happiness

I would also like to add that while he doesn't make as much noise on these unpopular positions, I trust that Paul would not raise the debt ceiling, condone further economic "stimulus" by the Fed, or permit additional major acts of government intervention in the economy such as bailous in the event of another crisis, which I think almost all other candidates in the field on both sides would do. This adds to his attractiveness in my eyes.

I don't follow current politics closely, because I can't stand to watch, so don't know much about him. It seems that he differs from his father in some key respects, most notably neither being as religious—he believes in evolution, condones birth control, and leads a more secular life in general—nor an absolute "non-interventionist" in foreign policy, which are good things. Whereas Paul Sr. was unwavering from a philosophy that was way out of step with the rest of the political spectrum and made him unelectable, Rand seems more eclectic and compromising, which while not admirable in itself actually seems to lead to better positions overall. He's recieved a lot of attention for fighting domestic surveilance, but doesn't make nearly as much noise championing economic freedom, which shows that he picks his battles carefully I think. I would vastly prefer his flat tax proposal over the current tax code and can accept it as a sincere attempt to reduce taxes while keeping his candidacy viable, as opposed to proposing to abolish the income tax outright like his father. His position on abortion is unfortunately quite bad. I'm trying to weave all this together into a generalization about what kind of politician he istead of saying "good on X issue, bad on Y," but just don't know enough. Compared to what else is out there, could a Rand Paul presidency be a net positive to the country? How do you rate his chances? I will say that so far, while I will neither be donating to his campaign nor adorning my car with his bumper sticker, I really hope he wins. Thoughts?

There has to be some legal mechanism in place to protect children who cannot rationally consent to sexual activity and that can only reasonably take the form of an age of consent line drawn in the sand, however arbitrarily.

I hope you're right. I should probably stay off r/politics.

or is he too whacked out to get elected even in the current state of things?

"He shrugged and lowered the gun. He stood tapping it against the palm of his left hand. People always speak of a black death or a red death, he thought; yours, Gail Wynand, will be a gray death. Why hasn't anyone ever said that this is the ultimate horror? Not screams, please or convulsions. Not the indifference of a clean emptiness, disinfected by the fire of some great disaster." I'm wondering about the emboldened passage. Does it imply that one would be serene about his impending death if it were about to happen as the consequence of some catastrophe completely beyond his control?

Is there such as thing as "human nature," and if so, is it accurate to state that it is selfish?

I've been smoking marijuana all week this week, my first time in years. During this time I've had some ideas for some very provocative internet posts that turned out to be among the best I've ever done. However, my tone was uncharacteristically aggressive, and I came off like an angry god out to destroy anyone whose argument displeases me.

I have a great deal of distrust of doctors in general. In my view, the government's strict control of the medical profession has resulted in a generation of physicians who are unskilled and second-handed, their attitudes about medicine revolving around what they were taught in school and the edicts of authorities like the FDA. An entire specialty, psychiatry, appears to be nothing short of an outright pseudoscience, yet most physicians in legitimate areas blindly accept it for social reasons, apparently because they are complacent enough to assume that anything they were taught in school and that the government licenses into existence must necessarily be valid. In 2000, the Journal of the AMA published statistics purporting to show that iatrogenic (doctor-inflicted) injury is the third leading cause of death in the U.S., although I admittedly don't know what weight to place on this. In spite of the obvious problems in the profession, many doctors are tremendously arrogant, expecting veneration from everyone just for being doctors. From reading the posts on studentdoctor.net, a popular forum for aspiring doctors, it's clear to me that prestige is often the primary motive for their entering the profession. Most of them vociferously oppose allowing non-physicians such as nurse practitioners to legally take on even menial roles autonomously, and it's obvious that whatever their rationalizations, the real reason is that they fear the loss of money and status that would come with increased competition. My own encounters with doctors have mostly been complete wastes of large amounts of money, and some have even resulted in outright harm. As a result of which I am now reluctant to use the services of doctors except in emergencies because I don't want to give them money or sit there as a patient and pretend to take them seriously. I will say that there are certain areas of medicine that I have tremendous respect for, such as emergency medicine and radiology, and others that I simply have no experience with and know nothing about. I also do realize that acts of government have made the profession miserable even for good doctors, which obviously contributes to the their apparent shortage. However, this does not really overturn my general opinion of the medical community. Is my attitude justified, or do you think I'm being unfair?

you're not my friend anymore

Rand challenged her haters' fundamentals and pulled their moral high ground out from under them.

