system that can ensure zero legal physical coercion/aggression against anyone's person and/or property. (Here's Rothbard's take on syndicalism. Worth reading.)

"like that the system will ultimately begin to cannibalize itself when growth becomes stagnant?"

This cannot/will not happen in a free market. Only when aggression is introduced could this happen.

"that unfettered capitalism will lay waste to everything"

Unfettered voluntary exchanges will never lay waste to anything. Do you understand how absurd this sounds to me? You are proposing the replacement of voluntary exchanges with coercion. Yes, you are -- because I have been clear that capitalism, as I am defining it, means free, voluntary exchanges. I don't care what corporations do as long as they engage in voluntary transactions providing goods and services that consumers want. Only through government-granted privileges -- enforced through violence -- can corporations do otherwise. There are no "natural monopolies." There have never been. Ever.

Even after watching the video, there is nothing there which "proves" that there is such a thing a "natural monopoly" or that "proves" that aggression is better than non-aggression. Is there?
But like I said, if you can show how to do any of what you'd propose with zero aggression, then I'm for it.

"you are not the person i gave you credit for."

Bad thymology, then, apparently.

"i made certain assumptions about you based an very little."

Similar to making all sorts of assumptions about corporations and the free market based on very little evidence.

"i was never trying to say you were wrong"

Really? What were you saying then??

"i just wanted to understand why you believe the things you believe."

Then, instead of insulting me or trying to shame or coerce me (what's with this posting "for Trancey"?! What?!), you could simply ask me polite questions, instead of ones like, "do you even know this or that"? No dice.

And instead of just telling me what "thou believe" or not. Is this about understanding my view or about you telling me what you believe or dictating what I ought to believe?

"is the corporate tyranny not as evident to you"

No. How is Apple tyrannizing you?
They haven't tyrannized me. Not one iota. In fact, they have provided my friends with some useful goods, for which they have gladly given them several thousands of dollars.

If you have a specific grievance against a specific company, let me know, and I can point out to you what your remedy could be. Any grievance that does not involve a government.

I wouldn't particularly appreciate you (or anyone) trying to interfere, through violence or the threat thereof, in any voluntary non-aggressive exchanges I choose to engage in, whether I do so as an individual or as a group, even as a group where we choose to call ourselves a corporation. And if our group does or does not want to structure itself as a syndicate, what business is it of yours?

Call me 1790 or whatever, but I don't really consider someone who'd want to impose their will on me like that a bonafide 'anarchist' despite what they choose to call themselves. I know, that's just my choice. I am not preventing you from calling yourself whatever you want. Just don't expect me to agree.