Profile

Cover photo
Zephyr López Cervilla
Attended University of Barcelona
Lives in Spain
5,441 followers|767,428 views
AboutPostsCollectionsPhotosVideos

Stream

Pinned

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
Debate with stubborn people on the origins and ancestry of modern humans

Michael Russo Apr 4, 2015 8:08 PM +3
For you who don't understand what Richard Dawkins is referring too.  He is saying that we all originated from Africa as a species.  He did not mean literally, he is from Africa.  The statement is taken out of context.     If you don't understand biology and human evolution (or Richard Dawkins for that matter) you would not catch on to this.
_________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Apr 4, 2015 9:37 PM +1
So long as you ignore the Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry.
_________ 

Michael Russo Apr 4, 2015 10:02 PM +1
+Zephyr López Cervilla Wrong.  They came out of Africa. https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/
_________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Apr 4, 2015 10:52 PM
+Michael Russo, if you read carefully the page of your link you'll notice that it says "According to one theory," a theory that is far from having been proved:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans 

Either way, Homo sapiens, H. neanderthalensis, and H. denisova are considered different species, therefore modern humans didn't originate from Africa as a species since at least most modern humans originated from the hybridisation between several species, an event or series of events that are thought to have occurred out of Africa, at least in the case of H. sapiens x H. denisova:

blogs.scientificamerican.com/expeditions/2013/06/14/homo-denisova-and-homo-floresiensis-in-asia-and-the-south-pacific 

genographic.nationalgeographic.com/denisovan 
_________ 

Michael Russo Apr 4, 2015 11:02 PM
+Zephyr López Cervilla Yes, I am familiar with multinational.  That theory is out of favor and has been for sometime.  All evidence points to out of Africa, including DNA evidence.  
Read the bottom of your first link
"The primary competing scientific hypothesis is currently recent African origin of modern humans, which proposes that modern humans arose as a new species in Africa around 100–200,000 years ago"
_________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Apr 4, 2015 11:30 PM
+Michael Russo: "All evidence points to out of Africa, including DNA evidence."

— What genetic evidence can you provide pointing at the African origin of Neanderthals and Denisovans?

+Michael Russo: "The primary competing scientific hypothesis"

— Do you realise that that same "primary" scientific hypothesis also sustained until a few years ago (until the Neanderthal genome was sequenced) that Neanderthals had gone completely extinct without leaving descent from interbreeding with H. sapiens ?

+Michael Russo: "modern humans arose as a new species in Africa around 100–200,000 years ago"

— This line is clearly inconsistent with the hybridisation between African H. sapiens, Neanderthals and Denisovans, events that nowadays nobody questions.
Modern humans are a hybrid species, and such hybridisations didn't occur at least until some of those "African" H. sapiens were already out of Africa (much later than 100,000–200,000 years ago).
_________ 

Michael Russo Apr 5, 2015 12:24 AM
Glad you asked.  
http://www.genome.gov/17516714
We as a homo sapiens are 99.9% identical. We came from a small interbreeding group.

Here is a quick overview of human evolution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROwKq3kxPEA&feature=share
_________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Apr 5, 2015 1:19 AM
+Michael Russo: "We as a homo sapiens are 99.9% identical."

— Sorry, but this isn't what the page of your link says.
What is says is "that individuals are, on average, 0.1 percent different genetically from every other person on the planet."

You may be want to look up what "on average" means.

For instance, if I say that the height of individuals is on average 2 mm different from the height of every other person on the planet, this doesn't mean that the variation in height of everyone on the planet is 2 mm. I may find people whose heights are 40 mm apart, and others whose heights are pretty much the same. But if I take a representative sample of the population, the average difference between all the possible combinations of two individuals will be 2 mm.

Either way, this piece of information in isolation doesn't support the claim that the present human population has an exclusive African origin.

It is widely accepted that the majority of the human population has inherited a considerable portion of Neanderthal genome, and several million humans an even greater portion of Denisovan genome, and that those two distinct species originated from populations that had been living out of Africa for at least hundreds of thousands of years. So the question is whether the ancestors of those other two species actually originated in Africa or not.

I asked you to provide genetic evidence that pointed at the African origin of Neanderthals and Denisovans. You claimed that those species also came from Africa and that there was DNA evidence. Well, what is that DNA evidence? I'm intrigued.

+Michael Russo: "youtube.com/watch?v=ROwKq3kxPEA "

— That sort of videos aren't reliable sources because they tend to oversimplify, omit conflicting information (that may not fit nicely in their narrative), and present as certain theories/hypotheses that haven't been sufficiently validated with factual evidence.
_________ 

Michael Russo Apr 5, 2015 1:47 AM
+Zephyr López Cervilla You are talking bull shit.  Out of Africa is the prevailing theory.  Your weak attempt to skirt around 99.% issue is a joke.  
Enough of your racist Pseudoscience science.
_________ 

Carlos Kingston Apr 5, 2015 1:58 AM +1
+Michael Russo who to believe, the world's most respected evolutionary biologist and best selling author or some random person? Such a hard choice 😉 Reminds me of the Chinese who thought (and taught) that they were oh so special and descendants of Neanderthals until DNA technology proved they weren't. Mitochondrial DNA is a marvelous thing ☺
_________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Apr 5, 2015 2:17 AM
+Michael Russo: "Your weak attempt to skirt around 99.% issue is a joke."

— It wasn't any attempt of anything. It's you who failed to understand/interpret correctly what you read. Nowhere in that page it's said that the genetic variability of the present human population is 0.1% (I'll try to find the actual figure specially for you).

Here you are a paper that mentions how obscure the origin of Neanderthals (and Denisovans) is:

• Stringer C. The status of Homo heidelbergensis (Schoetensack 1908). Evol Anthropol (2012) vol. 21 (3) pp. 101-7
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/evan.21311/full 
academia.edu/4994317/The_Status_of_Homo_heidelbergensis_Schoetensack_1908_ 
(ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22718477)

I bet you can find many more. I chose this simply because it happened to have been stored in my hard drive since last November.

Edit:
The publication of the above paper was covered by The Guardian:

<< But Britain's leading expert on human evolution, Professor Chris Stringer, of the Natural History Museum, has warned in the journal Evolutionary Anthropology that the team in charge of La Sima has got the ages of its fossils wrong by 200,000 years and has incorrectly identified the species of ancient humans found there. >>

— Robin McKie. Scientists are accused of distorting theory of human evolution by misdating bones. The Guardian. June 10, 2012.
theguardian.com/science/2012/jun/10/fossil-dating-row-sima-huesos-spain 

And by this blog:

Chris Stringer on the status of Homo heidelbergensis. Dienekes' Anthropology Blog. June 13, 2012.
dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/06/chris-stringer-on-status-of-homo.html 

Also cited here:

• Chapter 7: Evolution. Issues in Biological, Biochemical, and Evolutionary Sciences Research: 2013 Edition.
books.google.com/books?id=SHXZcbWuzf4C&pg=PA376 

A related blog:

• Terry Toohill. Human Evolution On Trial - Species Or Not? Human Evolution On Trial. June 20, 2009.
humanevolutionontrial.blogspot.co.nz/2009/06/human-evolution-on-trial-species-or-not.html 
_________ 

Michael Russo Apr 5, 2015 2:27 AM
+Zephyr López Cervilla  Don't your schools in Spain teach you shit?   Richard Dawkins is a evolutionary biologist.  Everything I told you he has stated pretty much the same thing.  

By the way, your links don't contradict anything I said.  You need to work on your logic skills. 

"Out of Africa" is the prevailing theory for the reasons I gave and Richard Dawkins will back that up.  
_________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Apr 5, 2015 4:10 AM
+Michael Russo: "Richard Dawkins is a evolutionary biologist.  Everything I told you he has stated pretty much the same thing."

— Since you seem so keen of Richard Dawkins, while so stubborn about the genetic variability between the different human populations (and even between different human species), perhaps you'll appreciate the following excerpt from one of Dawkins' books on human races:  

(pp. 406-407) << It is genuinely true that, if you measure the total variation in the human species and then partition it into a between-race component and a within-race component, the between-race component is a very small fraction of the total. Most of the variation among humans can be found within races as well as between them. Only a small admixture of extra variation distinguishes races from each other. That is all correct. What is not correct is the inference that race is therefore a meaningless concept. This point has been clearly made by the distinguished Cambridge geneticist A.W.F. Edwards in a recent paper “Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy.” R.C. Lewontin is an equally distinguished Cambridge (Mass.) geneticist, known for the strength of his political convictions and his weakness for dragging them into science at every possible opportunity. Lewontin’s view of race has become near-universal orthodoxy in scientific circles. He wrote, in a famous paper of 1972:

It is clear that our perception of relatively large differences between human races and subgroups, as compared to the variation within these groups, is indeed a biased perception and that, based on randomly chosen genetic differences, human races and populations are remarkably similar to each other, with the largest part by far of human variation being accounted for by the differences between individuals.

This is, of course, exactly the point I accepted above, not surprisingly since what I wrote was largely based on Lewontin. But see how Lewontin goes on:

Human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be offered for its continuance.

We can all happily agree that human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. That is one reason why I object to ticking boxes on forms and why I object to positive discrimination in job selection. But that doesn’t mean that race is of “virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance.” This is Edwards’s point, and he reasons as follows. However small the racial partition of total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance. >>

— Richard Dawkins. The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution. (2004) Mariner Books. 2005.
Rendezvous 26: The Grasshoppers Tale.
books.google.com/books?id=rR9XPnaqvCMC&lpg=PA51

Quoted by:

• Razib Khan. Richard Dawkins accepts the usefulness of race. Discover magazine (blogs). May 4, 2012.
blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/05/richard-dawkins-accepts-the-usefulness-of-race 


Edit:
This guy says here the same as I did:

<< Assertion: “We are all Africans”

Today this assertion needs the qualifier “mostly.” To make a long story short, the “strong form” of the “Out of Africa” model of human origins seems to be falsified by the most recent genomic data. Rather, it looks as if modern human populations are a synthesis of a dominant “Out of Africa” lineage, flavored with assorted other populations, until recently known as “archaic modern humans.” The most famous of these were Neanderthals, but it looks as if they may just be the first in a long list of other ancestors humans interbred with. In fact, some hunter-gatherer African populations, the Pygmies and San, may harbor very deeply diverged ancestry from the mainline African stock. These are hominin lineages which separated from the lineage which led to the “Out of Africa” migration nearly ~1 million years ago, only to recombine in the last few tens of thousands of years with these hunter-gatherers (in contrast, the divergence between Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans occurred on the order of ~250,000 years ago).

What does all this imply? On a deep level, in terms of morals and ethics, pretty much nothing. If the human tree becomes more busy and complicated, does that entail that our moral and ethical systems should become more complicated and nuanced? I suspect that most people would react in horror at such a reconsideration, which goes to show that the precise nature of recent African origins for humanity was more of an icing on the cake, rather than a concrete basis of one’s motivation for human decency. How humans came about is less important than the fact that we are all human. >>

— Razib Khan. Human Races May Have Biological Meaning, But Races Mean Nothing About Humanity. Discover magazine. May 2, 2012.
blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/05/02/human-races-may-have-biological-meaning-but-races-mean-nothing-about-humanity 

Edit 2:
This is also interesting:

<< Assertion: Because most genetic variation occurs within races, two random individuals from different races may be genetically closer than two random individuals from the same race.

The image above, from a 2009 paper, is one of the clearest refutations of such assertions. An evolutionary chart, or phylogeny, of human population is not difficult to construct. Multiple different genetic methodologies have converged upon the same general pattern of Africans differentiating from non-Africans, and West Eurasians differentiating from East Eurasians, and so forth. Why? Though on any given gene, one may be more similar to an individual from some distant population than an individual from the same population, when looking at the average across many genes, there is a clear pattern whereby individuals from the same populations tend to share variants in common.

We can see this point by making an analogy between populations and families. Blue eyes are inherited in a roughly recessive fashion. That means that parents of opposite eye colors may have children with blue or brown eyes (as in the chart to the left), while people who are unrelated may share the same blue eyes with some of these children. Clearly on that particular gene, two unrelated individuals can be more similar than parents and their own offspring (e.g., brown eyed parent/blue-eyed child vs. blue-eyed strangers). But it doesn’t follow from this that parents and offspring are less genetically similar overall than strangers with the same eye color as some of the children. Rather, it tells us to be careful of extrapolating from just one gene when it comes to thinking about overall patterns of genetic relatedness. >>

— Razib Khan. Human Races May Have Biological Meaning, But Races Mean Nothing About Humanity. Discover magazine. May 2, 2012.
blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2012/05/02/human-races-may-have-biological-meaning-but-races-mean-nothing-about-humanity 
_________ 

URL source G+ post: 
plus.google.com/+GamergateCaGroup/posts/4ThVA5dQB5z 
____________________ 
3
Trevor Sutcliffe's profile photoTyler Durden's profile photo
2 comments
 
Can we get new working links? 
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
Society vs. Union of Egoists
From Max Stirner's "The Ego and His Own" (1845)

(pp. 152-155 / p. 68 / pp. 95-96)
« §2. Social Liberalism

We are freeborn men, and wherever we look we see ourselves made servants of egoists! Are we therefore to become egoists too! Heaven forbid! We want rather to make egoists impossible! We want to make them all "ragamuffins"; all of us must have nothing, that "all may have."

So say the Socialists.

Who is this person that you call "All"? – It is "society"! – But is it corporeal, then? – We are its body! – You? Why, you are not a body yourselves – you, sir, are corporeal to be sure, you too, and you, but you all together are only bodies, not a body. Accordingly the united society may indeed have bodies at its service, but no one body of its own. Like the "nation of the politicians, it will turn out to be nothing but a "spirit," its body only semblance.

The freedom of man is, in political liberalism, freedom from persons, from personal dominion, from the master; the securing of each individual person against other persons, personal freedom.

No one has any orders to give; the law alone gives orders.

But, even if the persons have become equal, yet their possessions have not. And yet the poor man needs the rich, the rich the poor, the former the rich man’s money, the latter the poor man’s labor. So no one needs another as a person, but needs him as a giver, and thus as one who has something to give, as holder or possessor. So what he has makes the man. And in having, or in "possessions," people are unequal.

Consequently, social liberalism concludes, no one must have, as according to political liberalism no one was to give orders; i.e. as in that case the State alone obtained the command, so now society alone obtains the possessions. »

«He now asks himself further, are we to let what we rightly buried come to life again? Are we to let this circuitously restored inequality of persons pass? No; on the contrary, we must bring quite to an end what was only half accomplished. Our freedom from another’s person still lacks the freedom from what the other’s person can command, from what he has in his personal power – in short, from "personal property." Let us then do away with personal property. Let no one have anything any longer, let every one be a – ragamuffin. Let property be impersonal, let it belong to – society. »

« When the proletarian shall really have founded his purposed "society" in which the interval between rich and poor is to be removed, then he will be a ragamuffin, for then he will feel that it amounts to something to be a ragamuffin, and might lift "Ragamuffin" to be an honourable form of address, just as the Revolution did with the word "Citizen." Ragamuffin is his ideal; we are all to become ragamuffins.

This is the second robbery of the "personal" in the interest of "humanity." Neither command nor property is left to the individual; the State took the former, society the latter.

Because in society the most oppressive evils make themselves felt, therefore the oppressed especially, and consequently the members of the lower regions of society, think they found the fault in society, and make it their task to discover the right society. This is only the old phenomenon – that one looks for the fault first in everything but himself, and consequently in the State, in the self-seeking of the rich, etc., which yet have precisely our fault to thank for their existence.»

(pp. 159-160 / p. 70 / p. 99)
«The Socialists want to put a stop to this activity of chance, and to form a society in which men are no longer dependent on fortune, but free.

In the most natural way in the world this endeavor first utters itself as hatred of the "unfortunate" against the "fortunate," i.e., of those for whom fortune has done little or nothing, against those for whom it has done everything. But properly the ill- feeling is not directed against the fortunate, but against fortune, this rotten spot of the commonalty.

As the Communists first declare free activity to be man’s essence, they, like all work-day dispositions, need a Sunday; like all material endeavors, they need a God, an uplifting and edification alongside their witless "labor."

That the Communist sees in you the man, the brother, is only the Sunday side of Communism. According to the work-day side he does not by any means take you as man simply, but as human laborer or laboring man. The first view has in it the liberal principle; in the second, illiberality is concealed. If you were a "lazy-bones," he would not indeed fail to recognize the man in you, but would endeavor to cleanse him as a "lazy man" from laziness and to convert you to the faith that labor is man’s "destiny and calling."»

(p. 162 / p. 71 / p. 100)
«By the principle of labor that of fortune or competition is certainly outdone. But at the same time the laborer, in his consciousness that the essential thing in him is "the laborer," holds himself aloof from egoism and subjects himself to the supremacy of a society of laborers, as the commoner clung with self-abandonment to the competition-State. The beautiful dream of a "social duty" still continues to be dreamed. People think again that society gives what we need, and we are under obligations to it on that account, owe it everything.[82] They are still at the point of wanting to serve a "supreme giver of all good." That society is no ego at all, which could give, bestow, or grant, but an instrument or means, from which we may derive benefit; that we have no social duties, but solely interests for the pursuance of which society must serve us; that we owe society no sacrifice, but, if we sacrifice anything, sacrifice it to ourselves – of this the Socialists do not think, because they – as liberals – are imprisoned in the religious principle, and zealously aspire after – a sacred society, e. g. the State was hitherto.

Society, from which we have everything, is a new master, a new spook, a new "supreme being," which "takes us into its service and allegiance!" »

(p. 169 / p. 73 / p. 104)
«The politicians, thinking to abolish personal will, self-will or arbitrariness, did not observe that through property[86] our self-will[87] gained a secure place of refuge.

The Socialists, taking away property too, do not notice that this secures itself a continued existence in self- ownership. Is it only money and goods, then, that are a property. or is every opinion something of mine, something of my own?

So every opinion must be abolished or made impersonal. The person is entitled to no opinion, but, as self-will was transferred to the State, property to society, so opinion too must be transferred to something general, "Man," and thereby become a general human opinion.»

«As self-will and property become powerless, so must self-ownership or egoism in general.

