Doug Morris

A New York Times opinion piece by a columnist named Ross Douthat says that Scotland has passed a new anti-hate-speech law that threatens free speech.  "The new Scottish law criminalizes public speech deemed “insulting” to a protected group (as opposed to the higher bar of “abusive”), and prosecutors need only prove that the speech was “likely” to encourage hatred rather than being explicitly intended to do so. One can offer a defense based on the speech in question being “reasonable,” and there is a nod to “the importance of the right to freedom of expression.” But a plain reading of the law seems like it could license prosecutions for a comedian’s monologue or for reading biblical passages on sexual morality in public."
 

The US government has a lot wrong with it, but it is much more rights-respecting than the Belarus regime.  They are not equivalent.
MAGA consists of people who have let the lying demagogue Trump stir up their emotions to dangerous levels.
 

It has always been true that there is a potential for a new pandemic of some sort or other, partly because of germs mutating and partly because of human expansion into more places.  It is probably wise to be prepared.  It is surely wise to at least be aware of the potential.
 

Can you give some examples of the CDC saying that?
 

We have a better chance of surviving four years of Biden than of surviving four years of Trump.
 

Isn't it proven that there was a big spike in respiratory deaths starting in 2020, which must have had some cause or causes?
 

Isn't it proven that there was a big spike in respiratory deaths starting in 2020, which must have had some cause or causes?
 

So far, everyone on this thread has ignored Trump's attack on our system of democratic elections and orderly transfers of power.  This is a more direct and immediate threat to our rights and our general well-being than any of the other issues mentioned.  The only alternative to our system of democratic elections and orderly transfers of power is a contest of physical force to determine who comes to power.  That is a fast track to dictatorship.
People's willingness to believe Trump's lies without evidence looks cultish to me.
 

So far, everyone on this thread has ignored Trump's attack on our system of democratic elections and orderly transfers of power.  This is a more direct and immediate threat to our rights and our general well-being than any of the other issues mentioned.  The only alternative to our system of democratic elections and orderly transfers of power is a contest of physical force to determine who comes to power.  That is a fast track to dictatorship.
People's willingness to believe Trump's lies without evidence looks cultish to me.
 

This was necessary because the Trumpers had already demonstrated their willingness to use violence to overturn legitimate election results.
 

Violating the right to freedom of movement is both more clear-cut and much more impactful than requiring people to vaccinate.
Letting germs spread is more dangerous than letting people into the country.
 

If we're going to do a hypothetical like that, we should also have our hypothetical US being constantly attacked by Israeli terrorists with support from the government of Israel.
 

Ask Israel to extradite the terrorist to face our justice.
 

Agreed, but it's just hard to answer questions and misconceptions that jump around at random while dropping context is my point. A read through of OPAR "sets the appropriate stage" and context for appropriate discussion. It's how I began.

Another misconception, to quote one source I read, is that Ayn Rand "hates charity".  She has stated explicitly that there is nothing wrong with helping others provided you can afford it and they are worthy of the help.  What she objects to is the idea that helping others is an obligation or a primary virtue.
To make sure there is no misunderstanding, this refers to epistemological integration, not mathematical or racial integration.  Although Ayn Rand was strongly opposed to racism.
Ayn Rand was also opposed to government coercion in connection with any of the topics mentioned in my post here.  She thought that government should only be used as a defense against the initiation of direct or indirect physical force.  This is more fully explained in her writings.
 

While this is the best way for them to learn it, they may be reluctant to start until some specific questions and concerns are answered or an overview is given.
 

Another misconception, to quote one source I read, is that Ayn Rand "hates charity".  She has stated explicitly that there is nothing wrong with helping others provided you can afford it and they are worthy of the help.  What she objects to is the idea that helping others is an obligation or a primary virtue.
To make sure there is no misunderstanding, this refers to epistemological integration, not mathematical or racial integration.  Although Ayn Rand was strongly opposed to racism.
Ayn Rand was also opposed to government coercion in connection with any of the topics mentioned in my post here.  She thought that government should only be used as a defense against the initiation of direct or indirect physical force.  This is more fully explained in her writings.
 

