Tanaka

I saw that interview, and I disagree that Letterman won that argument. He actually conceded to not having any arguments. I can't imagine why anyone would consider him the victor.

It was just a joke.

The fundamental source of that contradiction is altruism, not merely Liberal politics. Just as I'm not going to go around blaming Christians for not fully sacrificing themselves as per their religion, I'm not going to do it to Liberals. I'm going to hold them both to my standards, not theirs, and identify their faults accordingly. That's why the only fault I see in this case is the ideology, not the behavior that contradicts it.

I agree that it's false, but the person who said it first (at least on record) was cosmologist Martin Rees. Carl Sagan actually quoted Reese, in his book on the scientific method, as an example of a foolish thing to say. Ever since that book came out, the world has been inundated with maroons quoting Sagan, thinking he actually meant it. I guess Rummy's one of them. That's not a general truth either. If you were to go over to a distant planet, for instance, on a scientific fact finding mission, and came back, equipment intact, claiming it's full of docile bee-like insects, but you haven't brought back samples, it would be safe to say that the absence of proof is proof of the absence of the bees you mentioned.

If someone presented a similar piece of art, directed at my beliefs, while at a school I ran, that would definitely make me angry. The notion that I would actually sponsor an exposition with a childish collage mocking Ayn Rand, or any other great thinker or any great idea, in the name of being tolerant towards diverse points of view, is unconscionable to me. If I blame the people at Pratt for anything, I blame them for being Liberals (to whatever extent they're Liberals, I haven't met any of them). But, since that's not at issue here, I definitely don't blame them for not wanting to help this guy insult them and their guests with an infantile stunt. If they did, I wouldn't stop pointing and laughing at how stupid that would be.

I can't think of anything that's wrong with what he's doing. It's too early for me, as an outsider, to predict whether SKS will become a profitable enterprise or not (which is what it should ultimately be judged by), but none of the criticism I've heard so far is valid. A proper business model should indeed aim to benefit all those involved, customers, employees and shareholders alike. Muhammad Yunus, the man who attacked SKS going public the most is in fact right now reaping the rewards of getting in bed with the government, instead of doing the same with his own business (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=news&cd=2&ved=0CDcQqQIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F065a77da-434b-11e0-aef2-00144feabdc0.html%3Fftcamp%3Drss&rct=j&q=bangladesh%20microfinance&ei=efZvTa-eM8SGhQfNzs1K&usg=AFQjCNF5Ck84BabU_ZnhC5FENUs-3V6SzQ&cad=rja). I bet Grameen Bank will be history in ten years, in the hands of the bureaucrats Yunus chose to rely on and trust.

Was I suggesting that? Or was that a joke?

Makes sense to me. Maybe you're just missing something.

I agree. Otherwise, the foreign exchange students would have to interact with the people they came here to interact with. That would be ridiculous. Next thing you know, they're banging white chicks. Let's instead just isolate them all in a corner of the campus. Send over some fertilizer and diesel while we're at it, in case they wanna start a farm.

Because he's the most recent Republican appointee.

Probably not, judging from your description of what the protesters are "saying". You're hearing the voices whatever you're watching selected for you to hear. If you want reality, you should probably look for more diverse sources. Try some of the Israeli media, they're less likely to only tell you what you want to hear. I'd love to see you quote someone in this thread who made that argument. The actual point being made is that most of those protesters are fighting for less of a capitalist economy than what they have today, and less of a secular government than the ones they have today. That's what's being pointed out to you, not that they're not Objectivists. Let's take Bahrain for instance. Do you think a revolution will bring it closer to Singapore, or further?

I am disgusted by Alito's ruling. I guess it shows what modern Republicans are really about. The only attempt to afford an undue right here came with the original ruling. You do not have the right to restrict what others may say in your presence (even less so outside your presence, like it apparently happened here), in a space you do not own. Because you like to spend time in places you don't own, I assume. Why do you think you have the right to prevent others from saying whatever they wish, in spaces that are not your property?

There are other threads on this subject. The reason we don't post in them every day is that there's very little to be excited about. Those crowds are far from rational, or in favor of Capitalism (mainly because they have no idea what it is). By the way, you also had something to say about this, in your previous post. You said that "it's a popular movement that could wind up modernizing large swaths of the Muslim world". While attacking the comments in this thread, you were fair enough to admit they are accurate. Allow me to be fair with your take on the subject, and start with something you did right: you didn't commit to actually making a definitive statement about it, you used the word "might". I assume what followed after that 'might' is a projection of your ideology (unless you're just reciting the projection of CNN's ideology). It certainly doesn't reflect any facts I'm aware of. If by "modernize" you are referring to the calls for "social justice", more welfare (that's certainly what Liberals like to call "modern"), or democracy (mainly for the purpose of imposing Islamic morality and politics on the secular minority, through government force), then sure, that's what these people are fighting for. But if you mean freedom on principle, especially economic freedom, or secularism (these are the two things that I would at least like to think still define modern western societies), I have seen no mention of either of them among the protesters' demands. Like I said in one of those secret threads on this, the overthrowing of some of these dictatorships and the subsequent freedom/chaos might allow for a brief window, at least in Egypt (before the Islamists take over through democracy) to introduce those ideas into the debate, and hope enough people embrace them. But as of today, there is no movement to modernize the Muslim world, in the sense I would use the word modern.

I think both of these lines of reasoning fail to properly define conspiracy theories. Sure, they contain words, and they are about the government or some other group assuming undue power over individuals. But neither of those statements define them. I haven't read the whole thread, so maybe I'm not adding anything new, but here's my Genus–differentia definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus%E2%80%93differentia_definition) of conspiracy theories anyway: Genus: a theory about powerful men's actions/plans Differentia: arbitrary. In other words, what distinguishes conspiracy theories from other theories on the same subjects is that they're not based on actual evidence. They're meant to fill a void in a man's knowledge, but not by further studying reality, but rather by adopting whatever pure fantasy happens to fit into that hole, as truth.

