BakerStreet: Actually trying to carry on a debate with someone is not a persecution complex. It's called rational debate. The problem is that you don't actually have the facilities to debate. (Oxymoronic statement? I think so... Heavily subjective statement berating the subjective... ) Taking comments out of context of the original assertion that also included proof, and using the summation statement of the paragraph is also
Champas Socialist: First in Ontario the socalist have made it so that anyone over the age of 23 doesn't have to have the grades to get into College. Second College is cheapo here. Unviersity is very much more money, but College is cheap. That's because we use College in the correct definition of the word instead of the US definition of the word that has been bastardized to mean Princton and Havard which are actually universities. To go t
Sad funny yes. But if you have read Atlas Shrugged, the very people that this makes fun of do exactly this. They have grocery stores, and coal mines that they work themselves in Galt's Gulch. These people aren't afraid to work hard. The only difference is that they will work hard and in the process come up with better ways of doing what they're doing so that they can work hard at more important things. Thus instead of being slave labour tilling field
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcom
Molly: You stated that people's philosophies are their philosophies because they believe them to be absolutely true. But see subjectivists don't. They believe that what they believe is just as equally as wrong as everyone else's belief system. Hence why they can say that I'm wrong, and have no proof for it and believe that it's justified in saying it, because they have made the assumption that all humans will always be wrong, because we don
Na, just take the welfare away entirely. I'd rather have a new street bike than pay for a twit to waste money all of the time and continually destroy her life every opertunity she gets (especially when she's given the opertunity instead of earns it). See I work. I produce. I deserve the money I make. She steals the money she gets (via the government) and does a piss poor job at that. Your only job in life is to support yourself (and your ch
Ok, so I'm going to piss off pretty much every segment of the population except for the thinking kind in this one article. (As if I didn't already do that in the last one) So if you don’t want to get pissed off, please don’t read this. (I might piss off thinking people too because I’m in a really sarcastic mood…) Objectivists: Ayn Rand was wrong. Totally and
Yes, under the losers are losers for a reason file: Woman on welfare with 3 kids and no husband (dead beat too aparently) finds $40,000 in cash. Turns in money. Gets reward of $2000.00. News media loves it, great Christmas story and all because hey, poor person wins lottery is marginally ethical. (miracle) Law in Ontario says that whatever you make
ps it's not church that is all important but Jesus Christ- He is the reason for the season. Actually the reason for the season was to kill a pegan holiday.... and heck it didn't hurt that the bible was written by Constantine (after he had all of the people that were supposed to put it together executed because he didn't like what they put together) who was the head of the pegan religion at the time and HATED women. (hence why Marry Magdal
Good map, it's the way I've thought of NA since visiting some of the soutern states and most of the northern states too. It's like Canada and most Northern States are pretty damn close in disposition (even between republicans and democrats).... But you forgot something: Florida is owned by Cubans and Canadians, so cut off a small section of Miami and call it "United States of Cuba" and the rest (minus the northern part of Florida put in the
"In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst . . . Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your
If you check his other blog in philosophy he also claims * that he can scientifically disprove the existance of God, * accuses people like me of "evil", * states that the only thing keeping us from knowing the entire past and future of the universe (and the data concerning every atom and particle therein) is the speed of computers and our lack of understanding of quantum mechanics * "Worst case, the universe is 1.4
God is a contradiction in terms. You can't define God without circular references or contradictory points of view. (hence why Baptists love to make the rule that you cant' argue about God with anything other than the authorized books of the bible... otherwise known as a circular reference) For God to Exist (and I'll get to proving this later) you would have to have a paradox. There's no such thing as a paradox, and if there was, the unvierse
BakerStreet: it is you that has not learned the difference between theory and law: Law = Something that has been around for so long that it's veracity is taken to be true in all condisions because no one has ever been able to prove it worng. Theory = Something that may or may not have been around as long as a law. Most of the time Theories are theories because they encapsulate many other laws and theories. Because of the com
Ok, so it always seems to come down to this one thing with religion and then the religous nuts argue that you just have a belief too, just as they do and you can't be sure you're any more right because of the old chicken and egg. Chicken and Egg theory... CONTRADICTION. No matter what belief you have, big bang started the universe or God did, you sti
You're kidding right? The result of Christianity sweaping the known world was the dark ages. It was specifically christianity and the church's attack on science and reason that destroyed the roman empire and plunged the world into darkness. Science brings us light, religion brings us death, destruction and ultimately darkness. Read your history. (and by history, I mean true history, not the bible, which is a complete f
Ok, so I can't leave it alone... stupid me.... absurd... You say "Creation theory can be disproved because it asserts a very specific time line. ", and then assert your own subjective view of time, the "proof" for which is also based on a teeny sliver of human observation filtered through human subjectivity. You have no proof that that the "rules" we have now have always been or even will be in 20 minutes. To say that the decay o
Learn that you don't know anything, that you'll never know anything, and that nothing is definately possible or impossible. Then you'll be able to deal with NOW without being a robot programed by centuries of assumptions, be they religious or psuedo-scientific. Supposed universal truths and scientific certainty fail all the time. The vast majority of belief and hypothesis have been rejected in time, and yet you know, beyond the shadow of a dou
Sorry to be completely off topic, but I really had to post to tell John Galt that I love the name. I'm almost done with Atlas Shrugged right now, and it's amazing. I'm hoping this means you're libertarian. Because if you are, you rock. I am an objectivist. There are many things that I don't like about the libertarian movement, but if I was going to vote in an election and there were actually libertarian candiates, I would vote for them, becau
I do, however, have a problem with the intent vs. ends argument. The only way we can ever determine the morality of an action is by the intent!!! Mind what people do, not what they say, for their actions betray a lie. (TG) Intent is irrelivent because you can never know the intent of another with any certainty. Thus it is irrelivent to everyone other than the person that acted in the first place. In order to classify an action
Yes, that was a road sign that I saw the other day... Yes, I suck at spelling, and every once and a while I make stupid gramatical mistakes because my brain gets ahead of itself. But this is pathetic. People, it's slowly, really, awefully. It is not slow, real or aweful. Learn what an adverb is.... it's frightening how fast the adverb is getting ba
BakerStreet: I happen to be in a bad mood because of an article about a girl that was raped by her father and then not only didn't hate him for it afterwards but lives with the man and cares for him. It made my blood boil to see someone make such an anti-life choice based on ignorance (religion). That she gets to make stupid decisions like that is a good thing, but man.... Hence I'm going to rip apart everything you said and show yo
Molly: Um, but the only valid measure for one's life is how they LIVE, not how they die. If you choose to die, then you are by definition acting in an evil fashion (hence my comment about acting like a socialist...) So there isn't any contradiction. The value judgement that I made is a universal one that is based on non-contradiction. (and is erroniously why some Objectivists have a hate-on for gays... more on that later) Y
Morality is a very simple concept. Non contradiction + acting for the betterment of yourself (the second is arrived at because acting for the betterment of yourself is the only non-contradictory approach to life, unlike Socialism that requires you to be a hippocrite) It is a moral obligation for yourself to act to better your life so long as you don't harm another. If you do not, then you are embracing death and are the same as a socalist or
Splateaux: Dead on! Dare to be wrong, and then take being wrong like a man (sorry women, you get the idea) and then dare to be wrong again. The more you're wrong, the less and less you'll be wrong in the future, so long as you learn from your mistakes. But if you refuse to act at all, you have no chance of being right EVER.
JoeUser Forums