If the Ukraine government has been persecuting and murdering Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine, why haven't we heard more about it from organizations like Amnesty International?
 

Objectivism is radical in its ideas, not necessarily in concrete behaviors.  Most people have enough grasp, on some level, of their true interests and of various rational ideas from various sources that they can come up with mostly decent choices and actions.
Objectivism protects us from various errors others can fall into, such as feeling or thinking that giving and/or helping is an obligation for them, feeling guilty because they supposedly haven't done it enough, confusion about where their interests lie, thinking that business is fundamentally immoral or amoral, buying into collectivist and statist ideas, or thinking that mysticism is necessary in order to have morality.
 

"Religious wars" - not quite. Religion wasn't the primary element of early Israel, a safe sanctuary and self-determination was. It's a common mistake to reify the Jews into a single category. They are about as disparate as all individuals in all groups outside of Judaism. 
Judaism is "ethno-religious". Part ethnicity, part faith. One may choose to drop the convictions entirely and still identify "Jewish" in one's own eyes, or not, especially in others'.
When Jews came under social/legal/religious repression in the European early 20 C, some, who happened to be Socialists and irreligious, began to realize they all, collectively, needed a secure homeland; so some early settlements in part of that large Ottoman territory - known later as Palestine- bought from the Turkish owners - were encouraged, financed and farmed.
The Zionists' prescience of the increasing dangers to all Jews was completely vindicated in hindsight. A flood of Jewish refugees from post-War Europe and many Arab lands where they, the original Spanish Jews, had been barely tolerated under "dhimmi" status for 500 years found a place they could make their own.
Internationally - *legally* - granted/partitioned for Jews - before anyone forgets.
The attacking Arab countries in '48, onwards ~were~ motivated by religious fanaticism, and the "Zionists" or Israelis, now an ethno-religious-nationalist entity, responded in their common defence.
So not then -or presently - are they considered by Israelis as "religious" wars. This now is a proper nation, equal citizens of several 'groups' (including 2 million Muslim-Israelis) and individuals threatened by a terrorist group posing as 'a government' with the goal of eliminating them all.
Terrorists make no such fine distinctions. Leftist and secular Jews who usually sympathized with Palestinians are finding out to their horror that they are as loathed by their fellow Leftists, and Islamists, for " being Jewish" as the religious ones, and as likely to be picked upon and isolated in western nations or be murdered and abducted in Israel, as many were.

How about the argument that knowledge is gained by a process, and no one can process everything?
 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-northam-abortion-execute/
 
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-virginia-gov-abortion/fact-check-virginia-governors-2019-comments-about-abortion-bill-are-missing-context-idUSKBN27D2HL
 
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/meme-misquotes-virginia-governor-on-abortion-bill/
 

Trump threatens, and has damaged, our system of democratic elections and orderly transfer of power.  He'll probably do even more if he wins or comes close.  If he wrecks our system of democratic elections and orderly transfer of power, we'll be left with a contest of physical force to see who gains office.  Whoever wins that contest, having used force to get power, will probably use force to keep it, and we'll have a dictatorship.  This is a more immediate threat to our rights than the gradual slide into statism that the current Republican party can only delay and tweak, not prevent.
To do my bit to stop Mr. Trump from winning the electoral votes of my state in 2024, I'd vote for H. Biden were he the opposition candidate.  (Yes, I said H.)  I'd vote for a yellow dog.  I'd vote for that apparent serial killer that was recently arrested in Long Island.
 

Immorality is irrationality, the failure to use one's mind.  Using one's mind includes acting on one's conclusions.  A neglect to focus can be motivated by cowardice, dishonesty, bitterness, laziness, whim-indulgence ...
I didn't put a period because I was not trying to make an exhaustive list.
 

The original articles about Ukraine being a money laundering operation were published in 2001 and 2004.  So how is this relevant to the current war?