Calling people on the other side irrational (not crazy, that's different), and proving that they are, doesn't stifle the debate. It shows the debate to be pointless. My goal in this thread was never to debate you, it was to explain why you are irrational. None of the so called evidence you are citing is rational (the fact that he spent four years in Indonesia is not evidence of his religion, neither is having Muslim roommates, neither is having been abandoned by a Muslim father at birth). Citing an instance of him mis-speaking by accident as evidence is irrational. The technique of constantly asking loaded questions, to avoid clearly assuming a position in a debate, is irrational. Denying the possibility of actually knowing the answer to the question being debated is the height of irrationality.

No. "to follow the rules of evolution" is not an attribute, it's a normative abstraction. If you try to identify facts of reality, you should use cognitive abstractions (answer the question "what is?"). After establishing what is man's nature, you may ask "what is good?" for men. But you can't say man's nature is to consider this or that good. That is just begging the question, not building an argument on some facts of reality you've previously identified. Man is a rational, volitional animal. That is his nature. He is an animal, but the essential attribute which differentiates him from all other animals is his rational capacity. Nature and reality don't have the kind of rules you claim they have. There is no rule of nature telling us we should behave like animals. If you want to ask why we are different from other animals, the answer to that question is: we just are. I could go into a long explanation on how it came to be that we are rational and other animals aren't, but that's not really relevant. The arbiter of whether a statement is correct or incorrect is reality. And, in reality, men are separated from other animals by a very important attribute, which allowed us to achieve so much more: rationality. Your "underlying question" is loaded with a mistruth. Nature does not contain any rules telling us how we should behave. Nature just is, it does not speak in abstractions. It is up to us to decide how we should act, based on what is. The essential way in which you should correct your thinking is this: when studying nature (including the nature of men), you must form cognitive abstractions, in answer to the question "what is?". Once you move past that, and are attempting to decide what type of morality will help guide men's choices to better achieve their fundamental goals in life, only then should you form normative abstractions, in answer to the question "what ought to be?" or "what is good?". But you should not use normative abstractions to describe nature. Nature does not think, it does not choose, its actions are not good or evil. Nature just is.

You haven't made any compelling arguments. You said that we can't know what he believes because we can't read his mind, and when I refuted that argument you started pretending you aren't arguing, only asking questions.

My suggestion is based on the observation that human beings usually behave rationally in these situations. It doesn't require that all human beings do that, only that most of them do. Which they do, be it in casinos, malls, amusement parks, etc. The idea of private security works just fine, in the real world, it doesn't require some unrealistic assumption about human nature.

Japan can rearm if they want to, there's very little anyone could do. In fact I bet the US would gladly sell them the same weapons sold to other allies, if they were willing to buy them. They are holding themselves to that 3% of GDP limit for funding their military, and taking advantage of US protection. The US would have only to gain if Japan started to pay for their own defense. In fact, they've started doing that recently, in terms of missile defense. The US should probably nudge those efforts along at a faster pace.

Asking a question that's been answered or has a readily available answer is actually a statement, not a question. In this case, your question states that our previous answers are wrong, and that there is reason to believe Obama is a Muslim. But you evade the need to justify your statement, by pretending it's just a question. This is the same exact technique all the other irrational conspiracy theorists use. If you stick to it, it will lead you to an amazing level of irrationality. You need to acknowledge the fact that you adopted a position in this thread. Then you need to state that position clearly to yourself, and figure out if it's correct or not. Stop asking questions, start thinking properly instead.

He didn't grow up in a Muslim environment. He grew up in Hawaii, with the exception of four years he spent in Jakarta, between the ages 6 and 10. While in Jakarta, he went to a secular public school and to Catholic School. By that logic, there's a reasonable suspicion Ayn Rand was also a Muslim. Not to mention the Pope. Always knew there was something wrong about him. And your family: as far as you know, you could be surrounded by Muslims right now. Ruuuuun.

I realize this is an old thread, and the OP is probably happily programming along by now, but perhaps there are others looking for that answer. I happen to have what I think is a pretty good answer, so here it is: http://cs50.tv That is the website for Harvard College's official, free, Fall 2010 introductory course on Computer Science. It contains HQ video of all the lectures, links to the notes, slides, homeworks, projects. The Google Group students use to discuss ideas with the teachers during the course of the semester is also free for everyone to join. They start out with the basic explanation to what computer science is, teach C and various data structures and algorithms, and then move on to web programming (Html, PHP, JavaScript, SQL, Ajax). Looks like quite the undertaking to actually seriously take that course (it's Harvard, so it will probably take more time and effort than your average college course), but I can't imagine it to not be worth it. Especially since it is followed up by CS75 - Building Dynamic Websites, a course focused specifically on web design. There are a few other free CS courses on the same website. They also link to a project called OpenCourseWare, which has similar courses from a few other colleges (MIT jumps out).

What you're describing is self-defense, not retaliation.

No. The government should have a monopoly on retaliation. My previous answers made the difference between what the Police should do, and what owners of property can do themselves, clear.

It would only make sense to start boycotting a company like Hyundai if it was part of an organized campaign, with a realistic chance of reaching them and changing their policies. Unfortunately, if the country you're talking about is South Korea, the problem is not Hyundai at all. It's the government, and the culture which lead to that government. South Korea (and Japan) are failing to act in their self interest with regard to NK, in general. It's not just one company going against the grain. The way to affect change would be through arguments, not boycotts.