Leaderboard

This has been blissfully ignored on this board for long enough. Time to talk about it. I guess I gave away where I stand He was just released on bail (US$1 million) but he's still on trial for murder. And he really doesn't belong on trial for murder, it's a shameful witch hunt by a political appointee. Alan Dershowitz has been very vocal in his criticism of the prosecution. Here's a small portion of what he had to say: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-05-18/news/31753417_1_defense-lawyer-evidence-fatal-shooting

I earned a 4.0 last semester while working ~30 hours a week. Also, I recently ran 4 miles in <28 minutes. That is a big accomplishment because I could barely run a mile in 8-9 min at the start of spring. That will go away though because I am starting to bulk up this week. And this is my 400th post .

IF induction IS "inference of a generalized conclusion from particular instances" and if the totality of any individual person's life is a collection of particular instances of experiencing reality, then is not claiming "induction is wrong" tantamount to claiming "knowledge" is impossible to every individual? Is it not an attack on the process of conceptualization itself? I think I hear echoes of skepticism and rationalism... Assuming omniscience, mystic revelation and platonic forms do not exist (and they do not), perhaps the issue of "knowledge" is one of semantics. An Objectivist knows that whatever "knowledge" IS, it must at least fall within the scope of WHAT an individual can HAVE in his or her brain and can gain from experiencing reality (there are many other steps of course) It would be utterly senseless to speak of a kind of "knowledge" not possible to man.. such a definition takes the concept outside of the range of what it is meant to identify. SL

It's common practice to overcharge someone in the hopes that they admit to a lesser charge. It also seems to be this prosecution's goal to present the jury with as many severe charges as possible so they convict on the lesser manslaughter charge as a "compromise." I'd be interested to hear a principled argument defending these practices.

I wrote a play in May 2013, one in June 2013, and will have one done this month, as well. So three, one act plays, in three months. They are me at my very best, in regards to writing. They are all based upon Greek myths. I will be publishing them soon. I selected a couple of people to read the final drafts of my first two plays, the one's that have read them, all were favorable reviews. I'll be finished with the final draft of my third play, probably as early as this weekend. Then send it out to the same readers as my other two, then decide what to do in regards to publishing them. This is an unexpected unbelievable holy-fucking-shit-I-have-something-to-show-for-all-those-years, moment in my life. It's an incredible feeling to have actually accomplished something with my writing. I am reworking the ones I mentioned in this thread earlier into a collection of plays of my own not based on Greek myths.

Now is providing proof of an error a P[r]opper form of criticism? edit: Darn emoticons

I love this thread idea. Recently, I just amassed a 3.3 semester GPA at Texas A&M, while remaining in good standing with the Corps and making time to compete in the Ranger Challenge competition in Fort Knox this October. I was a team-lead on our Ranger Challenge team, meaning not that I led the entire team, but that I was assigned two new guys to teach them our tactics and the skills they would need at competition. We took fourth place out of twenty-something teams from ROTC units across the nation. This is especially meaningful to me because last year I was a newcomer to the team, and we took seventh. This year I got a chance to pass down what my team-lead had taught me, and my kids did awesome at the competition, which made me proud. Oh and also I finally got the contract spot I have been working to earn since I came to A&M in Fall 2011, so I am now officially a cadet employed with the United States Army. I draw real grown-up pay, too!

No, you don't hold to determinism you hold to souls and supernature because that is the only way you know how to reject determinism. You have picked one side of the false dilemma. There is another way to reject determinism. There is nothing necessary about your position.