During a debate about the merits of Objectivism and laissez-faire, a Rand hater cites something bad that happened in the context of today's mixed economy as evidence of a flaw in capitalism. What is the exact error there in terms of the person's logic?

My doubts about his legitimacy and anger over his past transgressions make it impossible for me to enjoy performances that would normally be exciting.

Eight years ago, the world's then-top sprinter, Justin Gatlin, tested positive for illegal performance enhancing drugs and was banned from competition for four years. He has always denied ever using drugs and never apologized even though there was strong circumstantial evidence against him in addition to his positive test. After serving his ban, he is back competing again, and at age 32, which is quite old for a sprinter, is destroying everybody and running faster than he did during what should have been his prime, when he was convicted of being on drugs. Although he is passing drug tests and there is no evidence that he is currently involved in any wrongdoing, many track fans accuse him of continued drug use, hate him, and root against him. Is this attitude justified?

For me, procrastination comes from dreading whatever it is I have to do.

I've never read the Qu'ran and don't know what it actually says. Whose interpretation of it do you think is closer to correct, the "extremists" who carry out acts of violence and want to impose Sharia law by force, or the harmless ones who repudiate terrorism and violence? Because I know that the term "extremist" is often applied to anyone whose views are consistent, I'm inclined to assume that the "extremists" are the ones who are actually following the dogma.

I'd be leaving my current position, which although I have no complaints about it, is just a paycheck and not a desireable long-term situation for me. I've spent the last year trying to plan a move toward something else and am whittling down my options. The sales job is the riskier one, because there is no Plan B if I blow through all my money trying to sell on commission and it doesn't work out.

I have an interest in a particular sales job. I say a particular one because I'm not inclined toward sales in general and am only interested in selling for this one company because I'm enthusiastic about it and its products. The reason I'm uncertain whether I should pursue it that my disposition suggests that I would be unlikely to excel at sales. I'm deeply introverted, definitely not a "people" person, am somewhat sensitive, and am afraid that the constant dealing with people, especially with the frequent result of getting rejected that sales entails would make me miserable and burn me out emotionally. Granted, it's phone sales with warm leads, not face-to-face selling and not cold calling, and these things make it easier, but I still get stressed out thinking about it, so much so that it deterrs me from applying. The things that appeal to me about it are: 1) I'm interested in the company and its products, 2) the potential financial payoff, and 3) it's a potential outet for my communicative talents. How do I decide where to come down on this?

Do you solicit your clients' business or they your expertise? What in the way of people skills does your job require?

The author's name is Ken Hutchins, the publisher is Renaissance Exercise LTD, and the book is "The Renaissance of Exercise."

Do his commercial rights not include the right to forbid people to digitize the information to coincide with his decision to require people who want it to pay for the hardcover book?

I bought a book whose pages I want to scan to convert it to digital form. It's a huge hardcover book that's hard to hold open to the page I want and too big to carry around. The publisher/author didn't include anything in the book forbidding its contents to be reproduced, so I emailed him to ask for his permission to digitize it for my use only. His secretary replied that he is not comfortable approving my request and does not want digital copies in existence. I'm probably not going to go through with it out of respect for the author's wishes, as he is someone I look up to, but just to play the other side of the argument, would there be anything unethical about doing so? Is there any moral significance to the absence of fine print saying "no part of this book may be reproduced without the author's permission?"

I brought it up with the appropriate person and he insisted there was no mistake, said I'm being paid for three weeks instead of two, which still doesn't quite seem to add up but at least I did my part.

Due to an apparent accounting error, my employer paid me twice what I am entitled to on my last paycheck. I reported the error to my immediate supervisor, who is not responsible for such matters, and he seemed indifferent, like he didn't want to know. Assuming he doesn't do anything about it, am I morally obliged to report this to the responsible persons, or should I just keep the money and shut up?

Excepting situations in which circumstances such old age make it unrealistic, if romantic love is one of the essential values in life, should everyone hold getting married as a long-term goal?