Adjutor

I'm surprised to read that a lot of people say they didn't feel anything the first time they ever tried it. I certainly didn't have that experience, and I don't know of anyone who did. I have to be suspicious of what they actually consumed or whether they inhaled more than an insignificant amount of smoke. I can tell you that I like marijuana. I'm not a drinker, for a variety of reasons, but one of them is certainly the deleterious health effects that it has as compared to marijuana. Having said that, if you don't smoke routinely you are probably going to experience a few different things. It only takes a few minutes for the drug to start working, and usually you have an epiphany moment where you realize, "I'm high!". It can affect your short term memory so you might be mid-sentence and forget whatever (usually grandiose) thing you were trying to say. It definitely makes you hungry. You will probably experience some tachycardia and dry mouth, so I recommend having water on hand. Some people have very unpleasant experiences, but I suppose that is true of any psychoactive substance. I think most people end up having a gleeful time. You just sort of become a carefree, mellow person. If you smoke more regularly you start to stop having the "silly" feelings and you certainly become more functional. For me, I enjoy music more and can become more emotionally involved in a movie. I also can continue to have intellectual conversations that actually make sense (as reported by other people who interacted with me). I guess everybody is a little different.

I'm confused about what you are saying. How are you defining pedophilia? Without citing something, can you at least give an anecdotal example?

Yaron Brook has been on his show on more than one occasion, actually. I've also seen members of the Cato Institute (who RichyRich claims is a "cousin" with the Right Wing) on many liberal news outlets over the years. If the Cato Institute and Ayn Rand are both "cousins of the Right Wing", shouldn't this not be the case? Shouldn't all liberal networks reject both Cato and Rand equally? This of course isn't the case, and the claim that they are excluded from conversation is fallacious. I would like to know, however, what any of the above has to do with this posters outrage over her alleged arrogance. What difference does it make if the left likes her or not? How does that factor in to your claim that she was arrogant for not acknowledging a debt that you (RichyRich, not JayR) have yet to specify?

So what? There is nothing preventing us from parking a fleet off their coast and launching cruise missiles and special operations to kill any knew real threats that may arise. You can't change a culture by force. This is especially true of barbaric tribalist cultures that have withstood outside influences for hundreds of years. They do not want to change, and we shouldn't waste our time, money or lives trying to make them. They should reap what they sow: death. If they want to embrace philosophies of death, there is no reason we can't provide them with an expeditious one. Afghanistan in the big scheme of things isn't all that important. Yes, it is a failed state that is a safe haven for terrorists. But who supports those terrorist ideologically and logistically? Iran and Saudi donors. Those are the real threats to our national security.

I just saw Avatar in IMAX 3D. To begin with, it doesn't look cartoonish. The graphics are amazing. A previous commenter stated that it resembled Dune. I wouldn't know, but it was an interesting story line. The nature of the Na'vi people seems to be grounded in science, as in the story there is a observable natural phenomenon where all of the life has a sort of symbiotic relationship. There were two things I noticed in the film that I dislike and I am not surprised about. The first is that most humans are portrayed as being war mongers, and the other is that there is an implication that because we use technology we have destroyed Earth. Other than that, I don't really see anything wrong with the film.

Islam may very well have been a motivating factor for this man, but we will only know that after the investigation is complete. To say unequivocally that he went on this rampage because he was a Muslim is incredibly naive and it is collectivist in origins. As has been stated by other posters, simply identifying as a Muslim does not make you a murderer. It's a bit irritating that supposedly intelligent individuals are making statements like that.

It would probably be difficult to find a remote enough place to put them that isn't inhospitable. It would be interesting to see how banishment for offenses would work out. I think you wouldn't find anarchy, they would create their own systems of governance. Perhaps it would be a bit like Escape from New York or something.

I hope he survives his injuries so he can be put on trial and executed for his actions.

I didn't care for the way Battlestar Galactica ended, implying that progress and technology was bad. There were episodes that annoyed me because of the obvious anti-capitalist undertones, but in general I loved the series. The first season in particular was amazing. They definitely should have replaced Adam with Admiral Cain, though.

Banning a nuke seems a little unnecessary. Who can afford one? Even among those who can afford them, what are the chances they possess the trained personnel necessary to use one? Not to say that I think it is wrong for a government to control nuclear weapons, but it does seem like a waste of time. The ban isn't going to help authorities catch a would-be terrorist. With or without a ban, the government is going to be keeping a close eye on those weapons. Edit: I think that rather than bickering over the particulars of whether or not it should be allowed for civilians to possess weapons of war (anything larger than a light machine gun, for (arbitrary) example), you should put your efforts into preserving the right of people to possess the firearms that are not only effective for all sorts of self-defense situations but are likely to be possessed. Handguns and rifles (along with their select-fire variants), shotguns, knives, suppressors and anything else that is routinely used by police and infantry ought to be available to everybody else. Those are the weapons that would best allow us to defend our life, property, and ultimately liberty. Having a Panzer division might help overthrow a government, but something tells me it isn't necessary. Insurgents are doing a wonderful job of screwing around with our military overseas, and there is no reason to suspect that Americans (who are well armed and trained) couldn't do better if it ever came to that. I know this is a philosophical discussion, and it's important to include any weapon imaginable in this debate, but if you are talking bringing this argument into a political situation, you are going to lose without focusing on small arms.

I agree completely. Even if the Swiss system doesn't subject anyone to a large inconvenience, there is no choice in the matter. You either do what you are told or you are punished. Thomas Jefferson had slaves, and I am sure they were treated well. They were still slaves.

It matters to me only because I wish to be able to explain the position better. My friend and I agree, we were really arguing about whether or not his assertion that "only an atheist could be altruistic" is true. I disagree with it, because a theist that sacrifices for the sake of obtaining something from God is ignoring the reality that God isn't real and therefore the hoped for reward isn't real.

I've been reading these forums for a while and once in a blue moon I pipe up and offer a response to a thread. I don't consider myself an Objectivist simply because I am not well versed enough in it to really explain everything, but I do agree with it. Anyway, a friend of mine was telling me that he thought only an atheist could be an altruist. His reasoning was that when a religious person acts altruistically, they aren't actually doing it (in other words, they aren't making a sacrifice) because they believe they are obtaining something in exchange for their (charitable, for example) behavior. God is going to reward them for good behavior, so therefor having donated their life savings to a homeless shelter rather than investing in a new home because it's a Christian virtue to do so wouldn't be a sacrifice. I made the argument that they are basing their decision off of irrational mystical thoughts, and simply believing they didn't exchange a high value for a lesser value is delusional. How can I better refine my approach to explaining sacrifice and altruism? Was he right?

Rachel Carson's book has long been shown to be filled with misinformation and unreliable data. You might want to point that out to him. Every attack on capitalism has been based on the false understanding of situations that are typically thought of as existing in a free market system. There are always instances of government failing to protect individual rights and businesses taking advantage of that situation. Those arguments do nothing to validly criticize capitalism. As others have said, the defense of capitalism needs to be rooted in something other than "the greater good". That is irrelevant.

it definitely is not a game for people who want a quick thrill. It takes a long time to get to that place where you can fly multiple ships competently. Fortunately they recently upgraded it so that there is a skill queue, allowing you to link up a number of skills one after another provided they fit in a 24 hour period of time. This way you don't have to log in at 3:30 AM to change a skill to maximize time.