In this supreme development of "free man" egoism, self-ownership, is combated on principle, and such subordinate ends as the social "welfare" of the Socialists, etc., vanish before the lofty "idea of humanity." Everything that is not a "general human" entity is something separate, satisfies only some or one; or, if it satisfies all, it does this to them only as individuals, not as men, and is therefore called "egoistic." »

(p. 185 / p. 78 / p. 113)
«Liberalism as a whole has a deadly enemy, an invincible opposite, as God has the devil: by the side of man stands always the un-man, the individual, the egoist. State, society, humanity, do not master this devil.

Humane liberalism has undertaken the task of showing the other liberals that they still do not want "freedom."»

(pp. 186-187 / pp. 78-79 / pp. 113-114)
« Criticism and the masses pursue the same goal, freedom from egoism, and wrangle only over which of them approaches nearest to the goal or even attains it.

The Jews, the Christians, the absolutists, the men of darkness and men of light, politicians, Communists – all, in short – hold the reproach of egoism far from them; and, as criticism brings against them this reproach in plain terms and in the most extended sense, all justify themselves against the accusation of egoism, and combat – egoism, the same enemy with whom criticism wages war.

Both, criticism and masses, are enemies of egoists, and both seek to liberate themselves from egoism, as well by clearing or whitewashing themselves as by ascribing it to the opposite party.

The critic is the true "spokesman of the masses" who gives them the "simple concept and the phrase" of egoism, while the spokesmen to whom the triumph is denied were only bunglers. He is their prince and general in the war against egoism for freedom; what he fights against they fight against. But at the same time he is their enemy too, only not the enemy before them, but the friendly enemy who wields the knout behind the timorous to force courage into them.

Hereby the opposition of criticism and the masses is reduced to the following contradiction: "You are egoists!" "No, we are not!" "I will prove it to you!" "You shall have our justification!"

Let us then take both for what they give themselves out for, non-egoists, and what they take each other for, egoists. They are egoists and are not.»

(p. 189 / p. 79 / p. 115)
«Political liberalism abolished the inequality of masters and servants: it made people masterless, anarchic. The master was now removed from the individual, the "egoist," to become a ghost – the law or the State. Social liberalism abolishes the inequality of possession, of the poor and rich, and makes people possessionless or propertyless. Property is withdrawn from the individual and surrendered to ghostly society. »

( pp. 244-248 / pp. 101-102 / pp. 146-158)
«In the meantime let us take the matter yet another way. I am to reverence sultanic law in the sultanate, popular law in republics, canon law in Catholic communities. To these laws I am to subordinate myself; I am to regard them as sacred. A "sense of right" and "law-abiding mind" of such a sort is so firmly planted in people’s heads that the most revolutionary persons of our days want to subject us to a new "sacred law," the "law of society," the law of mankind, the "right of all," and the like. The right of "all" is to go before my right. As a right of all it would indeed be my right among the rest, since I, with the rest, am included in all; but that it is at the same time a right of others, or even of all others, does not move me to its upholding. Not as a right of all will I defend it, but as my right; and then every other may see to it how he shall likewise maintain it for himself. The right of all (e. g., to eat) is a right of every individual. Let each keep this right unabridged for himself, then all exercise it spontaneously; let him not take care for all though – let him not grow zealous for it as for a right of all.

But the social reformers preach to us a "law of society". There the individual becomes society’s slave, and is in the right only when society makes him out in the right, i.e. when he lives according to society’s statutes and so is – loyal. Whether I am loyal under a despotism or in a "society" àla Weitling, it is the same absence of right in so far as in both cases I have not my right but foreign right.

In consideration of right the question is always asked, "What or who gives me the right to it?" Answer: God, love, reason, nature, humanity, etc. No, only your might, your power gives you the right (your reason, e. g.,, may give it to you).

Communism, which assumes that men "have equal rights by nature," contradicts its own proposition till it comes to this, that men have no right at all by nature. For it is not willing to recognize, e. g., that parents have "by nature" rights as against their children, or the children as against the parents: it abolishes the family. Nature gives parents, brothers, etc., no right at all. Altogether, this entire revolutionary or Babouvist principle [130] rests on a religious, i. e., false, view of things. Who can ask after "right" if he does not occupy the religious standpoint himself? Is not "right" a religious concept, i.e. something sacred? Why, "equality of rights", as the Revolution propounded it, is only another name for "Christian equality," the "equality of the brethren," "of God’s children," "of Christians"; in short, fraternité. Each and every inquiry after right deserves to be lashed with Schiller’s words:

Many a year I’ve used my nose
To smell the onion and the rose;
Is there any proof which shows
That I’ve a right to that same nose?

When the Revolution stamped equality as a "right," it took flight into the religious domain, into the region of the sacred, of the ideal. Hence, since then, the fight for the "sacred, inalienable rights of man." Against the "eternal rights of man" the "well-earned rights of the established order" are quite naturally, and with equal right, brought to bear: right against right, where of course one is decried by the other as "wrong." This has been the contest of rights[131] since the Revolution.

You want to be "in the right" as against the rest. That you cannot; as against them you remain forever "in the wrong"; for they surely would not be your opponents if they were not in "their right" too; they will always make you out "in the wrong." But, as against the right of the rest, yours is a higher, greater, more powerful right, is it not? No such thing! Your right is not more powerful if you are not more powerful. Have Chinese subjects a right to freedom? Just bestow it on them, and then look how far you have gone wrong in your attempt: because they do not know how to use freedom they have no right to it, or, in clearer terms, because they have not freedom they have not the right to it. Children have no right to the condition of majority because they are not of age, i.e. because they are children. Peoples that let themselves be kept in nonage have no rights to the condition of majority; if they ceased to be in nonage, then only would they have the right to be of age. This means nothing else than "What you have the power to be you have the right to." I derive all right and all warrant from me ; I am entitled to everything that I have in my power. I am entitled to overthrow Zeus, Jehovah, God, etc., if I can ; if I cannot, then these gods will always remain in the right and in power as against me, and what I do will be to fear their right and their power in impotent "god-fearingness," to keep their commandments and believe that I do right in everything that I do according to their right, about as the Russian boundary-sentinels think themselves rightfully entitled to shoot dead the suspicious persons who are escaping, since they murder "by superior authority," i.e. "with right." But I am entitled by myself to murder if I myself do not forbid it to myself, if I myself do not fear murder as a "wrong." This view of things lies at the foundation of Chamisso’s poem, "The Valley of Murder," where the gray-haired Indian murderer compels reverence from the white man whose brethren he has murdered. The only thing I am not entitled to is what I do not do with a free cheer, i. e. what I do not entitle myself to. »

(p. 319 / p. 125 / p. 186)
« He who refuses to spend his powers for such limited societies as family, party, nation, is still always longing for a worthier society, and thinks he has found the true object of love, perhaps, in "human society" or "mankind," to sacrifice himself to which constitutes his honor; from now on he "lives for and serves mankind."

People is the name of the body, State of the spirit, of that ruling person that has hitherto suppressed me. Some have wanted to transfigure peoples and States by broadening them out to "mankind" and "general reason"; but servitude would only become still more intense with this widening, and philanthropists and humanitarians are as absolute masters as politicians and diplomats. »

(pp. 329-331 / pp. 128-129 / pp. 192-193)
« The conquerors form a society which one may imagine so great that it by degrees embraces all humanity; but so-called humanity too is as such only a thought (spook); the individuals are its reality. And these individuals as a collective mass will treat land and earth not less arbitrarily than an isolated individual or so-called propriétaire. Even so, therefore, property remains standing, and that as "exclusive" too, in that humanity, this great society, excludes the individual from its property (perhaps only leases to him, gives his as a fief, a piece of it) as it besides excludes everything that is not humanity, e. g. does not allow animals to have property. – So too it will remain, and will grow to be. That in which all want to have a share will be withdrawn from that individual who wants to have it for himself alone: it is made a common estate. As a common estate every one has his share in it, and this share is his property. »

«Proudhon might spare his prolix pathos if he said: "There are some things that belong only to a few, and to which we others will from now on lay claim or – siege. Let us take them, because one comes to property by taking, and the property of which for the present we are still deprived came to the proprietors likewise only by taking. It can be utilized better if it is in the hands of us all than if the few control it. Let us therefore associate ourselves for the purpose of this robbery (vol)." – Instead of this, he tries to get us to believe that society is the original possessor and the sole proprietor, of imprescriptible right; against it the so-called proprietors have become thieves (La propriété c’est le vol); if it now deprives of his property the present proprietor, it robs him of nothing, as it is only availing itself of its imprescriptible right. – So far one comes with the spook of society as a moral person. On the contrary, what man can obtain belongs to him: the world belongs to me. Do you say anything else by your opposite proposition? "The world belongs to all"? All are I and again I, etc. But you make out of the "all" a spook, and make it sacred, so that then the "all" become the individual’s fearful master. Then the ghost of "right" places itself on their side.

Proudhon, like the Communists, fights against egoism. Therefore they are continuations and consistent carryings-out of the Christian principle, the principle of love, of sacrifice for something general, something alien. They complete in property, e. g., only what has long been extant as a matter of fact – to wit, the propertylessness of the individual. When the laws says, Ad reges potestas omnium pertinet, ad singulos proprietas; omnia rex imperio possidet, singuli dominio, this means: The king is proprietor, for he alone can control and dispose of "everything," he has potestas and imperium over it. The Communists make this clearer, transferring that imperium to the "society of all." Therefore: Because enemies of egoism, they are on that account – Christians, or, more generally speaking, religious men, believers in ghosts, dependents, servants of some generality (God, society, etc.). In this too Proudhon is like the Christians, that he ascribes to God that which he denies to men. He names him (e. g. page 90) the Propriétaire of the earth. Herewith he proves that he cannot think away the proprietor as such; he comes to a proprietor at last, but removes him to the other world.

Neither God nor Man ("human society") is proprietor, but the individual.»

(pp. 340-343/ pp. 131-132 /pp. 198-199)
« All attempts to enact rational laws about property have put out from the bay of love into a desolate sea of regulations. Even Socialism and Communism cannot be excepted from this. Every one is to be provided with adequate means, for which it is little to the point whether one socialistically finds them still in a personal property, or communistically draws them from the community of goods. The individual’s mind in this remains the same; it remains a mind of dependence. The distributing board of equity lets me have only what the sense of equity, its loving care for all, prescribes. For me, the individual, there lies no less of a check in collective wealth than in that of individual others; neither that is mine, nor this: whether the wealth belongs to the collectivity, which confers part of it on me, or to individual possessors, is for me the same constraint, as I cannot decide about either of the two. On the contrary, Communism, by the abolition of all personal property, only presses me back still more into dependence on another, viz., on the generality or collectivity; and, loudly as it always attacks the "State," what it intends is itself again a State, a status, a condition hindering my free movement, a sovereign power over me. Communism rightly revolts against the pressure that I experience from individual proprietors; but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of the collectivity. »

«If men reach the point of losing respect for property, every one will have property, as all slaves become free men as soon as they no longer respect the master as master. Unions will then, in this matter too, multiply the individual’s means and secure his assailed property.

According to the Communists’ opinion the commune should be proprietor. On the contrary, I am proprietor, and I only come to an understanding with others about my property. If the commune does not do what suits me, I rise against it and defend my property. I am proprietor, but property is not sacred. I should be merely possessor? No, hitherto one was only possessor, secured in the possession of a parcel by leaving others also in possession of a parcel; but now everything belongs to me, I am proprietor of everything that I require and can get possession of. If it is said socialistically, society gives me what I require – then the egoist says, I take what I require. If the Communists conduct themselves as ragamuffins, the egoist behaves as proprietor.

All swan-fraternities,[182] and attempts at making the rabble happy, that spring from the principle of love, must miscarry. Only from egoism can the rabble get help, and this help it must give to itself and – will give to itself. If it does not let itself be coerced into fear, it is a power. "People would lose all respect if one did not coerce them into fear," says bugbear Law in Der gestiefelte Kater.

Property, therefore, should not and cannot be abolished; it must rather be torn from ghostly hands and become my property; then the erroneous consciousness, that I cannot entitle myself to as much as I require, will vanish. –»

(pp. 412-413 / pp. 154-155 / pp. 236-237)
«If community is once a need of man, and he finds himself furthered by it in his aims, then very soon, because it has become his principle, it prescribes to him its laws too, the laws of – society. The principle of men exalts itself into a sovereign power over them, becomes their supreme essence, their God, and, as such – law-giver. Communism gives this principle the strictest effect, and Christianity is the religion of society, for, as Feuerbach rightly says, although he does not mean it rightly, love is the essence of man; e. g., the essence of society or of societary (Communistic) man. All religion is a cult of society, this principle by which societary (cultivated) man is dominated; neither is any god an ego’s exclusive god, but always a society’s or community’s, be it of the society, "family" (Lar, Penates) or of a "people" ("national god") or of "all men" ("he is a Father of all men").

Consequently one has a prospect of extirpating religion down to the ground only when one antiquates society and everything that flows from this principle. But it is precisely in Communism that this principle seeks to culminate, as in it everything is to become common for the establishment of – "equality." If this "equality" is won, "liberty" too is not lacking. But whose liberty? Society’s! Society is then all in all, and men are only "for each other." It would be the glory of the – love-State. »

(pp. 415-417 / pp. 155-156 / pp. 238-239)
« Neither a natural ligature nor a spiritual one holds the union together, and it is not a natural, not a spiritual league. It is not brought about by one blood, not by one faith (spirit). In a natural league – like a family, a tribe, a nation, yes, mankind – the individuals have only the value of specimens of the same species or genus; in a spiritual league – like a commune, a church – the individual signifies only a member of the same spirit; what you are in both cases as a unique person must be – suppressed. Only in the union can you assert yourself as unique, because the union does not possess you, but you possess it or make it of use to you.

Property is recognized in the union, and only in the union, because one no longer holds what is his as a fief from any being. The Communists are only consistently carrying further what had already been long present during religious evolution, and especially in the State; to wit, propertylessness, the feudal system. »

« You bring into a union your whole power, your competence, and make yourself count; in a society you are employed, with your working power; in the former you live egoistically, in the latter humanly, i.e. religiously, as a "member in the body of this Lord"; to a society you owe what you have, and are in duty bound to it, are – possessed by "social duties"; a union you utilize, and give it up undutifully and unfaithfully when you see no way to use it further. If a society is more than you, then it is more to you than yourself; a union is only your instrument, or the sword with which you sharpen and increase your natural force; the union exists for you and through you, the society conversely lays claim to you for itself and exists even without you, in short, the society is sacred, the union your own; consumes you, you consume the union. »

« To come back to property, the lord is proprietor. Choose then whether you want to be lord, or whether society shall be! On this depends whether you are to be an owner or a ragamuffin! The egoist is owner, the Socialist a ragamuffin. But ragamuffinism or propertylessness is the sense of feudalism, of the feudal system which since the last century has only changed its overlord, putting "Man" in the place of God, and accepting as a fief from Man what had before been a fief from the grace of God. That the ragamuffinism of Communism is carried out by the humane principle into the absolute or most ragamuffinly ragamuffinism has been shown above; but at the same time also, how ragamuffinism can only thus swing around into ownness. The old feudal system was so thoroughly trampled into the ground in the Revolution that since then all reactionary craft has remained fruitless, and will always remain fruitless, because the dead is – dead; but the resurrection too had to prove itself a truth in Christian history, and has so proved itself: for in another world feudalism is risen again with a glorified body, the new feudalism under the suzerainty of "Man." »
•••

(p. 54 / p. 37 / p. 43)
«But it is not only man that "haunts"; so does everything. The higher essence, the spirit, that walks in everything, is at the same time bound to nothing, and only – "appears" in it. Ghosts in every corner!

Here would be the place to pass the haunting spirits in review, if they were not to come before us again further on in order to vanish before egoism. Hence let only a few of them be particularized by way of example, in order to bring us at once to our attitude toward them.

Sacred above all, e. g., is the "holy Spirit," sacred the truth, sacred are right, law, a good cause, majesty, marriage, the common good, order, the fatherland, etc.»

— Max Stirner. The Ego and His Own. (1845), English edition of "Der Einzige und Sein Eigenthum." Benj. R. Tucker, Publisher (First English edition, 1907).
gutenberg.org/ebooks/34580 
df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf 
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own 

Further reading:

• James L. Walker (Tak Kak). Stirner on Justice. Liberty (March 26, 1887) vol. 4 no. 18 (whole no. 96) p. 7 [document 603]
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2797 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2390 
______________________ 


Excerpt from comments of source G+ post:

Joshua Roy Shared publicly - Jun 29, 2015 2:54 PM
I think the economy that emerges from a situation of private property and personal responsibility is not a moral evil; however, the greed and corruption produced by absolute atomism and unfettered self-interest are morally wrong especially when the very mechanisms of government designed to protect the people are repurposed to deprive them of liberty and misuse their resources to enrich private individuals.

I think the most moral system of government would be a voluntary community of altruism wherein the people were motivated to work hard by a morality of personal responsibility and individualized incentives; however, their efforts would not be totally atomistic and competitive to the point of only having concern for themselves.

From a certain perspective, the duty of economic leaders is to create jobs for other people to give their life purpose and meaning. When we live in a world where people are paid less than they can survive off of, when they are paid better by government for being totally destitute than they are paid by employers for bettering the lives of others with their talents, we deincentivize individual effort, which leads all of society to moral decay.

Employers should be concerned for their own welfare, and they should earn more than their employees, but they should not value their own income or the economic competitiveness of their own institution over the utility they can deliver to society. Both of these concerns should be balanced so that way the company behaves socially responsibly, the employees are not just better off, but well off, and the employer is more profitable than he could be under any other moral set of behaviors. 

It is immoral to constantly be looking for a way to get wealthier at someone else's expense. It is immoral to reduce safety standards. It is immoral to pay poverty wages. it is immoral to manipulate the mechanisms of government to give yourself an unfair economic advantage over your competitors. It is immoral to destroy the environment needlessly. 

If people learned these simple truths and practiced them, it wouldn't matter what system of government we had, the world would be spectacular. Our system of government is just the machine we employ to get work done. It is the people who bestow upon that transaction meaning and goodness. A moral people can perfect the worst system of government while an evil people can destroy the very best.
__________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 29, 2015 3:50 PM
+Jeffrey Hamby: "If your meaning in the meme is zero government them you should use the appropriate word... anarchy. Please stop pretending libertarianism is zero government."

— According to its genuine/original/international definition (and the one used by the early American Individualist anarchists), all libertarians are anarchists:

Libertaire
«Libertarian adj. 19th century. Derivative from liberty.
Who holds the ideal for a society in which there is no law nor any constituted power, in which no restraint would be imposed on individual freedom. Anarchists claim to embrace a libertarian doctrine. Noun, a libertarian.»

