Black Wolf

I'm so sick of people crediting Obama for getting Osama killed. It's like if you credit everyone for pulling over to the right side of the road for helping someone get to the hospital

I was actually thinking of the exact same quote. It makes me wonder: are they currently in the laughing stage, or the fighting stage? Because the article posted in the OP sounds like it's literally calling for war.

Way too unrealistic of an expectation.

Truly a cause for celebration

But I'm not talking about just killing someone because they are bothering me. I am talking about ejecting someone from something I own. If I agree to fly someone on my plane, under the assumption that the person is not going to harass me, do I still have an obligation to fly him to safety when he violates that assumption

If you are on a plane that you personally own with a passenger, do you get to push him off the plane? You made no written contract with him, and you made no agreement with him that you would be responsible for his safety. If the guy is bothering you and basically being a rude guest, or just basically being a bother, do you get to push him off in a society of individual rights? Are you responsible for his airbag?

Barney frank was mostly speaking about legalizing gambling, drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, etc. So that's probably why. Still, having the same guy that helped destroy the economy represent liberty makes CATO appear to be a desperate organization. I only pay attention to Cato Institute because of Patrick J Michaels, the one guy with the exact credentials that leftists demand that people have in order to be an authority on AGW. Also, briefly: what is "mathematical economics?"

Cato Institute was having BARNEY FRANK speak for them. Their agency has lost all cred

Because everyone knows that the government has left air companies alone, as well as big oil. Oh wait, no..

It is such a shame that William Lane Craig wins so many debates... because the theists view him as this prolific theist. His claims are very easy to debunk when people have time to think about them... but that's not available in a public debate. I wonder if an Objectivist crushed him in a debate, that would entail more positive publicity of Objectivism

I love how this guy scoffs at Ayn Rand for preaching selfishness, essentially, because according to him, it's like teaching your grandmother to suck eggs. This is the same guy who had a beef with Mother Teresa, because SHE didn't preach selfishness for women. My only respect for this guy lies in him sticking it to folks like Mother Teresa. Although he didn't necessarily attack her altruism, he definitely attacked the notion that someone can become a figure of high benevolence simply by confirmation bias.

Yeah, it's quite obvious that he portrayed Ayn Rand in the worst way possible on purpose. But it is a good idea for Ayn Rand Institute to get on his show, because, well.. how many leftists actually invite people on their show after talking trash about them? It's a chance to get publicity

That's something Piekoff himself would have to elaborate on, you can't get that answer from us. If I were to speculate, I would suggest that the lack of consistency in Obama's principles would make him a nihilist. He criticized the republicans endlessly for getting us involved into unnecessary wars, while getting us in one, to name a few.

Here was my response to the person who posted this on facebook "Atheism"

I just read this article right now. It's so hilarious. OMG! Ayn Rand liked a serial killer in the late 1920's! I bet she peed on the floor in 1908. The little scamp.

..Holy crap. I re-read my original posts, and I TOTALLY screwed up - people now think I seriously was convinced by these arguments. I was not paying attention to what I was typing. Here's what I should have typed The person claimed that these five premises are accepted historical fact. I asked him to prove to me that secular historians agreed upon these five claims, in the form of historical/anthropological societies, and he really didn't give me any. He just cited the Craig-Ehrman debate. I told him that he should have no problem giving me some if what he said was true. I was wondering if anyone else had a similar experience when debating this, where they didn't actually prove that historians came to a consensus on these things. Of course, my rebuttal was in no way dependent on the veracity of those five claims, because really - he seemed to think that he was going to intimidate me by citing a probability theorem that he thought I wouldn't understand (given that I'm a math obsessee and a chem. eng major, it didn't work). I was wondering if anyone had a similar experience when asking for someone to back those claims up Sorry if anyone thought I was a theist, or was seriously trying to argue theism.

I'm sorry if this has already been posted, but these five premises, often claimed to be used along with Bayer's theory of probability, makes Jesus' resurrection the only probable event of these claims. 1. Jesus was killed by Roman Cruxifiction in the first century A.D. 2. Jesus' followers were so convinced ...of his resurrection they died for this belief. 3. Jesus' tomb was empty. 4. Saul (Paul) a self-admitted persecutor of the early church experienced a radical transformation into a believer. 5. James, Jesus' half-brother who was a skeptic became a believer. Using Bayes' Theorem of Probability we find that the resurrection is the most probable explanation of those five facts. Now, I'm literate enough in calculus-level probability to know that using probability theories for events is an extravagant claim. But I'm curious, how would o - Are these five claims accepted as historical fact? Many people making these claims seem to believe so. I have asked for which historical/anthropoligical societies have come to a consensus on all five of these things, and so far, I've yet to get them. But is this experience at all similar to anyone else who's debated the same thing? - What are some possible alternatives to the conclusion that Jesus was resurrected?

Although his approach to illegal immigrants is rather disappointing, overall he is impressively aligned with the Objectivist approach to politics

It's possible. Sometimes, engineers and lawyers overlap because... I don't know why

Maybe my recently failed Multivariable Calculus test is screwing with my head, but the math in this article just isn't adding up. As someone else mentioned, how often does a legal battle take more than 10 years? And at what age was she introduced to Ayn Rand that she's looking at lolcats at the same time? What's next, is someone going to write an article entitled "I used to like Ayn Rand, but then I realized I was going through an adolescent phase?"

Nominalism clashes with Objectivism, because nominalism holds that concepts are subjective. Objectivism rejects the notion of nominalism, and anything related to it, such as: The Analytic-Synthetic dichotomy Subjective value Moral relativism Linguistic Analysis etc.

I may be a bit late, but Piekoff actually said in a podcast that redundancy can be necessary for clarification. "Rational" egoism. "Laissez-faire" capitalism. "Individual" rights. All of these are redundant, but only if you understand the underlying premises behind them. People today don't, and thus, the redundancy is necessary

All-powerful does mean that you can do all - regardless of what it is, and including contradictory things. If the theists aren't trying to argue that, then that's what they need to argue. It is not on us to make qualifiers and quantifiers for them, they're the ones who need to do that.