Mikee

There is no version of Islam that says you should be free to criticize the Qur'an, its just a product of human minds.There isn't a reform Judaism form of Islam. Islam is in a very different moment in its history and it is as though we are countering Christians of the 14th century. Christianity has been castrated since the Enlightenment.

lame. didn't like any of it. good thing it was only a rental

I think Libertarianism has quite a no. of different philosophies underlying it.

there is also this explanation of critical rationalism: http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/critical-rationalism

hmm, how does that lecture compare to these notes on the same subject: http://www.la-articles.org.uk/falsificationism.htm

some very good comments in there too

there is usually the naturalistic fallacy somewhere in there too.

is it necessarily an is /or thing

there is this article as well: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2010/04/23/is-male-circumcision-a-humanitarian-act/

try warm brew instead. better character (in my opinion), more yield and less time.

nope, it is brewed cold from the start. no heat is involved

warm brew is a better version me thinks. It has more coffee character and body. still smooth and less acidic. you can also get more yield out of it

here is another similar article to the one I posted earlier: http://blog.independent.org/2012/08/06/terrorism-by-any-reasonable-definition/

Harris has a new book on free will: http://www.amazon.co...30683486&sr=1-1 "And yet the facts tell us that free will is an illusion." --from the book's description

this is a good read: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17115643

In this scholarly collection of essays on Kant’s philosophy, Eva Shaper writes that Kant is “the father of modern aesthetics” (“Taste, Sublimity, and Genius: the Aesthetics of Nature and Art,” in Paul Guyer, ed.,The Cambridge Companion to Kant, Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 368). Harold Osborne, longtime editor of the scholarly British Journal of Aesthetics, writes of “Kant, who is rightly regarded as the founder of modern aesthetics” (Aesthetics and Art Theory: An Historical Introduction, E. P. Dutton, 1970, p. 153). And further Osborne claims of Kant’s analysis: “This theory is the most important anticipation of the modern aesthetic outlook in any philosopher before the twentieth century” (p.191). Without the first part of Critique of Judgment, writes philosopher Roger Scruton, “aesthetics would not exist in its modern form” (Kant, Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 79). Philosopher Arthur Danto agrees with influential modernist art critic Clement Greenburg on the centrality of Kant’s work to the modernist project: ‘“The essence of Modernism,” [Clement Greenberg in “Modernist Painting” (1960)] wrote, “lies, as I see it, in the use of the characteristic methods of a discipline to criticize the discipline itself, not in order to subvert it but in order to entrench it more firmly in its area of competence.” Interestingly, Greenberg took as his model of modernist thought the philosopher Immanuel Kant: “Because he was the first to criticize the means itself of criticism, I conceive of Kant as the first real Modernist.” […] I suppose the corresponding view of painting would have been not to represent the appearances of things so much as answering the question of how painting was possible”’ (After the End of Art, Princeton University Press, 1998, p. 7). Kant scholars Ted Cohen and Paul Guyer note that in the Critique of Judgment Kant “is entrenching the assumption of the subjective character of aesthetic judgment so strongly that by our own time it has become virtually an (unargued) commonplace” (Essays in Kant’s Aesthetics, University of Chicago Press, 1985, p. 11). Denis Dutton, philosopher and author ofThe Art Instinct, writes that Kant’s Critique of Judgment is “the greatest work of philosophical aesthetics ever written” (Dutton’s website). Scholar Roger Kimball makes a point of connecting Kant and modernist art in an essay on Schiller.

The word 'corporation' can realistically describe one of two things: it either describes specific actual people who interact with each other in certain specific ways, or it describes a logical construct used as a tool, by actual people. Either way, every dollar a corporation spends, every word it publishes originates in the intentionality of an actual human being. It's impossible to suppress the activities of corporations without suppressing the activities of actual people.

greed for the earned vs greed for the unearned

the essence of greed is an unmitigated desire. It does not specify a particular content, just a specific intensity towards that content, whatever it may be. Greed for wealth, greed for women, greed for the unearned, etc... Its possible to be rationally greedy for something

blowing it up can also be an option

If the Iranian government had not moved to nationalize oil, the CIA would not have staged a coup

not to mention giving those nuclear weapons to their proxy groups

The context was that Japan had initiated the second Sino-Japanese war, attacked an American gunboat in China, joined the Axis, and committed the Rape of Nanking which was in the news. Meantime, Congress kept passing one Neutrality act after another attempting to restrain FDR from any intervention while Europe was going up in flames. That was the context when an oil embargo was imposed on Japan - that was on August 1st, 1941. Remember that this was an American embargo - Americans were prohibited from selling to Japan, but it was not a blockade - the Japanese were free to buy from others. I think the standard accusations can be summed up in this blog post: http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html

I like mine cold brewed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpA7pfR0FIc