— Translation from the Dictionary of the French Academy, 9th Edition (ongoing publication, 1992- ).
atilf.atilf.fr/dendien/scripts/generic/affiche.exe?s=1119700920;d=1;f=1;r=3 
(search: atilf.atilf.fr/dendien/scripts/generic/form.exe?s=1119700920)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionnaire_de_l'Académie_française 

Libertario
«Who defends absolute freedom, and therefore, the suppression of all government and all law.»

— Translation from the Dictionary of the Spanish Language, 22nd Edition (last updated in 2012), produced, edited and published by the Royal Spanish Academy.
buscon.rae.es/drae/?val=libertario 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diccionario_de_la_lengua_española 

Further reading: 
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/aVqoh9CZV3t 
__________ 

Jeffrey Hamby Jun 29, 2015 4:41 PM +2
Fantastic +Zephyr López Cervilla I can practice confirmation bias too.  Except in my case, none of the definitions you posted were even on the first page of a "defintion libertarianism" search.

What was on the first page was this

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement.

None of that, of course, speaks to the complete elimination of government.  It merely espouses freedom of choice.  But wait, there's more.

The term libertarianism originally referred to a philosophical belief in free will but later became associated with anti-state socialism and Enlightenment-influenced[9][10] political movements critical of institutional authority believed to serve forms of social domination and injustice. While it has generally retained its earlier political usage as a synonym for either social or individualist anarchism through much of the world, in the United States it has since come to describe pro-capitalist economic liberalism more so than radical, anti-capitalist egalitarianism. In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, libertarianism is defined as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.[11] As individualist opponents of social liberalism embraced the label and distanced themselves from the word liberal, American writers, political parties and think tanks adopted the word libertarian to describe advocacy of capitalist free market economics and a night-watchman state.

So through all that, I'm not going to get into a "the definition I found on page 3 of my google search is the one I'm going to use to argue" discussion.  You've seen yourself the discussions where anarchists argue with libertarians over how much government is valid and that the anarchists believe libertarian thought eventually leads to anarchism because the amount of government considered valid eventually dwindles to nothing.  Which, of course, means the libertarians do tend to believe in some form of very limited government.
__________ 

Alan Lovejoy Jun 29, 2015 3:20 PM +9
"the greed and corruption produced by absolute atomism and unfettered self-interest are morally wrong especially when the very mechanisms of government designed to protect the people are repurposed to deprive them of liberty and misuse their resources to enrich private individuals."

Libertarianism is not atomism of any sort, absolute or otherwise. Nor is it any sort of advocacy of "unfettered" self interest. 

You and the meme are engaging in the strawman fallacy.

"Individualism has never been a creed of absolute independence, that every person ought be a hermit. There's a different word for that -- atomism. Rather, individualism as an ethical doctrine is profoundly social, promoting greater mutual interdependence. It is the doctrine that individual rights should be respected by banishing the aggressive use of force from our social interactions. 

It can also be called libertarianism -- advocacy of liberty." ~ Larken Rose, Sedition on the Installment Plan
__________ 

Joshua Roy Jun 29, 2015 3:34 PM
+Alan Lovejoy - The meme was using the word Libertarian in its most radical form, that of a totally anarchist society. That is what I was speaking out against, anarcho-capitalism in particular. The modern form of libertarianism as it exists in the United States is technically a statist philosophy, although it only seeks to utilize force in defense of the individual. It does not seek to utilize force to guide society towards moral decision making to any degree whatsoever. 

To the libertarian, the morality of the society does not ultimately matter so long as the people aren't engaging in violence against one another. They are willing to tolerate a society of drug users, gamblers, prostitutes, environmental destroyers, racists and greedy people so long as no one has been technically forced into anything.

I agree with libertarians to the extent that it is unwise to use government as a force for social change, especially in a democratic society where public opinion can shift so rapidly overnight, and I agree with them on a utilitarian perspective that drug use and prostitution should not technically be illegal, because they are going to happen anyway and it is costly trying to police the daily behavior of hundreds of millions of people, but I think there is a time and place for everything.

I would see nothing wrong with a government that said that certain behaviors were inappropriate in certain locations, but there are some "deregulated" zones where certain activities could be permissible. I'd see nothing wrong with a government fining a person for using drugs in public, although I think throwing a person in jail for using drugs in private is going way too far. 

I think the leaders of any civilization have a moral responsibility to try to shape the moral character of the people they govern, but they shouldn't be meddlesome to the point of becoming a petty tyrant, and the punishment should always fit the crime. If there is no victim to begin with, it is ultimately inappropriate for government to make the perpetrator the only true victim in the situation.
__________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 29, 2015 5:57 PM
+Joshua Roy: "It does not seek to utilize force to guide society towards moral decision making to any degree whatsoever."

— This comment is utterly nonsense. First of all, there isn't such thing called "society":

«I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. »

«But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.»

— Margaret Thatcher, Interview for Woman's Own ("no such thing as society"), 1987 Sep 23.
margaretthatcher.org/document/106689 

Second, who the heck has the nerve to claim for themselves the right to impose their morals on everybody else?

Third, what sort or moral decisions are the ones imposed by force? The morals of the tyrant? That's akin to loving rape, voluntary slavery, or consensual murder.


+Joshua Roy: "The meme was using the word Libertarian in its most radical form, that of a totally anarchist society. That is what I was speaking out against, anarcho-capitalism in particular."

— This is also nonsense. There are no more radical forms of anarchism than others, in the same way there aren't more radical forms of atheism than others. Beyond the complete abolition of governments and the cult to the State there's nothing more radical. That's the primary aspiration of every anarchist. We may disagree in other issues such as property, its definition, its boundaries, or in the way to deal with conflicts between individuals or to protect ourselves from aggression. But resorting to any kind of overseeing authority to settle that sort of questions is an option rejected by all anarchists of every sort.


+Joshua Roy: "They are willing to tolerate a society of drug users, gamblers, prostitutes, environmental destroyers, racists and greedy people so long as no one has been technically forced into anything."

— The use of the word "tolerate" is inappropriate. The fitting term here is "respect". Prostitutes (and their welcomed customers), drug users (and their honest suppliers), gamblers, "racists",  "greedy" people, are no scum to be tolerated but sovereign individuals who deserve as much respect as your beloved Noam Chomsky.

On profit:

«Profit is the signal which tells us what we must do in order to serve people whom we do not know. By pursuing profit, we are as altruistic as we can possibly be, because we extend our concern to people who are beyond our range of personal conception.»
— F.A. Hayek (1984).

• Ebenstein, Alan. Friedrich Hayek: A Biography. Palgrave Macmillan. 2001. ISBN-13: 978-0312233440
books.google.com/books?id=k0O3q5qzB7AC&pg=PA313 
amazon.com/dp/0312233442 

«I think the nicest form to put it in is to say that socialism, protesting against production for profit and not for use, objects to what makes the extended society possible. Production for use is only possible in a society that we all know all the facts. But to achieve this equation where we all are working for people who we do not know and we are supported by the work of people who we do not know is made possible because we work for economic profit. Profit is the signal which tells us what we must do in order to serve to people who we do not know.»
— F.A. Hayek (1985).
Source: youtu.be/LtCvJeRK3lE#t=624s (10:24 - 11:10)

The only drive of the (free) market is mutual interest. Therefore, its results are generally beneficial for all its participants. When someone trades something is because they are better off with the result than they were before. This phenomenon is summarily explained with an example in the following lecture, from minute 5 to minute 6:

(5:03) "What does exchange raise living standards? Well, the answer came from David Ricardo in 1817…" (6:00)

— Matt Ridley. Matt Ridley: When ideas have sex. TED Talks. July 2010.
ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex 
youtube.com/watch?v=OLHh9E5ilZ4 (17 min)

The "weaker", less skilled and less adapted individuals also benefit from the free market, and in a more effective way than from any well-fare measure. In the example presented by Matt Ridley "Adam" would be the poorly adapted individual, and "Oz" the better adapted. Yet, both benefit from free exchange.


As for the environmental "destroyers", claiming that libertarians are Ok with their surrounding environment being destroyed (and therefore) is disingenuous. There are numerous examples in history of groups of people who organised to exploit common resources in a sustainable way without intervention of any external authority. On the contrary, it was often the intervention of government what led to environmental catastrophes:

• Elinor Ostrom. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions). Cambridge University Press. 1990. ISBN-13: 978-0521405997
(amazon.com/dp/0521405998)
pp. 1-181: www.libertarianismo.org/livros/eogtc.pdf 
pp. 1-28: www.kuhlen.name/MATERIALIEN/eDok/governing_the_commons1.pdf 
pp. 1-29: classwebs.spea.indiana.edu/kenricha/Classes/V640/V640%20Readings/Ostrom_Governing%20the%20Commons_Ch.%201.pdf 
pp. 28-57: classwebs.spea.indiana.edu/kenricha/Classes/V640/V640%20Readings/Ostrom_Governing%20the%20Commons_Ch.%202.pdf 
pp. 58-103: www.pitt.edu/~vester/2230_ostrom.pdf 
pp. 192-211: are.berkeley.edu/~cmantinori/prclass/Ostrom.pdf 
pp 217-220: www.kuhlen.name/MATERIALIEN/eDok/governing_the_commons1.pdf 

URL source G+ posts (with excerpts and related references):
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/C4V2Kba9aD1 
plus.google.com/+AlanLovejoy/posts/QsSUkBusFnQ 

Unsurprisingly, the opposite discourse has ben fostered by governments and their shills.

"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself."
— Misattributed to Joseph Goebbels by the Allies.


+Joshua Roy: "I'd see nothing wrong with a government fining a person for using drugs in public,"

— A prudish and puritanical worldview, cultural prejudice, a strong predisposition to be judgmental. You wouldn't expect that the years of religious fundamentalist indoctrination wouldn't have caused some permanent effect. All that hard work for nothing. "Conservative" from cradle to grave.


+Joshua Roy: "I think the leaders of any civilization have a moral responsibility to try to shape the moral character of the people they govern,"

« The fatal misstep of intellectuals is assuming that superior ability within a particular realm can be generalized to superior wisdom or morality overall. Chess grand masters, musical prodigies and others who are as remarkable within their respected specialties as intellectuals within theirs, seldom make that mistake.»
— Thomas Sowell in "Intellectuals and Society".

Reference:
• Thomas Sowell. Intellectuals and Society. (2009) Basic Books.  ISBN-13: 978-0465019489

• Video interview to Thomas Sowell on "Intellectuals and Society":
youtube.com/watch?v=ERj3QeGw9Ok (quote: 2:14 - 2:37)
• Transcript of the interview: media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/Thomas-Sowell-12-11-09.pdf 
URL source G+ post: 
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/CX7SdjVgKSZ 


Short clip from a lecture (in Spanish) given by Professor Jesús Huerta de Soto Ballester, Chair of Political Economics at King Juan Carlos University, in which he explains why, according to Bertrand de Jouvenel, the immense majority of intellectuals hate capitalism:

• Jesús Huerta de Soto Ballester. ¿Por qué los intelectuales odian el capitalismo? C. 2014.
youtube.com/watch?v=oDDghHKSz7U (7 min)

You may also find the following speech interesting: 

• Jesús Huerta de Soto Ballester. Liberalismo frente a anarcocapitalismo. Instituto Juan de Mariana. European Students for Liberty. Conferencia regional. 25 de Octubre de 2014, Madrid.
youtube.com/watch?v=g7pykiMzGes (60 min)
__________ 

Joshua Roy Jun 29, 2015 6:09 PM
+Zephyr López Cervilla There are formal and informal societies. I've belonged to many of both varieties. Denying the existence of society is like denying the existence of a forest saying there are only really individual trees. It is a reductionism to absurdity to the point that clear thinking is no longer even possible.
__________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 29, 2015 11:10 PM
+Joshua Roy: "Denying the existence of society is like denying the existence of a forest saying there are only really individual trees. It is a reductionism to absurdity to the point that clear thinking is no longer even possible."

— You may be familiar with the concept of reification: 

«to regard (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing»
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reify 

«Reification, the treatment of something abstract as a material or concrete thing,»
britannica.com/topic/reification 

« Reification
(also known as: abstraction, concretism, fallacy of misplaced concreteness, hypostatization, pathetic fallacy [form of])
Definition: When an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity -- when an idea is treated as if had a real existence.»

«Explanation: By reifying the street, we are attempting to establish a greater emotional connection, thus attempting to get the person to act more on emotion than reason. »
logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/155-reification 

« Reification
Anthropologists are often concerned to show that social and cultural phenomena are results of underlying processes that we have a tendency to overlook, and that they are thus "something other than what they seem to be". Reification stands for the opposite: that we take phenomena for given, as they appear to us. It is often claimed, for example, that the concept of culture is a reification, since we have a tendency to think of "a culture" as a completed object, a "thing" we can "touch and feel", which all members of the culture share - rather than a complex aggregate of processes, which different people participate in, to a greater or lesser extent. When we reify, we do not see the details, because they are overshadowed by the whole. We think, e.g. of "Norway" as if it were one thing, while in reality it is a near-infinite agglomeration of people, projects, actions, expressions and objects, in constant movement and conflict, within a landscape which is neither homogeneous, stable or geographically bounded. When I say "I am a Norwegian", this is a reification, which hides the countless other things I also am. Similarly, Marx claimed that money was a reification (a fetish) of the production processes - the labor - that creates the values that money measures.»

Reification. AnthroBase.com : Dictionary of anthropology.
anthrobase.com/Dic/eng/def/reification.htm 

« Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. [1][2] In other words, it is the error of treating something which is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing . A common case of reification is the confusion of a model with reality. Mathematical or simulation models may help understand a system or situation, but they model an abstract and simple mental image, not real life (which will also differ from the model): "the map is not the territory".»
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy) 

« Description
The reification fallacy occurs where an abstract idea, concept or model is treated as if it were concrete and real.»

« Discussion
One of the skills of the human species is the ability to think in abstract terms, juggling ideas that help us understand and work with the real world. This is in some ways essential as the world is too complex for us to understand in infinite detail.

We naturally build inner mental models as a way of coping with this outer complexity. We then view the world through the models, treating the model as if it is the world, not just a representation.»

«Where the reification fallacy occurs in an important sense is where the assumption of idea as reality is too far from a better truth.»

«Reification may be deliberately used in the use of metaphor and other figures of speech. It becomes a fallacy when we forget that the representation is just that: a representation, and not reality. Extended metaphors can easily fail in this way.»
changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/reification.htm 

Example:

+Joshua Roy: "It does not seek to utilize force to guide society towards moral decision making "

To the best of my knowledge, the only entities capable to make decisions (moral or otherwise) are the individuals. Societies don't make decisions, societies don't have morals, individuals do:

(pp. 152-155 / p. 68 / pp. 95-96) … [continuation above]
__________ 

Theodore Minick Jun 29, 2015 11:24 PM +1
TL;DR: there really is no such thing as a forest. "Forest" is just a handy designation on a map for a group of trees.
__________ 

Joshua Roy Jun 30, 2015 12:15 AM
In any case, a normal person would say, "lets cure dutch elm disease for the health of the forest," and that communication would be meaningful even if it is an overly simplistic expression. 
__________ 

Theodore Minick Jun 30, 2015 12:53 AM
And I'd be perfectly fine with that, as long as the search for the cure didn't involve intentionally infecting stands of trees "for the good of the forest".

Because if you unpack that statement, what you get is a logical contradiction: "we have to kill some of you to save all of you."
__________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 30, 2015 1:45 AM
Let's burn down all the trees and plant new healthy seedlings to "cure" the forest!
__________ 

URL source G+ post: 
plus.google.com/+JoshuaRoy83/posts/gihMUBFPQso 
______________________ 
7
1
Zephyr López Cervilla's profile photoMartin Lewitt's profile photodavid muncey's profile photo
3 comments
 
Yes, Norway is a good example.  Have they found any source of wealth have they found that might sustain them once the oil runs out?  Unfortunately their schools are not performing well, barely better than the much more populous and culturally diverse US, so human capital seems unlikely to pay off for them.  Sweden is doing even worse.
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
Progressive Thought vs. Liberty

I'm in the minority who thinks that individual freedom must prevail over collective conformity and imposed consensus. I'm in good company with such standpoint, though. Some of the most prominent free thinkers of the 19th century did also oppose "marriage laws", branding them "as false to the principle of freedom":

« Whenever Liberty hears of any demand for a real increase in freedom, it is prompt to encourage and sustain it, no matter what its source. It marches with any wing of the army of freedom as far as that wing will go. But it sternly refuses to right about face. Liberty hates Catholicism and loves Free Thought; but, when it finds Catholicism advocating and Free Thought opposing the principle of voluntaryism in education, it sustains Catholicism against Free Thought. Likewise, when it finds Liberals and Socialists of all varieties favoring eight-hour laws, government monopoly of money, land nationalization, protection, prohibition, race proscription, State administration of railways, telegraphs, mines, and factories, woman suffrage, man suffrage, common schools, marriage laws, and compulsory taxation, it brands them one and all as false to the principle of freedom, refuses to follow them in their retrogressive course, and keeps its own eyes and steps carefully towards the front. It knows that the only way to achieve freedom is to begin to take it.»

— Benjamin R Tucker. Anarchy Necessarily Atheistic. Liberty (January 9, 1886) vol. 3 (21) (whole no. 79) p. 4 [document no. 418]
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/anarchy-necessarily-atheistic 
(pp. 464-465)
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n483/mode/2up 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2774 

«Their attitude on this is a key to their attitude on all other questions of a political or social nature. In religion they are atheistic as far as their own opinions are concerned, for they look upon divine authority and the religious sanction of morality as the chief pretexts put forward by the privileged classes for the exercise of human authority. "If God exists," said Proudhon, "he is man’s enemy." And in contrast to Voltaire’s famous epigram, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him," the great Russian Nihilist, Mikhail Bakunin, placed this antithetical proposition: "If God existed, it would be necessary to abolish him." But although, viewing the divine hierarchy as a contradiction of Anarchy, they do not believe in it, the Anarchists none the less firmly believe in the liberty to believe in it. Any denial of religious freedom they squarely oppose. »

— Benjamin R Tucker. State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, And Wherein They Differ. Liberty (March 10, 1888) vol. 5 (16) (whole no. 120) pp. 2, 3, 6 [documents 790, 791, 794]
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/state-socialism-and-anarchism 
(p. 14)
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n33/mode/2up 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2821 

PS: #"Freedom" :
plus.google.com/+Notbeinggoverned-dotcom/posts/5tBh7y89V5o 
________ 

URL source G+ post: 
plus.google.com/115485979219209097599/posts/1SHqGXRYKEg 
4
1
Jeffrey Duddles's profile photo
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
"Why libertarianism is closer to Stalinism than you think" :
     Stalinism + Beria + Russia + I
     Stalinism           +            Beria      +     Russia           +          I
     S   -   ta   -   li  -  nism  +  Ber - ia    +    R - us - s  -  i - a   +   I
li - S   -   ta        -     nism  +  Ber - ia    +    R - us - a  -  i - s   +   I
li - Ber - ta - R - ia - nism               +                 us - a        +         I - S - i - s
libertarianism + USA + ISIS

blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/15/rand-paul-and-the-sordid-purity-of-libertarianism 

URL source G+ post: 
plus.google.com/113634457829921304423/posts/4iaSYpH2KRk
Libertarianism is among the most rigid of modern ideologies. The theorists who formulated its principles were seekers after political purity.
1
Jay R North's profile photoZephyr López Cervilla's profile photoJoshua Schmidlkofer's profile photo
3 comments
 
Anything to keep control. They would literally support Hitler to keep control. Propaganda.
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
businessinsider.com - Elon Musk doesn’t want to get into genetic engineering because he doesn’t know how to avoid 'the Hitler problem'
By Kevin Loria (Buseness Insider). June 11, 2015
businessinsider.com/elon-musk-doesnt-want-to-get-into-genetic-engineering-because-he-doesnt-know-how-to-avoid-the-hitler-problem-2015-6 

Excerpt:
«And delving into the "perfect human" waters starts to get ethically murky very fast, especially if you are eliminating conditions that you consider undesirable. Maybe we can all agree that we'd like to get rid of Huntington's disease, but would we want to edit genes to slow aging or to eliminate autism? Those questions get harder and harder. Do we have a minimum acceptable intelligence level?»

– Kevin Loria. Elon Musk doesn’t want to get into genetic engineering because he doesn’t know how to avoid 'the Hitler problem'. Business Insider. June 11, 2015.
businessinsider.com/elon-musk-doesnt-want-to-get-into-genetic-engineering-because-he-doesnt-know-how-to-avoid-the-hitler-problem-2015-6 

Comment:
The collectivist mindset is showing up here. For some reason he believes that there must exist a consensus (i.e., a "central planner") in order to decide what improvements can be made in the genome of each individual. Precisely, the main drawback of the "Hitler problem" is the resulting uniformity generated by central planning decisions. In contrast, if everyone is free to introduce whatever changes they see fit in their offspring, a large variety of different outcomes will ensue.

I skimmed the original interview to Elon Musk and he wasn't so categorical as the above article seems to represent. Much of such collectivist regulatory mindset may come from the view of the author of the above article, or at least from the author's personal interpretation of Musk's words:

« I talked to him for a while about genetic reprogramming. He doesn’t buy the efficacy of typical anti-aging technology efforts, because he believes humans have general expiration dates, and no one fix can help that. He explained: “The whole system is collapsing. You don’t see someone who’s 90 years old and it’s like, they can run super fast but their eyesight is bad. The whole system is shutting down. In order to change that in a serious way, you need to reprogram the genetics or replace every cell in the body.” Now with anyone else—literally anyone else—I would shrug and agree, since he made a good point. But this was Elon Musk, and Elon Musk fixes s--t for humanity. So what did I do?

Me: Well…but isn’t this important enough to try? Is this something you’d ever turn your attention to?

Elon: The thing is that all the geneticists have agreed not to reprogram human DNA. So you have to fight not a technical battle but a moral battle.

Me: You’re fighting a lot of battles. You could set up your own thing. The geneticists who are interested—you bring them here. You create a laboratory, and you could change everything.

Elon: You know, I call it the Hitler Problem. Hitler was all about creating the Übermensch and genetic purity, and it’s like—how do you avoid the Hitler Problem? I don’t know.

Me: I think there’s a way. You’ve said before about Henry Ford that he always just found a way around any obstacle, and you do the same thing, you always find a way. And I just think that that’s as important and ambitious a mission as your other things, and I think it’s worth fighting for a way, somehow, around moral issues, around other things.

Elon: I mean I do think there’s…in order to fundamentally solve a lot of these issues, we are going to have to reprogram our DNA. That’s the only way to do it.

Me: And deep down, DNA is just a physical material.

Elon: [Nods, then pauses as he looks over my shoulder in a daze] It’s software.»

— Tim Urban. I had a two-hour lunch with Elon Musk at the SpaceX factory, and it was just as surreal as you'd expect. Business Insider. May 11, 2015.
businessinsider.com/my-visit-with-elon-musk-at-spacex-2015-5 
_______ 

Related read:

• James L. Walker (Tak Kak). Stirner on Justice. Liberty (March 26, 1887) vol. 4 (18) (whole no. 96) p. 7 [document 603]
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2390 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2797 

URL G+ post of related read: 
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/g2qESrakXCR 
_______ 

H/T: +Gerd Moe-Behrens
URL source G+ post: 
plus.google.com/+LeukipposInstitute/posts/P8yXew94kFG 
________________ 
4
1
Jim Richardson's profile photoAlan Light's profile photoOwen Welling's profile photoTyler Durden's profile photo
3 comments
 
Don't initiate agression?
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
The 'White Feather Girls': women's militarism in the UK
By Nicoletta F. Gullace (Open Democracy). June 30, 2014
opendemocracy.net/5050/nicoletta-f-gullace/white-feather-girls-womens-militarism-in-uk 

Comment 1:
White Feather Cunts, working for the Establishment since 1914:

Excerpt:

«In 1914 and '15, notorious bands of women roamed the cities of England giving white feathers of cowardice to men wearing civilian clothes. Why would so-called 'white feather girls' wish to humiliate men not in uniform? This question has puzzled feminists for 100 years, since the first feathers of World War I  were pinned to the lapels and hatbands of young men by disdainful flappers wishing them to enlist in the army. The 'White Feather Brigade'  was established in Folkstone by Admiral Charles Penrose Fitzgerald, an ardent war-supporter who wished to see Britain institute mandatory military service. His idea spread through the country with astonishing rapidity. As young women combed beaches, high streets, trams, theaters, and places of resort, pinning tiny white feathers  to men casually strolling or socializing with their friends, they sent shock waves through society.  Not only were those men pinned with the mocking 'Order of the White Feather'  profoundly humiliated, but commentators began to decry the immodesty of forward young women who had the audacity to insult perfect strangers and tell men what to do. Remarkably, the recollections of male victims suggest that they continued to feel this stain upon their honor well into old age. Why would women use their sexual power to shame men into the army when their pacifist sisters were meeting, organizing, and in 1915, braving great danger to travel to The Hague, with precisely the opposite aim: to stop the war?»

«Yet, in 1915, the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies (NUWSS) – Britain’s largest suffrage organization – expelled its pacifist members as Millicent Fawcett  admonished her followers to 'show ourselves worthy of citizenship, whether our claim to it be recognized or not.'  Meanwhile, the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) turned itself into a junta of pro-war militants, distinguished by an enthusiasm for war that rivalled the radical right. Indeed, the confluence between the ideology of the WSPU and the actions of the white feather girls was so striking that Christabel Pankhurst’s pacifist sister, Sylvia, even surmised that the two groups were one and the same. While the extraordinary war enthusiasm of both the WSPU and the white feather girls has made them objects of peculiar, and often horrified, curiosity, uncovering the sources of their radical nationalism offers insight into the pro-war sentiments of many more moderate women who, during World War I, repudiated the pacifist cause.»

«Like news of mass rape in Darfur, Taliban femicide, or the kidnapping of Nigerian School girls, the 'Rape of Belgium' brought forth evocative images of women in danger and electrified world opinion in favor of a war with complex causes that were difficult for feminists to oppose.

As pacifism grew in power after the war, atrocity stories were increasingly cast into doubt. If accounts of German 'barbarism' had little basis in reality, the slaughter of millions of idealistic young men appeared catastrophic and senseless. While new scholarship suggests that the Germans terrorized invaded populations and precipitated a refugee crisis of enormous magnitude, the invention of 'propaganda' as a sociological concept in the 1930s nevertheless fostered the growing reputation of World War I as a futile waste of life.  If we consider that the feminist militarists of World War I believed what they read in the press, and that more of it was true than we once believed, their nationalism becomes more comprehensible. For many feminists who supported the Government war effort, the enemy was not the British military state, but the militarized masculinity of a rapacious German Army.»

— Nicoletta F. Gullace. The 'White Feather Girls': women's militarism in the UK. Open Democracy. June 30, 2014.
opendemocracy.net/5050/nicoletta-f-gullace/white-feather-girls-womens-militarism-in-uk

Further reading: 

• Nicoletta F. Gullace. White Feathers and Wounded Men: Female Patriotism and the Memory of the Great War. Journal of British Studies Vol. 36, No. 2, Twentieth-Century British Studies (Apr., 1997), pp. 178-206
jstor.org/stable/176011?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

• Robin Mac Donald. "White Feather" Feminism: The Recalcitrant Progeny of Radical Suffragistand Conservative Pro-War Britain.
itech.fgcu.edu/&/issues/vol1/issue1/feather.htm

Encyclopedia - White Feathers. FirstWorldWar.com.
firstworldwar.com/atoz/whitefeathers.htm

White feather. Wikipedia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather


Comment 2:
This is on account to the comments depicting libertarians as "beta males" (or even "omega", clearly some folks don't know what they're talking about[1]), socially awkward, unable to get sex or to engage in a relationship:

• Jeet Heer (senior editor). Why Are Libertarians Mostly Dudes? Rand Paul is polling terribly among women. His political philosophy might be to blame. The New Republic. June 5, 2015.
newrepublic.com/article/121974/cnn-poll-rand-paul-not-popular-republican-women 

The use of sex-shaming, as with sexual blackmail, is probably an old recourse to manipulate males, particularly effective when aimed at naive adolescents and young adults.

1:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_(ethology) 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_A_and_Type_B_personality_theory 
The suffrage movement was split by the Great War. Most often remembered are the pacifists. But the militant history of feminist war supporters in Britain, and the audacity of the 'White Feather Girls' who shamed young men into enlisting, must also be remembered in this centenary year
1
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
5,441 people
Kateryna Artyushkova's profile photo
Karleen Kinsey's profile photo
Fred J. Bonilla's profile photo
ABC Television Network's profile photo
Matt Clayton's profile photo
Sheri Canfield's profile photo
Peter Feltham's profile photo
Richard Banghart's profile photo
Corazon Farris's profile photo
 
Comment deleted from Atheism community:

Zephyr López Cervilla Jul 5, 2015 7:43 PM [UTC]
+Jesse Powell: "I can see replacing the word "Science" with "Reason" or "Humanism", but "Modern Religion"?"

— You seem ill informed. Humanism is a religion, you just have to read their manifestos and declaration:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto#Humanist_Manifesto_II 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_Declaration 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism#Manifestos_and_declarations 

They don't even refrain from proselytising. On the contrary, they encourage it: 

«I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool, daycare, or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent with its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of “love thy neighbor” will finally be achieved.»

— John J. Dunphy. A Religion for a New Age. The Humanist. January-February 1983
secularhumanism.org/index.php/articles/3452 


+Jesse Powell: «"Modern Religion" is an oxymoron in my opinion.»

— In such case you must ignore the meaning of oxymoron:

oxymoron
«a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g., faith unfaithful kept him falsely true ).»
google.com/search?q=define+oxymoron 


+Jesse Powell: "your comment implied that the image on the left (a woman astronaut) was a natural outcome of modern religion"

— That's right. The image of Statist religion. Certainly not an image representative to science. The Manned Space Program has little to do with real science. This situation has been denounced by a few honest scientists (as opposed to mercenaries) who have dared to speak out, "sacred cows" who may not fear as much the possible retaliations such as Steven Weinberg:

«"The International Space Station is an orbital turkey," said Steven Weinberg, a particle physicist at the University of Texas at Austin and a co-recipient of the 1979 Nobel Prize in physics. "No important science has come out of it. I could almost say no science has come out of it. And I would go beyond that and say that the whole manned spaceflight program, which is so enormously expensive, has produced nothing of scientific value." »

« "Human beings don't serve any useful function in space," Weinberg told SPACE.com. "They radiate heat, they're very expensive to keep alive and unlike robotic missions, they have a natural desire to come back, so that anything involving human beings is enormously expensive."»

«"All the others have been put on the back burner," Weinberg said. "This is at the same time that NASA's budget is increasing, with the increase being driven by what I see on the part of the president and the administrators of NASA as an infantile fixation on putting people into space, which has little or no scientific value." »

— Ker Than. Nobel Laureate Disses NASA's Manned Spaceflight. Space.com. September 18, 2007
space.com/4357-nobel-laureate-disses-nasa-manned-spaceflight.html 


«Sam Dinkin, The Space Review (TSR): You called the International Space Station (ISS) an “orbital turkey” and got the media’s attention. Do you think it’s a turkey shoot to pick on the ISS because they didn’t really even schedule any science for the first couple of decades of the project?

Professor Steven Weinberg: Yes, I think the ISS is just one example of NASA’s ridiculous overemphasis on manned spaceflight. It may originally have been intended to serve as a platform for going on to the Moon and Mars, but then the orbit was changed to make it accessible to Russian rockets. As a result it doesn’t even have that. There have been continual efforts to justify it in terms of science done on the ISS. It’s hard for any one scientist to judge work across a range of fields. I can say that in my own field, which is fundamental physics and astronomy, especially cosmology, it has produced nothing. I would have heard.»

— Sam Dinkin. An interview with Steven Weinberg. The Space Review. January 14, 2008
thespacereview.com/article/1037/1 

«Space-based astronomy has a special problem in the US. NASA, the government agency responsible for this work, has always devoted more of its resources to manned space flight, which contributes little to science. All of the space-based observatories that have contributed so much to astronomy in recent years have been unmanned. The International Space Station was sold in part as a scientific laboratory, but nothing of scientific importance has come from it. Last year a cosmic ray observatory was carried up to the Space Station (after NASA had tried to remove it from the schedule for shuttle flights), and for the first time significant science may be done on the Space Station, but astronauts will have no part in its operation, and it could have been developed more cheaply as an unmanned satellite. »

— Steven Weinberg. The Crisis of Big Science. The New York Review of Books. May 10, 2012
nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/may/10/crisis-big-science 


The notion of the State as a god, and therefore, Statism, the worship and veneration of god the State, as a religion, is nothing new. That view was already advanced in the 17th century by Thomas Hobbes, already in the Modern era:

«But today, I want to talk about sovereignty. There are two great concepts that come out of Hobbes that you have to remember. One is the state of nature and the other is sovereignty. I spoke a bit about the first one yesterday or Monday rather. Today, I want to talk about Hobbes's theory of the sovereign state, the creation of the sovereign. Hobbes refers to the sovereign as a mortal god, as his answer to the problems of the state of nature, the state, the condition of life being solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. And it is only the creation of the sovereign for Hobbes, endowed or possessed with absolute power, that is sufficient to put an end to the condition of perpetual uncertainty, anxiety and unrest that is the case of the natural condition. »

— Steven Smith. The Sovereign State: Hobbes, Leviathan [October 25, 2006] Chapter 1. Introduction: Hobbes's Theory of Sovereignty. PLSC-114: Introduction to Political Philosophy. Open Yale Courses
oyc.yale.edu/transcript/789/plsc-114 

«In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.»

— Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan. (1651-1668)
bartleby.com/34/5/13.html 
__________________ 

Excerpt from previous comments:

Zephyr López Cervilla Jul 5, 2015 5:34 PM [UTC]
Modern Religion vs. Medieval Religion
________ 

Jesse Powell Jul 5, 2015 5:46 PM [UTC] +1
lol. "modern religion"
________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jul 5, 2015 6:05 PM [UTC]
"Modern" from the modern period: 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_history 
________ 

Jesse Powell Jul 5, 2015 6:24 PM [UTC] +1
+Zephyr López Cervilla your comment implied that the image on the left (a woman astronaut) was a natural outcome of modern religion vis-a-vis medieval religion which produces women in burkas. 

That seems nonsensical to me. I can see replacing the word "Science" with "Reason" or "Humanism", but "Modern Religion"? Not really. Not to mention, there seem to be no end of religious people in my country (USA) who seem bound and determined to undermine science, women, freedom, and drag us back to the middle ages.

"Modern Religion" is an oxymoron in my opinion.
________ 

brian james Jul 5, 2015 6:54 PM [UTC]
+Jesse Powell Modern Religion is not really a oxymoron but just the newest version of an old story. 
________ 

Jesse Powell Jul 5, 2015 8:42 PM [UTC]
+Atavistic By Nature did you happen to delete my last comment in reply to +Zephyr López Cervilla ? I mean the one where I define humanism. If so, I find that troublesome.
________ 

URL source G+ post: 
plus.google.com/+IntensitaliansDick/posts/UZMZMSe8AZJ 
__________________ 

URL Atheism community:
plus.google.com/communities/113720470105476954465 

About this community
Place to share anything and everything about Atheism.
This community will be moderated lightly and it is public.
In the interests of encouraging discussion, please do not disable comments on your posts here.
This is NOT a place to come if you are religious. We do not want to be 'saved' and are not interested in debate with you. There are other communities which encourage and want debate.
If you need privacy try our private community.
Posts by pages will be limited there.

Old pinned post on current moderation policy
plus.google.com/+AdrianTodd/posts/UsQ3JJ1BD1t 
__________________ 
33
2
Abe The Egyptian Pharaoh's profile photoRoss Bagley's profile photoLisa Short's profile photoMaksymilian Misiurski's profile photo
9 comments
 
+Abe The Egyptian Pharaoh sure it's a "personal choice". For a woman raised in those countries, she can either wear the burka or hijab or she can be arrested, tortured, and possibly killed.

Absolutely her choice!
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
The McNugget Conundrum
I want to write about Chicken McNuggets. When I added a fast food component to my business, I wondered about seemingly strange Chicken McNugget pricing.
5 comments on original post
3
1
arromazam pepe's profile photoAlex Kambas's profile photo
 
I did ask myself the same question, and my satisfying answer (to myself, that is) was that people will get the 20 pieces option for 2 people that will be under the impression that one of them will be getting their nuggets for free, when in reality they will be buying a second portion of fries and drink that will be lost to M for a single person dinner.
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
Anarchist "Gospel"

«Their attitude on this is a key to their attitude on all other questions of a political or social nature. In religion they are atheistic as far as their own opinions are concerned, for they look upon divine authority and the religious sanction of morality as the chief pretexts put forward by the privileged classes for the exercise of human authority. "If God exists," said Proudhon, "he is man’s enemy." And in contrast to Voltaire’s famous epigram, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him," the great Russian Nihilist, Mikhail Bakunin, placed this antithetical proposition: "If God existed, it would be necessary to abolish him." But although, viewing the divine hierarchy as a contradiction of Anarchy, they do not believe in it, the Anarchists none the less firmly believe in the liberty to believe in it. Any denial of religious freedom they squarely oppose.»

— Benjamin Tucker. State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, And Wherein They Differ. Liberty (March 10, 1888) vol. 5 (16) (whole no. 120) pp. 2, 3, 6 [documents 790, 791, 794]
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/state-socialism-and-anarchism 
(p. 14)
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n33/mode/2up 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2821 


«Now comes the question proper : What relations should exist between the State and the individual? The general method of determining these is to apply some theory of ethics involving a basis of moral obligation. In this method the Anarchists have no confidence. The idea of moral obligation, of inherent rights and duties, they totally discard. They look upon all obligations, not as moral, but as social, and even then not really as obligations except as these have been consciously and voluntarily assumed. If a man makes an agreement with men, the latter may combine to hold him to his agreement; but, in the absence of such agreement, no man, so far as the Anarchists are aware, has made any agreement with God or with any other power of any order whatsoever. The Anarchists are not only utilitarians, but egoists in the farthest and fullest sense. So far as inherent right is concerned, might is its only measure.»

— Benjamin R. Tucker. Relation of the State to the Individual. Liberty (November 15, 1890) vol. 7 (15) (whole no. 171) pp. 5-7 [document no. 1197-1199]
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/relation-of-the-state-to-the-individual 
(pp. 23-24)
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n41/mode/2up 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2866 


«The child comes into an unknown world. His blinking eyes cannot decide which is nearer, the lighted taper on the table or the moon seen through the window. He does not know that a Riverside orange is larger than the palm of his tiny hand until he has learned the truth by repeated efforts to grasp it. He has all things to learn: ideas of dimension, weight, heat, moisture, density, resistance, gravitation,—all things in their interrelations and their relations to himself. And what bungling assistance he receives in the bewildering path through this tangle of truth!

He learns that God sends the rain, the hail, and the snow down from the sky; that his little sister was brought from heaven by an angel and deposited in a doctor’s pill-bags. The tie of relationship between her and himself remains a mystery. Anthropomorphism lurks everywhere. The unseen hand moves all things. He asks many questions which his teachers cannot answer, and, unwilling to confess their ignorance, they constantly reiterate: God did it, as if that were an answer.

Turning from unsuccessful inquiries concerning natural phenomena, perhaps the child perceives, in a dim way, his relations with the State, and, as God posed before him in the realm of philosophy and science, so do all replies to his questionings now end in omnipotent government.

Why does no one prevent the man with a star from clubbing the other man?

Because he is a policeman.

Who said that a policeman might strike people?

The government.

What is the government?

The government is —— my son, you will learn when you are older.

Who pays the policeman for clubbing the other man?

The government.

Where does the government get the money?

You will learn when you are older.

Usually at the age of six years, or even earlier, a child’s education is practically abandoned by its inefficient parents and intrusted to the church and the State.

The State uses money robbed from the parents to perpetuate its powers of robbery by instructing their children in its own interest.

The church, also, uses its power to perpetuate its power. And to these twin leeches, as Ouida has aptly designated them, to these self-interested robbers and murderers, are the tender minds of babies entrusted for education. »

— Clara Dixon Davidson. Relations Between Parents and Children. Liberty (September 3, 1892) vol. 9 no. 1 (whole no. 235) pp. 2-4 [documents 1522-1524]
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/relations-between-parents-and-children
(pp. 139-140)
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n157/mode/2up 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2922 


«If the present adherence to gold were anything but a religion, there would be some ground for Comrade Koopman’s fears. But, so far as the people is concerned, it is only a religion. To uproot the idea that gold is divinely appointed to serve as the money of the world is to destroy the godhead. In vain, after that, will the priests of plutocracy propose a change of deities. The people will say to them: "If you lied when you told us that gold was God, you are lying now when you place platinum on the celestial throne. No more idolatry for us! Henceforth all property shall stand on equality before the Bank. In demonetizing gold we monetize all wealth." The Anarchists are fighting the old, old battle,—the battle of reason against superstition. In the earlier phases of this battle, science, after a time, re-enforced the philosophers and gave the finishing stroke in the demolition of the theological god. Perhaps it is reserved for science to similarly re-enforce the Anarchists in their task of smashing the last of the idols. Of this, however, I am not as hopeful as I was. A fact has lately come to light that fills me with misgiving. No sooner is it proposed to begin the extraction of gold and silver from the ocean by the new and cheap method than a man pops up in England to say that he patented this method a year or two ago. If his patent is valid (and I see nothing to the contrary), this man is virtual owner of the entire 21 billion tons of gold and 64 billion tons of silver which the ocean contains. All finance must kneel to him as Pope. "Nearest, my God, to Thee," will be his hymn henceforth, or rather till some luckier individual shall discover a still cheaper way of securing the ocean’s treasures and thereby become Pope in his stead. This one perfectly logical and appalling possibility ought to be sufficient in itself to sweep away as so much cobweb all the sophistry that has ever been devised in support of property in ideas. Gold, after all, is not the last of the idols; in mental property it has a twin. And my remaining hope is that science, with its new discovery, may do double duty as an iconoclast, and destroy them both at one fell stroke. »

— Benjamin R. Tucker. Economic Superstition. Liberty (August 13, 1892) vol. 8 (51) (whole no. 233) p. 1 [document no. 1513]
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/economic-superstition 
(pp. 260-261)
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n279/mode/2up 
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2920 


«General Butler’s long-expected letter [in acceptance of the nomination for the presidency given him by the labor party] is out at last. The question now is how many it will hoodwink. Among these at least will not be Liberty. Would that as much could be asserted of all who think they believe in Liberty. But the political habit is a clinging one; the fascinations of political warfare seldom altogether lose their charm over those who have once been under its influence; traces of faith in its efficacy still linger in the minds of those who suppose themselves emancipated; the old majority superstition yet taints the reformer’s blood, and, in face of the evils that threaten society’s life, he appeals to its saving grace with the same curious mixture of doubt and confidence that sometimes leads a wavering and timorous Infidel, when brought face to face with the fancied terrors of death, to re-embrace the theological superstition from which his good sense has once revolted and to declare his belief on the Lord Jesus, lest, as one of them is said to have profanely put it, "there may be, after all, a God, or a Christ, or a Hell, or some damned thing or other." To such as these, then, Butler will look for some of his strength, and not be disappointed.»

— Benjamin R. Tucker. Labor's New Fetich. Liberty (August 23, 1884) vol. 2 (23) (whole no. 49) p. 4 [document no. 236]
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/labors-new-fetich 
(p. 424)
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n443/mode/2up 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2749 


«(1) A society negating all authority would differ from a society affirming the authority of Christ very much as white differs from black. Self-government is incompatible with government by the law, "thou shalt love the Lord thy God," for the reason that this law implies the existence of God, and God and Man are enemies. God, to be God, must be a governing power. His government cannot be administered directly by the individual, for the individual, and through the individual: if it could, it would at once obliterate individuality altogether. Hence the government of God, if administered at all, must be administered through his professed viceregents on earth, the dignitaries of Church and State. How this hierarchy differs from Anarchy is needless to point out. »

«(3) Because the great majority of the men whose hearts are filled with the "desire to change the present condition of things for a better one" are afflicted with an obscurity of mental vision which renders them incapable of distinguishing between advance and retrogression. Professing an aspiration for entire individual freedom, they aim to effect it by enlarging the sphere of government and restricting and restraining the individual through all sorts of new oppressions. No clear-sighted Anarchist can march with such an army. The farther he should go with it, the farther would he be from his goal, and, instead of having "less to do," he would have more to do and more to undo. Whenever Liberty hears of any demand for a real increase in freedom, it is prompt to encourage and sustain it, no matter what its source. It marches with any wing of the army of freedom as far as that wing will go. But it sternly refuses to right about face. Liberty hates Catholicism and loves Free Thought; but, when it finds Catholicism advocating and Free Thought opposing the principle of voluntaryism in education, it sustains Catholicism against Free Thought. Likewise, when it finds Liberals and Socialists of all varieties favoring eight-hour laws, government monopoly of money, land nationalization, protection, prohibition, race proscription, State administration of railways, telegraphs, mines, and factories, woman suffrage, man suffrage, common schools, marriage laws, and compulsory taxation, it brands them one and all as false to the principle of freedom, refuses to follow them in their retrogressive course, and keeps its own eyes and steps carefully towards the front. It knows that the only way to achieve freedom is to begin to take it.»

— Benjamin R. Tucker. Anarchy Necessarily Atheistic. Liberty (January 9, 1886) vol. 3 (21) (whole no. 79) p. 4 [document no. 418]
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/anarchy-necessarily-atheistic 
(pp. 464-465)
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n483/mode/2up 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2774 

URL source G+ post: 
plus.google.com/+Thefreethoughtprojectcom/posts/X47bTqRSfT4 
“Liberty 8 no. 51 (August 13, 1892),” The Libertarian Labyrinth, accessed June 21, 2015, http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2920. Document Viewer. Transcribe This Item. 08-51.pdf · ← Previous Item · Next Item → · Browse Items · Collections · Exhibits · Wiki · Blog/Hub ...
2
Zephyr López Cervilla's profile photoLiam Phoenix's profile photo
2 comments
 
Marking this massive text wall to read when I have the chance.
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
salon.com - Debunking “unfair advantage” myths about trans athletes
Why attack arguments like "higher testosterone levels" and "greater bone density" are simply wrong
By Heather Hargreaves (Salon and Outsports). June 30, 2013
This article originally appeared on Outsports.
salon.com/2013/06/30/debunking_unfair_advantage_myths_about_trans_athletes_partner 

Further reding:

• Fallon Fox. Fallon Fox responds to Joe Rogan and Ronda Rousey's claims of 'unfair advantages' in women's MMA. Bloody Elbow. November 11, 2014.
bloodyelbow.com/2014/11/11/7192703/fallon-fox-responds-to-joe-rogan-and-ronda-rouseys-claims-of-unfair 

• Sean Gregory. Should A Former Man Be Able To Fight Women? Transgender fighter Fallon Fox is sparking a debate in MMA. Time. May 24, 2013.
keepingscore.blogs.time.com/2013/05/24/should-a-former-man-be-able-to-fight-women 


Excerpt from comments of related G+ post:

Travis Harrell Jun 12, 2015 3:39 PM
Fox hasn't beat anyone with a winning record.   Why the hate?
_______ 

Milo Nickels Jun 12, 2015 3:57 AM
Jut because "she" sucks as a fighter doesn't doesn't mean anything.  "She's" setting a precedent where a Mike Tyson can say, "gee...I've always believed myself to be the wrong gender so I'm a woman now".
_______ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 12, 2015 4:43 AM
+Milo Nickels: «"She's" setting a precedent where a Mike Tyson can say, "gee...I've always believed myself to be the wrong gender so I'm a woman now".»

— If Tyson were subject to the kind of surgery and hormonal treatment he would be more than welcomed:

«Science seems to be on Fox’s side.  *“Male to female transsexuals have significantly less muscle strength and bone density, and higher fat mass, than males,”* says Dr. Eric Vilain, director of the Institute For Society And Genetics at UCLA. Vilain examined Fox’s medical records and wrote a letter supporting her bid to fight as a woman. He also helped the Association of Boxing Commissions write its transgender policy. In order to fight against women, male-to-female athletes who had surgery after puberty must show that “surgical anatomical changes have been completed, including external genitalia and gonadectomy” and that “hormone therapy appropriate for the assigned sex (female) has been administered by a board certified endocrinologist or internist, pediatrician, or D.O. or any other specialist known to have significant knowledge with transsexuals and transgender individuals for a MINIMUM of TWO YEARS after gonadectomy. This is the current understanding of the minimum amount of time necessary to obviate male hormone gender related advantages in sports competition.”

Still, could Fox be stronger than the other women because she used to be a man? “She could be,” says Vilain. “But sports is made up of competitors who, by definition, have advantages for all kinds of genetics reasons. And no one complains about it.” A woman runner may be naturally faster, a woman basketball player taller, than her cohort. To exclude Fox because of her surgery, Vilain argues, would be discriminatory.

Plus, Fox’s low testosterone could offset any advantage. Since Fox has neither testicles nor ovaries, which both produce testosterone, her levels are likely lower than those of her female competitors. »

— Sean Gregory. Should A Former Man Be Able To Fight Women? Transgender fighter Fallon Fox is sparking a debate in MMA. Time. May 24, 2013.
keepingscore.blogs.time.com/2013/05/24/should-a-former-man-be-able-to-fight-women 


«In this, the second instalment of the Joe Rogan VS Fallon Fox series, I go over some of the claims of unfair advantage that Joe Rogan and friends (and Ronda Rousey) have put into the MMA consciousness.»

«What I find is a focal point of the video and Joe Rogan's argument are claims of what is happening with my bones. My bones have been an issue with him since I came out. Just the other day Joe Rogan said in a tweet, "It's biased because it's not supported by medical facts or science. Adding estrogen actually preserves bone density" This he tweeted in response to a Vice Sports article about the history of transgender athletes in sports. The article also pointed out what the author believed as an argument from Joe which was not based in actual science.

Yes, Joe is correct (in a way) about estrogen and bone density. If transgender women do not take estrogen they will likely get osteoporosis, which is the weakening of the bones. Estrogen does help fight bone loss in this way. However, (and this is a gigantic however) It is important to realize that:

A - Testosterone helps make bones more dense and healthy.

B - Estrogen helps make bones more dense and healthy.

They both do this...

Massive amounts of testosterone will make ones bones a little more dense than massive amounts of estrogen. If testosterone is drastically starved, and massive amounts of estrogen are introduced, the bones will lose the density that testosterone allows. Then, the bones will weaken to the level that massive amounts of estrogen will allow. When people say that "estrogen" causes bone density changes, this is what they mean. It's a fairly simple concept. I don't know why Joe Rogan fails to understand it, if that's what is happening. Doctors get it (at least the informed ones that are not crack pots), commissions get it, other sports get it. But, Joe Rogan? It appears that he does not.

And why bring bone density up in the first place? In my opinion what I see is him alluding to bone density being a factor as seen in the attached video. Then, later, he said that bone density decreases. But, all of this bone density stuff is irrelevant. Because, as Joe Rogan may not have known before he stated, "the operation doesn't shave down your bone density" - and before Ronda Rousey went on her inside MMA rant on the dangers of bone density - there were black women who were fighting in MMA.

Yes, you read that right, I said black women. The reason why I bring this up is because black women on the average have the same bone density as white men. At the bottom of the list in bone density are Asians. They happen to fall way down there. This can easily be Googled. I dare either Joe Rogan or Ronda Rousey to express the opinion publicly that black women should be segregated in a fighting class of their own because of their bone density. Perhaps they would if it were socially acceptable to do so for entertainment value, or to keep a black opponent away because of fear of a potential loss, I don't know.»

«I'm not sure if Joe Rogan, Ronda Rousey, and others thought to actually research before they opened their mouths on this subject, or if they knew in advance and decided to say it anyway to muddy the water. Doctors on commissions have known all of this for years. And bone density has been no issue in fighting. Have you ever heard of anyone talking about bone density in any sport as a competitive advantage? I highly doubt it. But, when I came around, this mysterious bone density argument appeared out of thin air. Many were so blinded by assumptions that they just believed it.

So, bone density is now thrown out the window. Let's talk bone structure. Joe Rogan claims that the mechanics of my "male frame" gives me a huge advantage. Yet, to my knowledge he has not explained how this is supposed to work. I'd like a very detailed and medically verified explanation of this. I'd like to know how the "male frame" can produce the massive "punching power" he speaks of without male muscle mass behind it. Joe could say that my long hair, or anything else that he could make up gives me a huge advantage. But, him simply stating that as a thing that "just is" would not make it so. This all sounds to me like an extremely uneducated hunch. Just look at his track record on this subject.

I have never heard that, 'the male frame - without the aid of muscles heavily influenced by "testosterone," gives someone the ability to hit harder than the next.' I'm asking where he is he getting his information from. Is this another claim that he must back down from in the end? 'Transgender bone structure mechanics' is all that he's left with now. In my opinion, from what I've seen and heard, and what I highlight in the video, is that he started off with bone density, muscle strength, hand size, and bone mechanics. Now it appears he is back pedalling to the reality that bone density actually does decrease, and that muscle mass decreases. I haven't heard much from him about my particular hand size after I released a video on my social media comparing my hand size to another female fighter. It seems that Rogan is clinging to that bone mechanics argument tooth and nail.

Of course, bone mechanics advantages are never brought up except for in my case. I feel Joe Rogan is presenting a positive claim. He is saying that I have an advantage that, to my knowledge, medical authorities, commissions and others in the know have never seen. Do commissions and medical authorities have evidence of the "male frame" being able to generate far higher amounts of force VS the "female frame?" I don't think so.

It sounds like Joe is making that up, or that he heard or (yet again) read it somewhere from someone who is not a medical authority on this particular subject. It sounds like Joe is making a positive claim...A positive claim that he needs to back up since he is asserting what I believe to be utter nonsense.

Are we starting to understand more why I was licensed? Are we starting to see behind the curtain and notice how those older arguments Joe Rogan, Ronda Rousey, and others evolved from multiple claims of advantages down to one - bone mechanics? Is this starting to look like people with knee jerk reactions who could have taken the time to dig and get correct information, but did not? That now may be face saving time for them all because they likely just can't admit they were wrong. That because I am a transgender woman they may feel that they can get away with it because of the transphobia that exists in the world.

Being considered popular or a celebrity doesn't make one correct, or an honest human being that values truth. Being a Jiu Jitsu black belt does not make one correct, or an honest human being that values truth. And truth is not measured by opinions of those who guess things. Truth is measured by evidence.

It is my opinion that Joe Rogan and friends have been severely lacking in evidence for their positive claims. And, on this last one, I'd like to see whatever evidence he may have in detail. And I'd like to know to what degree he considers this "MASSIVE" bone mechanics advantage if any. Please, no more unnecessary assumptions.»

— Fallon Fox. Fallon Fox responds to Joe Rogan and Ronda Rousey's claims of 'unfair advantages' in women's MMA. Bloody Elbow. November 11, 2014.
bloodyelbow.com/2014/11/11/7192703/fallon-fox-responds-to-joe-rogan-and-ronda-rouseys-claims-of-unfair 

PS: You see, Joe Rogan is full of it/shit.
_______ 

Milo Nickels Jun 12, 2015 5:23 AM
Yeah... I'm gonna read all that. I made this picture, so I probably don't care that much about what he had to say.

Let me make it simple. He believes he's a real woman. I don't believe men can turn into women. End of story. 
_______ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 12, 2015 6:07 AM
+Milo Nickels: "I don't believe men can turn into women."

— This is not a matter of belief. What evidence do you have that they can't? Or perhaps do you believe that there's something magic about being a man or a woman, unrelated to their biology (basically the effect of sex hormones)?

On the other hand, the only reason that men and women don't compete together in sports in the anti-gender-discrimination society of today is supposed to be based on clear differences in physical strength between genders.

Is perhaps Fox much stronger than her female competitors? I just watched one of Fox' fights and failed to notice any overwhelming difference in physical strength that allowed Fox to dominate the fight:

Female MMA Fighting Fallon Fox vs Ashlee Evans Smith
youtube.com/watch?v=LU7FMgQjCNw (18 min)

Without such advantage I find no rational reason to oppose transgender women competing against other women.
_______ 

Milo Nickels Jun 12, 2015 6:17 AM
You want evidence? Exhibit A: y-chromosomes. If Fallon Fox committed a crime and left DNA behind, would the police be looking for a man or a woman?
_______ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 12, 2015 6:36 AM
+Milo Nickels: "Exhibit A: y-chromosomes. If Fallon Fox committed a crime and left DNA behind, would the police be looking for a man or a woman?"

— The Y chromosome is not what makes a man biologically a male. Likewise, its absence, and the presence of two X chromosomes is not what makes a woman a female.

And since when "the police" are an authoritative source of information for scientific questions? :

• Ed Pilkington. Thirty years in jail for a single hair: the FBI's 'mass disaster' of false conviction. The Guardian. April 21, 2015.
theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/21/fbi-jail-hair-mass-disaster-false-conviction 
"A ‘dirty bomb’ of pseudo-science wrapped up nearly 268 cases – perhaps hundreds more. Now begins the ‘herculean effort to right the wrongs’"

There are numerous cases in which this relation is reversed, and I'm not talking about transgender cases of individuals who have undergone some surgical procedure and hormonal replacement:

There are a variety of different conditions that can lead to sex reversal with different secondary effects. In the following book there's a description of them. Unfortunately, the tables with the different abnormalities, the genes involved and the phenotype aren't visible here, only the text:

• Nusbaum RL et al. Thomson & Thomson. Genetics in Medicine. 7th Edition. Saunders Elsevier, 2007.
books.google.com/books?id=tvYcnOwX4W4C&pg=PA347 

What primary determines the development of a male in humans is the expression of a gene named SRY (sex-determining region Y) commonly located in the Y chromosome, that codifies a protein named testis-determining factor (or SRY protein): 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testis_determining_factor 

If for some reason this gene can't initiate the male sex determination program

(e.g., because it is absent from chromosome Y a a result of a translocation after pseudo-homologous recombination of chromosome Y and X, because it's mutated and can't be transcribed, or the resulting protein is non-functional),

or there's a loss of function of any of the other essential genes for male sex determination due to mutation or deletion, the individual will develop as a female.

There seems to be a particular gain-of-function mutation that can reverse the sex of a chromosomic female XX to male in the absence of the gene SRY. This gain of function is caused by the duplication of a particular gene, SOX9 (located at 17q24):

"duplication of SOX9 has been reported to lead to XX sex reversal, suggesting that overproduction of SOX9 in the absence of SRY, can initiate testis formation."

Conversely, 

"In the absence of one copy of the SOX9 gene, testes fail to form, and the default ovarian pathway is followed."

Whether these individuals with an extra SOX9 copy are fertile, isn't mentioned. As for those XY with only copy, they suffer camptomelic dysplasia:

ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/campomelic-dysplasia 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campomelic_dysplasia 

So most likely they aren't fertile since it also affects the reproductive system.
_______ 

Milo Nickels Jun 12, 2015 6:43 AM
Why can I make my arguments in short little quips, and you feel the need to write novels. Let it go, Queen Elsa... 
_______ 

Milo Nickels Jun 12, 2015 6:50 AM
Here's an observation I've made throughout the years.  When people try to argue against common sense they tend to be extremely wordy.  Common sense can be summed up pretty quickly and efficiently.
_______ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 12, 2015 6:59 AM
+Milo Nickels: "When people try to argue against common sense they tend to be extremely wordy.  Common sense can be summed up pretty quickly and efficiently."

— "Common sense" is quite often wrong. For instance, for decades scientists believed that the genetic information that is transmitted from one generation to the next had to be encoded in proteins (as opposed to nucleic acids, DNA and RNA) since the structure and composition of proteins are much more complex than those of nucleic acids. It was a simple matter a common sense. Well, they were dead wrong.
_______ 

Milo Nickels Jun 12, 2015 7:06 AM
Let me just ask you 3 simple questions:
A) do you believe that a biological male can turn into a woman? 
B) are you straight? 
C) if you are straight, would you knowingly have sex with a woman who was born a man?
_______ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 12, 2015 7:23 AM
To summarise, my point is that what makes an individual to be male or female is not the presence or absence of a particular chromosome or gene in every (somatic) cell of their body. It's the sex hormones, primarily produced by the gonads (testes and ovaries) for the most time of the individual's life. Swap the gender-specific expression of those hormones and you may potentially revert the sex of the individual. Obviously the organs that have already grown (e.g., the genitals) won't disappear nor spontaneously turn into the organs of the other sex. Hence the reason why surgery is often required.

Here you are another article addressed to the general public that may help further clarify this issue:

• Heather Hargreaves. Debunking “unfair advantage” myths about trans athletes. Why attack arguments like "higher testosterone levels" and "greater bone density" are simply wrong. Salon. June 30, 2013.
salon.com/2013/06/30/debunking_unfair_advantage_myths_about_trans_athletes_partner 
_______ 

Milo Nickels Jun 12, 2015 7:32 AM
You still didn't answer my questions.  I'm "curious" (pun intended) as to your answers.
_______ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 12, 2015 7:55 AM
+Milo Nickels, I hadn't read it. Yes to A and B. Yes to C provided that I found that transgender woman sexually attractive. Obviously, she would have to have some sort of vagina, even if surgically constructed, in order to engage in a coitus.
I have no issue to even fuck a mare provided I am sexually attracted and it's safe.
_______ 

Milo Nickels Jun 12, 2015 8:19 AM
Interesting. I guess you really do believe that people can change genders. I couldn't do it, because I don't believe it. That's the great thing about being libertarian, I can accept that you believe it and not feel guilty because I don't. To each their own. 
_______ 

URL source comments of G+ post: 
plus.google.com/+MiloNickels/posts/M5FKWuzNhjx 
________________ 


« What I've learned from this debate

Is that folks seem very, very keen to parrot medical statements in an extremely lay way to reinforce their pre-existing issues with a transgender woman fighting (or being allowed to fight). I’m not an endocrinologist or a biologist, and my opinion is that because things like bone density, strength, durability and power vary greatly not only by sex but by age, weight, hormone levels, and do so to a huge degree among fighters in the same weight class of both sexes, how do we compare them accurately and in a fair way?

Given that these things vary and will never be equal, the question is – to me – how much are natural biological advantages being questioned when it comes to two cisgender men or women fighting each other, and why is this an issue when a transgender woman comes into the mix, when no real discernible advantage has even been proven to exist? Why are physical advantages from past steroid use not enough to completely deep six fighters who go up against "clean" fighters? Nobody has really come up with a good way to establish or quantify that these advantages exist, short of…what, running her through various tests like a lab rat? Do we stress test her bones? Stick her on Fight Science to compare her punching power or wrestling strength to cisgender fighters of both sexes? And even then do we compare her to her competition with losing records in the minor leagues, or do we compare her to women at the top of their game, like Rousey or Justino? I feel like a lot of peoples’ analysis of Fox’s advantages (whether real or imagined) come from "well, this is LOGICAL" surface arguments, and largely originate from people who have little to no experience discussing or even thinking about trans issues to begin with. Which is fine – it’s a real issue that we all have to face eventually – but people speak in absolutes when they have no idea what they’re on about, and I wish a lot of people approached the issue erring on the side of education or trepidation, rather than blathering on that Fox "used to be a MAN" and erase the issues that Fox has been through her whole life. Stupid shit that Rogan said – well, what about Fox having a kid! – is so ridiculous on a macro level that it’s not worth arguing against, because it’s obvious that Rogan won’t be swayed from his path. (Nevermind that gay men have historically married women and fathered children; nobody question their "gayness" or whatever, do they?)

The other thing that irritates me is that – and I’ve said this before – most of this comes off as (largely unintended) sexism. Women’s MMA has already faced a lot of "think of the women!" comments, even from guys like GSP, and a lot of men are already uncomfortable with women (especially feminine, pretty women) making their living being punched in the face, or reducing their appeal to how good their ass looks in their fight wear. When someone like Fox, who beats scrubs routinely, and does so decisively, everyone is quick to say, well it’s because she’s a man, baby. Dem advantages, woo. Have her opponents really suffered atrocious beatings that look like War Machine attacking Christy Mack? Uh, no. There are a lot of variables at that level of competition, IMO, but it’s not like women aren’t able to put massive beatings on each other when their skill level alone is completely out of whack. Cyborg utterly smashed the shit out of Jan Finney, Jessamyn Duke looked like she’d been beaten up by five women instead of one, Holly Holm has Cro Cop’d opponents into the afterlife, Ronda Rousey has broken more than one girl’s arm with relish, Cat Zingano made Miesha Tate look like Frank Mir after his spirited "conversation" with Brock Lesnar after UFC 100, and so on and so forth. Yet the biggest delineation has always been skill level – only when it comes to Fox, it’s her brute man-strength, biological male-puberty advantages, and other pre-transition man biology doo-dads. Not that her skill level (which is not great, and at 38 isn’t exactly going from strength to strength) is much greater than that of her opponents. Nope, it’s ex-man stuff and adamantium bones.

I’m still of the opinion that if the first transgender fighter had been a bantamweight, post-transition male, none of this dialogue would have been as vituperative, derogatory or outright hostile. There have been a few unique fighters in the men’s leagues – Matt Hammil, Kyle Maynard, the quad amputee, and Nick Newell who is an active fighter – and I don’t see many people freaking out about the fact he ONLY HAS ONE HAND. But these guys are men, and men should be allowed to make those decisions for themselves, both whether they are comfortable taking those fights, and whether their opponents choose to take them as well, given the idea that they are essentially fighting opponents with obvious handicaps. Obviously this isn’t quite the same – Fox is, ostensibly, fighting with an advantage. If it were a transgender man in the cage, I have no doubt that there would be concern that he would be fighting from a disadvantage, but nobody would be as viscerally angry about them being there the way they are with Fox. Nobody. I think that opponents of Fox should really examine that stance a little more deeply.

Given that her case is unique, and everybody is now working with full disclosure, I think that her opponents have the right to pick and choose whether they fight her based on the fact that a lot of the supposed science being used to defend or discredit her is still MASSIVELY unquantified vis a vis MMA competition. And I think it’s important that if she has a willing opponent, she be allowed to fight, because I have no doubt that she will not be the last transgender fighter to come along. Maybe not for a few years, but it will happen, and we should be fighting to be more understanding rather than shutting the whole discussion down just because it’s so difficult.

More than anything, I just wish people would be a lot fucking KINDER about transgender folks in these discussions. There’s a lot of underlying hostility from a lot of commenters (Matt Mitrione’s "she’s a sick freak who wants to beat up women" comment wasn’t exactly a one-off stance, even if some people voice there dissent using more diplomatic language) and a lot of DEFENSIVE #notallmen type stuff that goes on whenever I’ve questioned the attitudes of others. GO BACK TO TUMBLR they say, whatever the fuck that means, which is up there with dumbfuckery as things like "white knighting" or whatever. I don’t care to engage with people who are dismissive just because I’m talking over their heads and they’ve never had a reasonable, thoughtful discussion about LGBTQ issues before. Regardless, I think there’s a lot of room for disagreement on this issue, and I recognize that my tone has been demeaning and hostile towards opponents in discussion recently, but more than anything I just want there to be a more accepting and less derisory and dismissive attitude when it comes to transgender folks in general, not just Fox (who really doesn’t do herself any favors with her belligerence), especially when it comes under the guise of "real talk" or whatever.

Anyway, that’s about all I have to say about that.»

— Irregular Dishwasher. November 11, 2014.
From comments section at Fallon Fox responds to Joe Rogan and Ronda Rousey's claims of 'unfair advantages' in women's MMA. Bloody Elbow. November 11, 2014.
bloodyelbow.com/2014/11/11/7192703/fallon-fox-responds-to-joe-rogan-and-ronda-rouseys-claims-of-unfair 
________________ 


URL related G+ posts: 
plus.google.com/+AbleLawrence/posts/adPQjkLqipZ 
plus.google.com/+jsalsman/posts/8V5vfGHgB5j 

• Marc Raimondi. Transgender female MMA fighter loses by knockout. New York Post. October 13, 2013.
nypost.com/2013/10/13/transgender-female-mma-fighter-loses-by-knockout 

Game Face: Fallon Fox documentary about the trans MMA fighter Outsports.com. March 5, 2013.
youtube.com/watch?v=B8cgJ0qyurI (5 min)

• Fallon Fox. Fallon Fox VS Joe Rogan and Ronda Rousey. November 11, 2014.
youtube.com/watch?v=pjCnAdHBpFY (4 min)

Fallon Fox. Wikipedia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallon_Fox 

• Roger Highfield. Sperm cells created from female embryo. The Telegraph. January 31, 2008.
telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/3323846/Sperm-cells-created-from-female-embryo.html 

• Ross CN et al. Germ-line chimerism and paternal care in marmosets (Callithrix kuhlii). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2007) vol. 104 (15) pp. 6278-82
pnas.org/content/104/15/6278.long 
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1851065 
(ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17389380)
________________ 
Why attack arguments like "higher testosterone levels" and "greater bone density" are simply wrong
1
Race Vanderdecken's profile photoMilo Nickels's profile photo
2 comments
 
This dude's obsessed with this dude. It's like a giant man crush.
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
scientificamerican.com - Food Everywhere Fuels Obesity
By Eliene Augenbraun & Gretchen Cuda Kroen (Scientific American). June 3, 2015
scientificamerican.com/video/food-everywhere-fuels-obesity 

Excerpt from comments of source G+ post 1:

Michael L Jun 3, 2015 11:57 PM +1
eating unhealthy food or too much food makes us fat. Let's stop blaming anyone or anything other then ourselves. If we are fat, it's our own fault.
_________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 4, 2015 12:48 AM
+Michael L: "eating unhealthy food or too much food makes us fat."
— That's factually false.
_________ 

Lawrence Towers Jum 9, 2015 3:09 AM
+Zephyr López Cervilla
 Factualy false? Where do yoiu get this? He didn't say Exclusively. Unhealthy eating whether in quantity or quality is definitely a major factor in obesity though not the only cause.
_________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 9, 2015 5:17 AM
+Lawrence Towers: "Unhealthy eating whether in quantity or quality is definitely a major factor in obesity though not the only cause."
[Bold emphasis mine]

« Evidence for the Big Two

Reduced physical activity,[3] particularly from reduced school-based physical education,[4] and specific food manufacturing and marketing practices (e.g., vending machines in schools,[5] increased portion size,[6] increased availability of fast-food,[3, 7, 8] use of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS)[9]) comprise the Big Two explanations proffered for the obesity epidemic and are frequently cited as targets of potential public health interventions. We do not intend to imply that the Big Two are not salient contributors to the epidemic. Rather, we offer that the evidence of their role as primary players in producing the epidemic (as well as the evidence supporting their potential ability to reverse the trend if manipulated) is both equivocal and largely circumstantial – that is, the hypothesized effects are underdetermined by the data. Data rarely, if ever, stem from randomized controlled trials of the effects in population settings and in many cases do not even include a consistently supportive body of individual-level epidemiologic studies. The arguments for the effects of each subcomponent tend to rely heavily (although not exclusively) on presumed mechanisms of action and ecological studies [10] in which associations between the putative factor and obesity rates are shown at the aggregate population level across times or geographic locations. According to the Food and Drug Administration,[11] because ecological 'studies do not examine the relationship between exposure and disease among individuals, the studies have been traditionally regarded as useful for generating, rather than definitively testing, a scientific hypothesis.' Consider several examples. Regarding physical education classes, Pathways, a large, expensive and expertly designed childhood obesity prevention program emphasized increasing frequency and quality of physical education classes and found no effect on BMI.[12] Regarding vending machines, a thorough evidence-based review (MS Faith et al., unpublished, 2005) found no published randomized trials, quasi-experiments or observational epidemiologic studies evaluating their effects on obesity. Regarding fast-food availability, although some studies showed associations with obesity, Burdette and Whitaker[13] found no association between being overweight and proximity to fast-food restaurants in over 7000 children. Regarding HFCS, the leading source (in the United States) is sweetened beverages and three out of four studies conducted in children have found no association between soft drink consumption and BMI when controlling for total energy intake,[14, 15, 16, 17] raising the issue that there is no independent effect of HFCS calories on body weight, other than its pleasant taste possibly leading to the potential increase in total caloric intake as would any food.

Regarding TV viewing, a recent meta-analysis concluded 'A statistically significant relationship exists between TV viewing and body fatness among children and youth although it is likely to be too small to be of substantial clinical relevance. ...media-based (TV-based) inactivity may be unfairly implicated in recent epidemiologic trends of overweight and obesity among children and youth.'[18] Regarding portion size, Rolls has presented considerable evidence that portion size may increase daily food intake. Nevertheless, Rolls[19] wrote, '... that adults who are obese eat bigger portions of energy-dense foods do[es] not prove that portion size plays a role in the etiology of obesity. Indeed, at this time we know of no data showing such a causal relationship.'

Again, these data and quotations do not disprove the importance of those factors listed but highlight their less-than-unequivocal evidential basis. Realizing this should serve as an impetus for more vigorous consideration of additional factors.

Additional explanations for the increase in obesity

We do not review all plausible contributors to the epidemic but select those that are most interesting and for which the totality of current evidence is strongest. »

« Additional Explanation 1: sleep debt »

« Additional Explanation 2: endocrine disruptors »

« Additional Explanation 3: reduction in variability in ambient temperature »

« Additional Explanation 4: decreased smoking »

« Additional Explanation 5: pharmaceutical iatrogenesis »

« Additional Explanation 6: changes in distribution of ethnicity and age »

« Additional Explanation 7: increasing gravida age »

« Additional Explanation 8: intrauterine and intergenerational effects »

« Additional Explanation 9: greater BMI is associated with greater reproductive fitness yielding selection for obesity-predisposing genotypes »

« Additional Explanation 10: assortative mating and floor effects »

« Discussion

The evidence for the putative roles of the 10 Additional Explanations in the epidemic is compelling and in most cases consists of the concurrence of ecological correlations, epidemiologic study results, model organism studies, and strong theoretical or plausible mechanisms of action models. Nevertheless, we do not claim that all of the Additional Explanations definitively are contributors, but only that they are as plausibly so as are the Big Two and deserve more attention and study.

Although the effect of any one factor may be small, the combined effects may be consequential. Moreover, the Additional Explanations we consider do not exhaust the possibilities. Other factors potentially involved in the epidemic with varying degrees of evidential support include an epidemic of adenovirus-36,[104] increases in childhood depression,[105] less calcium (or dairy) consumption[106] and hormones in agricultural species. [107] In trying to reduce obesity levels, we consider only factors that have changed over time and potentially contributed to the epidemic. Other factors such as shift work[108, 109] and not breastfeeding[110] can contribute to obesity; decreasing them may alleviate the epidemic, even though they may not have contributed to it, because their rates have not increased in the past 30 years.[111, 112] Of course, as we consider any environmental factor, it is important to remain cognizant that such factors act in concert with individual genetic susceptibilities.[113] »

— Keith SW et al. Putative contributors to the secular increase in obesity: exploring the roads less traveled. International Journal of Obesity (2006) vol. 30 (11) pp. 1585-94
nature.com/ijo/journal/v30/n11/full/0803326a.html 
(ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16801930)
_________ 

Lawrence Towers Jun 9, 2015 5:40 AM
This is the BS that passes for scientific research. Here's a glowing example:

"Regarding HFCS, the leading source (in the United States) is sweetened beverages and three out of four studies conducted in children have found no association between soft drink consumption and BMI WHEN CONTROLLING FOR TOTAL ENERGY INTAKE"

THIS IS UTTER AND COMPLETE RUBBISH! Controlling for total energy intake by definition means same amount of calories! DUH! People that drink sweetened beverages consume more calories 1-because they consume beverages with more calories and 2 because the sugar screws with their metabolism leading to consumption of more sweets. This is a fact

Here's another rubbish example:
Regarding physical education classes, Pathways, a large, expensive and expertly designed childhood obesity prevention program emphasized increasing frequency and quality of physical education classes and found no effect on BMI.

BMI? BMI? 1-BMI IS NOT A GOOD INDICATOR OF OBESITY! IT DOESN'T DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN MUSCLE MASS AND PERCENTAGE OF BODY FAT! Any scientific literature that references BMI as a guage of obesitty is completely WORTHLESS.
                   2-NO MENTION IS MADE OF ADHERENCE TO PROGRAM. A PROGRAM BY ITSELF DOES NOT GUARANTEE SUCCESS.
_________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 9, 2015 7:09 AM
+Lawrence Towers: "Controlling for total energy intake by definition means same amount of calories!"

— That's the proper way to compare the possible differential effects of two foods. To compare whether the consumption of any particular ingredient makes you consume more calories overall you need a separate study to test that other hypothesis.


+Lawrence Towers: "People that drink sweetened beverages consume more calories 1-because they consume beverages with more calories and 2 because the sugar screws with their metabolism leading to consumption of more sweets. This is a fact"

— Without any research to conclude it, this is not a fact, just a hypothesis. Considering that the above review doesn't cite any study on that question, at least at the time they published it there wasn't any study supporting it:

«raising the issue that there is no independent effect of HFCS calories on body weight, other than its pleasant taste possibly leading to the potential increase in total caloric intake as would any food.»

On the other hand, notice that even if at the moment they consume sweetened beverages they are consuming more calories, what what you have to verify is whether drinking those beverages is making them to consume more calories over a long period of time (e.g., months) compared to a control group.


+Lawrence Towers: "BMI? BMI? 1-BMI IS NOT A GOOD INDICATOR OF OBESITY!"

— It's the same indicator used to determine that obesity has been on the rise, therefore, very appropriate to try to discern its underlying causes. On the other hand, at the population level is considered a reliable indicator even though it isn't accurate parameter to estimate the nutritional condition and relative body fat in isolated individuals (let alone visceral fat). In addition, as with any other values of statistical value, it's periodically assessed with samples of the population under study (that explains why the BMI thresholds for overweight, obesity, and morbid obesity may vary between genders, with age, ethnic background, etc.)


+Lawrence Towers: "Any scientific literature that references BMI as a guage of obesitty is completely WORTHLESS."

— You'll find BMI pretty much in any epidemiological study on obesity.


+Lawrence Towers: "NO MENTION IS MADE OF ADHERENCE TO PROGRAM. A PROGRAM BY ITSELF DOES NOT GUARANTEE SUCCESS."

— You have to go to its source: 

«SUBJECTS AND METHODS»

« Physical education

The physical education (PE) program aimed at increasing energy expenditure in the school environment by implementing a minimum of three 30-minute sessions per week of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. The PE program was based on the SPARK (Sports, Play and Active Recreation for Kids) program (13), with the addition of an American Indian Games module. In addition, the program included exercise breaks of 2-10 min duration, which were designed to increase energy expenditure and promote physical activity in the classroom. Typically, these exercise breaks consisted of simple exercises that could be performed in the classroom or outside, during recess.»

« Training

Each intervention component included a specific training plan. Teachers and food service staff were trained annually in local or regional meetings. Concepts and procedures were reinforced at regular visits to school classrooms and kitchens. PE teachers, aides, or regular teachers in charge of PE at each intervention school were trained annually by licensed SPARK instructors or by Pathways instructors who had experience in delivering that program. These Pathways staff also acted as mentors for PE teachers, offering regular support and filling in for PE teachers when needed to ensure a minimum of PE every week.»

« Physical activity

Physical activity was measured with the use of both a motion sensor and a self-reported activity questionnaire. Minute-by-minute recordings of vector magnitudes, measured with a 3-dimensional accelerometer (TriTrac R3D; Hemokinetics, Iowa City) were collected for 24 h on a random sample of 15 children in each school at the end of the 2nd grade. At the end of the 5th grade, measurements were taken on those same children who were still enrolled; additional children were randomly selected at each school to replace those lost to follow-up.

The physical activity questionnaire was designed to assess activity during the preceding 24 h with the use of a standardized checklist of activities that were selected during the feasibility phase of the study. An activity index was derived from estimates of the energy cost of each activity weighted by its duration (none, a little, a lot).»

«RESULTS»

« Physical activity

Results of the physical activity measures at baseline and follow-up are presented in Table 3⇑. The motion sensor measurements indicated no significant difference over a 24-h period between the children measured in the intervention and control schools. Self-reported physical activity levels (by Physical Activity Questionnaire) were higher among intervention- than control-school students at the end of the trial (Table 3⇑). No increase in PE-related injuries was detected in the intervention schools on the basis of injury logs maintained by the schools (data not shown).

Knowledge, attitudes, and behavior

Knowledge targeted in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade Pathways curricula increased significantly in the children in the intervention schools compared with the control schools (Table 3⇑). The difference tended to be largest for the information targeted in the 3rd grade curriculum (intervention group: 0.77; control group: 0.65). Self-efficacy to be physically active was higher in the intervention group than in the control group; however, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in self-efficacy to choose healthy foods. Nevertheless, children who received the intervention reported more healthy food choice intentions than did control children.

Family participation

Intervention schools held 9 different family events throughout the 3 y. The events took place at each school and attracted, on average, 59% of the children enrolled in the study, or 0.9 adults per child. Relative to anecdotal reports of parental attendance at other school events, this attendance level appeared to be very good._

Process evaluation data indicated a strong degree of implementation for the classroom curriculum, with 94% of lessons completed. Seventy-eight percent of the food service guidelines were implemented, with a progression of 51%, 80%, and 87% for years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The minimum of 3 PE sessions/wk was achieved by 81% of schools in the first year and by essentially 100% in years 2 and 3. However, only 56% of the schools reached the recommended goal of 5 sessions/wk. Average student attendance at family events over 3 y was 58%. The process evaluation data also indicated that a large majority of those attending family events enjoyed the activities and reported learning something new about diet, physical activity, and health.»

«DISCUSSION»

«The second approach to reduce excess positive energy balance was to increase energy expenditure by increasing the time children spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. By including physical activity breaks throughout the day, our physical activity intervention sought to increase the daily active time and reduce sedentary time, an approach positively associated with weight maintenance in reduced-obese children (35). Although the motion sensor data indicated a positive trend toward more active time in the intervention schools, this measurement did not confirm the significant increase in PE found by self-report on the questionnaire. Note that whereas the motion sensor data are a direct measurement of physical activity, the questionnaire provides the self-reported frequency of a limited number of activities. »

— Caballero B et al. Pathways: a school-based, randomized controlled trial for the prevention of obesity in American Indian schoolchildren. Am J Clin Nutr (2003) vol. 78 (5) pp. 1030-8
ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/5/1030.long
(ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14594792)
_________ 

URL source G+ post 1: 
plus.google.com/+scientificamerican/posts/h5Cz1p3kQoy 
____________________ 

Excerpt from comments of source G+ post 2:

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 9, 2015 5:25 AM
+Dapino Watters: " As far as the overweight goes its not the food its the doing nothing but eat sit eat watch TV eat and sleep.
In the old days they use to eat big slices of cherry pie and fattening foods for breakfast but they burned it all by lunch. Even 90s kids usually burned the majority of calories by dinner."
[Bold emphasis mine]

« Evidence for the Big Two

Reduced physical activity, [3] particularly from reduced school-based physical education, [4] and specific food manufacturing and marketing practices (e.g., vending machines in schools,[5] increased portion size,[6] increased availability of fast-food,[3, 7, 8] use of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS)[9]) comprise the Big Two explanations proffered for the obesity epidemic and are frequently cited as targets of potential public health interventions. We do not intend to imply that the Big Two are not salient contributors to the epidemic. Rather, we offer that the evidence of their role as primary players in producing the epidemic (as well as the evidence supporting their potential ability to reverse the trend if manipulated) is both equivocal and largely circumstantial – that is, the hypothesized effects are underdetermined by the data. Data rarely, if ever, stem from randomized controlled trials of the effects in population settings and in many cases do not even include a consistently supportive body of individual-level epidemiologic studies. The arguments for the effects of each subcomponent tend to rely heavily (although not exclusively) on presumed mechanisms of action and ecological studies [10] in which associations between the putative factor and obesity rates are shown at the aggregate population level across times or geographic locations. According to the Food and Drug Administration,[11] because ecological 'studies do not examine the relationship between exposure and disease among individuals, the studies have been traditionally regarded as useful for generating, rather than definitively testing, a scientific hypothesis.' Consider several examples. Regarding physical education classes, Pathways, a large, expensive and expertly designed childhood obesity prevention program emphasized increasing frequency and quality of physical education classes and found no effect on BMI. [12] Regarding vending machines, a thorough evidence-based review (MS Faith et al., unpublished, 2005) found no published randomized trials, quasi-experiments or observational epidemiologic studies evaluating their effects on obesity. Regarding fast-food availability, although some studies showed associations with obesity, Burdette and Whitaker[13] found no association between being overweight and proximity to fast-food restaurants in over 7000 children. Regarding HFCS, the leading source (in the United States) is sweetened beverages and three out of four studies conducted in children have found no association between soft drink consumption and BMI when controlling for total energy intake,[14, 15, 16, 17] raising the issue that there is no independent effect of HFCS calories on body weight, other than its pleasant taste possibly leading to the potential increase in total caloric intake as would any food.

Regarding TV viewing, a recent meta-analysis concluded 'A statistically significant relationship exists between TV viewing and body fatness among children and youth although it is likely to be too small to be of substantial clinical relevance. ...media-based (TV-based) inactivity may be unfairly implicated in recent epidemiologic trends of overweight and obesity among children and youth.'[18] Regarding portion size, Rolls has presented considerable evidence that portion size may increase daily food intake. Nevertheless, Rolls[19] wrote, '... that adults who are obese eat bigger portions of energy-dense foods do[es] not prove that portion size plays a role in the etiology of obesity. Indeed, at this time we know of no data showing such a causal relationship.'

Again, these data and quotations do not disprove the importance of those factors listed but highlight their less-than-unequivocal evidential basis. Realizing this should serve as an impetus for more vigorous consideration of additional factors.

Additional explanations for the increase in obesity

We do not review all plausible contributors to the epidemic but select those that are most interesting and for which the totality of current evidence is strongest. »

« Additional Explanation 1: sleep debt

Evidence that less sleep can cause increased body weight

For children and adults, hours of sleep per night is inversely related to BMI and obesity in cross-sectional studies and incident obesity in longitudinal studies.[20, 21] In animals, sleep deprivation produces hyperphagia, offering a mechanism of action.[22] Evidence for the physiologic mechanism includes decreased leptin and thyroid-stimulating hormone secretion, increased ghrelin levels and decreased glucose tolerance, all endocrine changes that occur with sleep deprivation.[23, 24, 25] Sleep restriction in humans has recently been shown to produce similar effects, including increased hunger and appetite.[26] These changes are consistent with chronic sleep deprivation leading to increased risk of obesity.

Has average sleep debt increased?

Data clearly show that the average amount of sleep has steadily decreased among US adults and children during the past several decades.[27, 28] Average daily sleep has decreased from over 9 to just over 7 h among adults.

We note that future studies examining the association between sleep debt on BMI or any cause–effect link between them would benefit from utilizing more objective assessments of sleep duration and sleep quality (vs self-reporting). A good example is the measure of spontaneous physical activity during sleep measured by microwave radar detector. Bitz et al.[29] used this technique in finding increased sleep disruptions among diabetic subjects. Resta et al.[30] found that even in the absence of sleep apnea, obese subjects were observed to suffer more sleep disruptions defined as higher sleep latency, a lower percentage of REM sleep and a lower sleep efficiency (a ratio between total sleep time and time spent in the bed) than non-obese subjects. The effect of age should be controlled in such assessments, as it correlates positively with sleep time activity.[29] Large-scale self-report studies could also be improved with subjects' use of actigrophy watches to verify self-reported sleep times.

Additional Explanation 2: endocrine disruptors »

« Additional Explanation 3: reduction in variability in ambient temperature »

« Additional Explanation 4: decreased smoking »

« Additional Explanation 5: pharmaceutical iatrogenesis »

« Additional Explanation 6: changes in distribution of ethnicity and age »

« Additional Explanation 7: increasing gravida age »

« Additional Explanation 8: intrauterine and intergenerational effects »

« Additional Explanation 9: greater BMI is associated with greater reproductive fitness yielding selection for obesity-predisposing genotypes »

« Additional Explanation 10: assortative mating and floor effects »

« Discussion

The evidence for the putative roles of the 10 Additional Explanations in the epidemic is compelling and in most cases consists of the concurrence of ecological correlations, epidemiologic study results, model organism studies, and strong theoretical or plausible mechanisms of action models. Nevertheless, we do not claim that all of the Additional Explanations definitively are contributors, but only that they are as plausibly so as are the Big Two and deserve more attention and study.

Although the effect of any one factor may be small, the combined effects may be consequential. Moreover, the Additional Explanations we consider do not exhaust the possibilities. Other factors potentially involved in the epidemic with varying degrees of evidential support include an epidemic of adenovirus-36,[104] increases in childhood depression,[105] less calcium (or dairy) consumption[106] and hormones in agricultural species. [107] In trying to reduce obesity levels, we consider only factors that have changed over time and potentially contributed to the epidemic. Other factors such as shift work[108, 109] and not breastfeeding[110] can contribute to obesity; decreasing them may alleviate the epidemic, even though they may not have contributed to it, because their rates have not increased in the past 30 years.[111, 112] Of course, as we consider any environmental factor, it is important to remain cognizant that such factors act in concert with individual genetic susceptibilities.[113] »

— Keith SW et al. Putative contributors to the secular increase in obesity: exploring the roads less traveled. International Journal of Obesity (2006) vol. 30 (11) pp. 1585-94
nature.com/ijo/journal/v30/n11/full/0803326a.html 
(ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16801930)

Further reading: 

• Akabas S, Ederman SA, Moore BJ (editors). Textbook of Obesity: Biological, Psychological and Cultural Influences. First Edition. Wiley-Blackwell. 2012. ISBN-13: 978-0470655887
– Wansink B. Chapter 6. hidden persuaders: environmental contributors to obesity.
books.google.com/books?id=qoG5mf2hd6YC&pg=PA108 
(amazon.com/dp/0470655887)
_________ 

Dapino Watters Jun 9, 2015 6:21 AM +1
+Zephyr López Cervilla let's start with sleep. Your body has an amazing way of adapting to sleep cycle. That eight hours is crap. Again we go to the old days. Where people would go to bed early around night time and be up early usually way before the sunrise. 

Leonard DA Vinci slept 1 or 2hrs every 4hrs. Guess what his body adapted to it. 

If you are used to sleeping days your body will adapt to sleeping days. If you sleep nights your body will adapt. With that said if you are constantly on a non consistent

As far as weight goes. You don't have to look any further then the physical evidence. But regardless fast food is not school food. So to use that for your argument is ridiculous. Other than the fact it agrees with my previous statement of sitting around eating and sleeping. Schools took physical activities out.

You can live off energy bars but that doesn't mean you will be healthy. 

If you are not physically active your body just turns that excess stuff into fat(including sugars).

You can't really use sugar because there is no population to use as a control.

With that said there is a lot of may and may niot. And we do not know.

I don't think you know what that means you just copied and pasted something that you thought would justify your argument as to why they should starve kids and how being lazy has no effect.

You should learn the meaning of plausible. And two any expert will tell you starving a kid is worse than feeding them. But force feeding them is bad also. To be clear schools don't force kids to eat they do however offer them food.
Yes the amount a person eats vary. Some people eat one big meal some eat three meals divided some eat two some eat five small meals. But if your body is hungry your body will tell your brain. Most when hungry think about eating. There is reason and evidence that people who go to a store hungry spend more on food than they intended. Furthermore there is evidence that shows the size of a plate can effect your appetite.

You should learn how the human body works before just randomly posting a 9yr old theory that is about plausibility.
_________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 9, 2015 8:04 AM
+Dapino Watters: "Leonard DA Vinci slept 1 or 2hrs every 4hrs. Guess what his body adapted to it."

« Anecdote - a short account of a particular incident or event, especially of an interesting or amusing nature.

Data - a series of observations, measurements, or facts; information»

— John Byrne, M.D. The Plural of Anecdote is Not Data. Skeptical Medicine.
sites.google.com/site/skepticalmedicine//the-plural-of-anecdote-is-not-data 


+Dapino Watters: "Other than the fact it agrees with my previous statement of sitting around eating and sleeping. Schools took physical activities out. "

+Dapino Watters: "If you are not physically active your body just turns that excess stuff into fat(including sugars)."
[Bold emphasis mine]

— Do you even read? :

«Regarding physical education classes, Pathways, a large, expensive and expertly designed childhood obesity prevention program emphasized increasing frequency and quality of physical education classes and found no effect on BMI. [12]»

«12. Caballero B, Clay T, Davis SM, Ethelbah B, Rock BH, Lohman T, et al., Pathways Study Research Group. Pathways: a school-based, randomized controlled trial for the prevention of obesity in American Indian schoolchildren. Am J Clin Nutr 2003; 78: 1030–1038.»

— Keith SW et al. 2006


« Abstract »

« Design: This study was a randomized, controlled, school-based trial involving 1704 children in 41 schools and was conducted over 3 consecutive years, from 3rd to 5th grades, in schools serving American Indian communities in Arizona, New Mexico, and South Dakota. The intervention had 4 components: 1) change in dietary intake, 2) increase in physical activity, 3) a classroom curriculum focused on healthy eating and lifestyle, and 4) a family-involvement program. The main outcome was percentage body fat; other outcomes included dietary intake, physical activity, and knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors.

Results: The intervention resulted in no significant reduction in percentage body fat. However, a significant reduction in the percentage of energy from fat was observed in the intervention schools. Total energy intake (by 24-h dietary recall) was significantly reduced in the intervention schools but energy intake (by direct observation) was not. Motion sensor data showed similar activity levels in both the intervention and control schools. Several components of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors were also positively and significantly changed by the intervention.»

«SUBJECTS AND METHODS»

« Physical education

The physical education (PE) program aimed at increasing energy expenditure in the school environment by implementing a minimum of three 30-minute sessions per week of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. The PE program was based on the SPARK (Sports, Play and Active Recreation for Kids) program (13), with the addition of an American Indian Games module. In addition, the program included exercise breaks of 2-10 min duration, which were designed to increase energy expenditure and promote physical activity in the classroom. Typically, these exercise breaks consisted of simple exercises that could be performed in the classroom or outside, during recess.»

« Training

Each intervention component included a specific training plan. Teachers and food service staff were trained annually in local or regional meetings. Concepts and procedures were reinforced at regular visits to school classrooms and kitchens. PE teachers, aides, or regular teachers in charge of PE at each intervention school were trained annually by licensed SPARK instructors or by Pathways instructors who had experience in delivering that program. These Pathways staff also acted as mentors for PE teachers, offering regular support and filling in for PE teachers when needed to ensure a minimum of PE every week.»

« Physical activity

Physical activity was measured with the use of both a motion sensor and a self-reported activity questionnaire. Minute-by-minute recordings of vector magnitudes, measured with a 3-dimensional accelerometer (TriTrac R3D; Hemokinetics, Iowa City) were collected for 24 h on a random sample of 15 children in each school at the end of the 2nd grade. At the end of the 5th grade, measurements were taken on those same children who were still enrolled; additional children were randomly selected at each school to replace those lost to follow-up.

The physical activity questionnaire was designed to assess activity during the preceding 24 h with the use of a standardized checklist of activities that were selected during the feasibility phase of the study. An activity index was derived from estimates of the energy cost of each activity weighted by its duration (none, a little, a lot).»

«RESULTS»

«Weight, %BF, height, BMI, and triceps and subscapular-skinfold thicknesses are presented in Table 2⇓. There were no significant interactions by sex; therefore, data are shown with values from boys and girls combined. There were no statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups in any of the anthropometric variables at baseline or follow-up, and estimates of the magnitude of the differences in changes from baseline to follow-up between the control and intervention groups were small. %BF increased by ≈7% in both groups. Imputation of %BF for children who were lost to follow-up did not change these results. With the use of data from children who completed the study, the mean difference in change in %BF between the intervention and control schools was 0.2 (95% CI: −0.84, 1.31). After imputation this difference was 0.0 (95% CI: −0.85, 0.82).

The distributions of BMI in boys and girls in the intervention and control schools are shown in Figures 2⇓ and 3⇓, compared with reference values from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Growth Charts 2000 (Internet: www.cdc.gov/growthcharts). The distribution of BMI among children in the Pathways Study was clearly shifted toward higher values compared with the reference. At baseline, 47% of the children in the intervention school had BMIs greater than the 85th percentile of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's reference values, whereas 48% of children in the control schools had a BMI that exceeded this cutoff. At the 5th grade follow-up the percentage of children with a BMI greater than the 85th percentile was 53% in the intervention schools and 56% in the control schools.»

« Physical activity

Results of the physical activity measures at baseline and follow-up are presented in Table 3⇑. The motion sensor measurements indicated no significant difference over a 24-h period between the children measured in the intervention and control schools. Self-reported physical activity levels (by Physical Activity Questionnaire) were higher among intervention- than control-school students at the end of the trial (Table 3⇑). No increase in PE-related injuries was detected in the intervention schools on the basis of injury logs maintained by the schools (data not shown).

Knowledge, attitudes, and behavior

Knowledge targeted in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade Pathways curricula increased significantly in the children in the intervention schools compared with the control schools (Table 3⇑). The difference tended to be largest for the information targeted in the 3rd grade curriculum (intervention group: 0.77; control group: 0.65). Self-efficacy to be physically active was higher in the intervention group than in the control group; however, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in self-efficacy to choose healthy foods. Nevertheless, children who received the intervention reported more healthy food choice intentions than did control children.

Family participation

Intervention schools held 9 different family events throughout the 3 y. The events took place at each school and attracted, on average, 59% of the children enrolled in the study, or 0.9 adults per child. Relative to anecdotal reports of parental attendance at other school events, this attendance level appeared to be very good._

Process evaluation data indicated a strong degree of implementation for the classroom curriculum, with 94% of lessons completed. Seventy-eight percent of the food service guidelines were implemented, with a progression of 51%, 80%, and 87% for years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The minimum of 3 PE sessions/wk was achieved by 81% of schools in the first year and by essentially 100% in years 2 and 3. However, only 56% of the schools reached the recommended goal of 5 sessions/wk. Average student attendance at family events over 3 y was 58%. The process evaluation data also indicated that a large majority of those attending family events enjoyed the activities and reported learning something new about diet, physical activity, and health.»

«DISCUSSION»

«The second approach to reduce excess positive energy balance was to increase energy expenditure by increasing the time children spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. By including physical activity breaks throughout the day, our physical activity intervention sought to increase the daily active time and reduce sedentary time, an approach positively associated with weight maintenance in reduced-obese children (35). Although the motion sensor data indicated a positive trend toward more active time in the intervention schools, this measurement did not confirm the significant increase in PE found by self-report on the questionnaire. Note that whereas the motion sensor data are a direct measurement of physical activity, the questionnaire provides the self-reported frequency of a limited number of activities. »

— Caballero B et al. Pathways: a school-based, randomized controlled trial for the prevention of obesity in American Indian schoolchildren. Am J Clin Nutr (2003) vol. 78 (5) pp. 1030-8
ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/5/1030.long
(ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14594792)


+Dapino Watters: "I don't think you know what that means you just copied and pasted something that you thought would justify your argument as to why they should starve kids and how being lazy has no effect."

— I think you are a cretin. You don't even know the difference between the meanings of "then" and "than":

+Dapino Watters: "As far as weight goes. You don't have to look any further then the physical evidence."
[Bold emphasis mine]

[Nor between the use of a comma and a period.]

+Dapino Watters: "You should learn the meaning of plausible."

— You should learn, period.


+Dapino Watters: "Furthermore there is evidence that shows the size of a plate can effect your appetite."

— Wait, perhaps hadn't you stated the following:

+Dapino Watters: " As far as the overweight goes its not the food its the doing nothing but eat sit eat watch TV eat and sleep."
[Bold emphasis mine]


+Dapino Watters: "You should learn how the human body works before just randomly posting a 9yr old theory that is about plausibility."

— Compared to "your" half a century-old "theory" 9 years is still quite young.

FWIW, the above 2006 article isn't a "theory", it's a review on the relevant literature published on that subject up to the date of publication. See? :

«Design: A narrative review of data and published materials that provide evidence of the role of additional putative factors in contributing to the increasing prevalence of obesity.

Data: Information was drawn from ecological and epidemiological studies of humans, animal studies and studies addressing physiological mechanisms, when available.»

— Keith SW et al. 2006


In addition, the 2006 review is cited in a 2012 textbook on the subject, chapter 5, page 106, reference 58:

• Akabas S, Ederman SA, Moore BJ (editors). Textbook of Obesity: Biological, Psychological and Cultural Influences. First Edition. Wiley-Blackwell. 2012. ISBN-13: 978-0470655887
books.google.com/books?id=qoG5mf2hd6YC&pg=PA106 
(amazon.com/dp/0470655887)


And also in all these other textbooks: 

Chapter 5, page 81, reference 29:

• Bagchi D, Preuss HG (editors). Obesity: Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Prevention, Second Edition. CRC Press, 2012. ISBN-13: 978-1439854259
books.google.com/books?id=6oHRBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA81 
(amazon.com/dp/1439854254)

Chapter 10, page 163, reference 1:

• Shiromani P, Horvath T, Van Cauter E (editors). Sleep Loss and Obesity: Intersecting Epidemics. Springer. 2012. ISBN-13: 978-1461434917
books.google.com/books?id=eobDZ1d_dvAC&pg=PA163 
(amazon.com/dp/1461434912)

Chapter 29, page 764:

 • Friedman HS (editor). The Oxford Handbook of Health Psychology. First Edition. Oxford University Press. 2011. ISBN-13: 978-0195342819
books.google.com/books?id=J3-78PdF83kC&pg=PA764 
(amazon.com/dp/019534281X)

Chapter 1, page 16, reference 22:

• Lustig RH (editor). Obesity Before Birth: Maternal and prenatal influences on the offspring. Springer. 2011. ISBN-13: 978-1441970336
books.google.com/books?id=Q5-EOEcXKOwC&pg=PA16 
(amazon.com/dp/1441970339)

Chapter 16, page 179, reference 7:

• Bagchi D (editor). Global Perspectives on Childhood Obesity: Current Status, Consequences and Prevention. First Edition. Academic Press. 2010. ISBN-13: 978-0123749956
books.google.com/books?id=nEN0_ZJkT7sC&pg=PA179 
(amazon.com/dp/0123749956)

Chapter 4, page 121, reference 96:

• Berger NA (editor). Cancer and Energy Balance, Epidemiology and Overview. Springer. 2010. ISBN-13: 978-1441955142
books.google.com/books?id=CPr3nflsRo0C&pg=PA121 
(amazon.com/dp/1441955143)

Chapter 14, page 188:

• Dube L, Bechara A, Dagher A, Drewnowski A, LeBel J, James P, Yada RY (editors). Obesity Prevention: The Role of Brain and Society on Individual Behavior. First Edition. Academic Press. 2010. ISBN-13: 978-0123743879
books.google.com/books?id=AkSyDdIeeFcC&pg=PA188 
(amazon.com/dp/0123743877)

Chapter 2, page 23, reference 13:

• Steelman MG, Westman E (editors). Obesity: Evaluation and Treatment Essentials. First Edition. CRC Press. 2010. ISBN-13: 978-1420090024
books.google.com/books?id=uwnLBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA23 
(amazon.com/dp/142009002X)

Chapter 19, page 831, reference 290:

• Sperling M. Pediatric Endocrinology, Third Edition. Saunders. 2008. ISBN-13: 978-1416040903
books.google.com/books?id=jIxXJCxGNvAC&pg=PA831 
(amazon.com/dp/1416040900)
_________ 

URL source G+ post 2: 
plus.google.com/+Thefreethoughtprojectcom/posts/akjPPucyCF9 
____________________ 
1
Add a comment...
Zephyr's Collections
People
Have him in circles
5,441 people
Kateryna Artyushkova's profile photo
Karleen Kinsey's profile photo
Fred J. Bonilla's profile photo
ABC Television Network's profile photo
Matt Clayton's profile photo
Sheri Canfield's profile photo
Peter Feltham's profile photo
Richard Banghart's profile photo
Corazon Farris's profile photo
Places
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Currently
Spain
Previously
Melilla - Tarragona - Puigpelat - Valls - France - Hospitalet de Llobregat - Romania - Mexico - Belize - Guatemala - Munich - Brighton
Links
Other profiles
Story
Introduction
INTERESTS: 

1. Science: 
- Biology: Molec. Biol., Cell Biol., evo-devo, Palaeontology, Biol. of Aging, 
- Physics: Particle Phys., Quantum Phys., Astrophys., Phys. Cosmol., 
- Chemistry: Biochem., Phys. Chem., Nucl. Chem., Org. Chem., 
- Geology.  

2. Politics: Egoist Anarchism (Benjamin Tucker, Max Stirner), Individualist Anarchism, Anarcho-capitalism, libertarianism.
- Against Government, against democracy, against nationalism, against taxation, pro-NAP (based on self interest).
- Pro-free competition, pro-currency competition, pro-commodity money. 
- Pro-choice. Against child and animal rights, pro-liberty.
- Against compulsory healthcare, against compulsory retirement plan, pro-free association.

3. Economics: 
- Austrian School of economics (Hayek, Mises), 
- Pro-Market Liberalism, 
- Against intellectual property rights (patent rights, copyright), 
- Pro-commodity money.

4. Religion: None (old-fashioned atheist, anti-Humanist with a capital 'h'). 

5. Sports: 
- Barefoot running
- Trekking
- Free-diving
- Biking
- Rugby

5b. Sports Follower: 
- Formula One

6. Music: 
- Baroque: Selected works
- ClassicismSelected works
- RomanticismSelected works
- Late RomanticismSelected works
- 20th CenturySelected works

7. Popular Music: 
- Selected works

8. Literature:
- Selected works

9. Cinema 
- Selected works

10. TV Series 
- Selected works

11. Animation Series 
- Selected works

12. Comedians 
- Selected comedians (e.g., George Carlin, John Bird and John Fortune, Rory Bremner)

13. Foods & Drinks 
No salt, no oil, no butter, no smoked, no grilled, no canned, no meat, no eggs, no refined or processed foods (except for fermented and soy foods), mostly vegetarian.
No juices, no sodas, no alcohol, teas (Pu-erh, Oolong, Gunpowder, Matcha, Darjeeling, Ceylan, Sencha). 

My Google+ Timeline: 

All my Google+ posts and statistics: 
Bragging rights
I was blocked by the following individuals: Mike Elgan (plus.google.com/+MikeElgan), Karl Stevens (plus.google.com/+KarlStevens), Sarah Kavassalis (plus.google.com/+SarahKavassalis), Cheryl Ann MacDonald, Psy'D. (plus.google.com/+CherylAnnMacDonald), Douglas Blaack (plus.google.com/117074027161556621187), Preston McDonald (plus.google.com/118039299115248335651), Sara Del Valle (plus.google.com/+SaraDelValle), Joachim Wahl (plus.google.com/116291280885390060143), Jim Carver (plus.google.com/+JimCarver), Reo Cruz (plus.google.com/+ReoCruz), Will Hawkins (plus.google.com/+WillHawkins), Víktor Bautista i Roca (plus.google.com/+VíktorBautistaiRoca), Euro Crisis News Overview (plus.google.com/100895452069456400573), Peter Bromberg (plus.google.com/+PeterBromberg), Lacerant Plainer (plus.google.com/+LacerantPlainerWrites), Jennifer Isaacs (plus.google.com/112672803186037423528), Guy Kawasaki (plus.google.com/+GuyKawasaki), Filippo Salustri (plus.google.com/+FilippoSalustri), Mike Davey (plus.google.com/111317071041190612226), Paul T Morrison (plus.google.com/+PaulTMorrison), Homer Slated (plus.google.com/102946757503830834230), David Anders (prpplague) (plus.google.com/101339419642360856354), David Röll (plus.google.com/+DavidRöll), Johanna Maria (plus.google.com/+AntoinetteJanssenSpheresAndElements), Betsy McCall (plus.google.com/+BetsyMcCall), Ken MacMillan (plus.google.com/115234319467908018169), Marla Hughes (plus.google.com/+MarlaHughesFL), Jonathan Langdale (plus.google.com/+JonathanLangdale), Cod Codliness (plus.google.com/+CodCodliness), Ronald Stepp (plus.google.com/+RonaldStepp), Michael Ireland (plus.google.com/+MichaelIreland), Auggie Steyr (plus.google.com/115874288149385079815), Ryan Groe (plus.google.com/+RyanGroe), Jena Troelsgaard (plus.google.com/+JenaTroelsgaard), emma jones (plus.google.com/103246505645024560635), Daniel J Stern (plus.google.com/+DanielJStern), Furr Beard (plus.google.com/+FurrBeard), Justin Templer (plus.google.com/103483290565724825117), Luke Meiritz-Reid (plus.google.com/103092230275920982390), Tom Barron (plus.google.com/105947181714241031212), José Ignacio Mora (plus.google.com/101825433798019054266), Tonia Hall (Pashta) (plus.google.com/+ToniaAddisonHall), and Mickey Blake (plus.google.com/114039590766519744909). Interestingly, I have never even talked to some of these people. More details at plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/h88gY5vV2Ae
Education
  • University of Barcelona
    Licentiate Biology (Biomedical), 2004 - 2009
Basic Information
Gender
Male