Nicky

Between the OP and your post, there are three separate issues raised: 1. animal cruelty laws 2. the morality of animal cruelty 3. what you call "the sacrifice of animals" None of them are fundamental philosophical issues, but the philosophy of Objectivism can easily be applied to resolve them: 1. Animal cruelty laws violate property rights, because animals have no rights. 2. Animal cruelty, for its own sake, is immoral, because it is the act of proliferating psychological corruption. 3. The slaughter or any other use of animals for human benefit is not a sacrifice, and therefor proper, because animal life has no inherent value (because there's not such thing as inherent value).

I'll do that. Though not right away, I have a long list of study suggestions to get to. Turns out you're not the only troll who can't seem to stick to the subjects of threads, always has to make it personal.

If you already made up your mind, why ask?

What for? You'll just say that "no, that would happen the same way in both a private and government facility, and they could both be held accountable the same way". Even though I already explained that government officials and private individuals are subject to two different sets of rules. While government officials are only allowed to act with permission, private individuals may act freely until proven wrong. That's what makes one category a government employee, and the other a private citizen. If you hire a private citizen to do a job, as instructed by the government, then he's no longer a private citizen, he's a government employee. Btw. this is the same argument as the private vs. government police force. And just as pointless to have it, if someone refuses to acknowledge the role of the government as the only entity which may use retaliatory force.

Nope. Yep. In that thread, people are trying to separate sex from our highest values altogether. Here, the question is whether you should have sex with someone you like (and even admire), but not quite love.

It doesn't have to be overseen by "a bureaucrat", it has to be overseen by elected officials, who are held responsible by a higher standard of law than private individuals (the Constitution is filled with restrictions on government officials' actions that private citizens don't have to abide by), not to mention by the voting citizenry. The government is the one we delegate the right to retaliatory force to. Outsourcing that dilutes responsibility for how that power is used.

Does it really? Did Die Abteilung der Heimatland-Sicherheit figure that the brave patriots it is persecuting never heard of sorting algorithms, so they made their list difficult to follow by not ordering it for them? Agh, why does everything have to be a big conspiracy? Here, problem solved. Conspiracy defeated, we can stop blogging about it now:

The justification, from the "North's" (the federal government's, in fact) standpoint, was the secession by the Confederate States, which was considered a rebellion. I agree that the main cause of that rebellion was Lincoln's stance on slavery. But Lincoln did, at least in theory, have the option to just accept the secession of the cotton states, and just outlaw slavery in the states which didn't secede. I am having trouble accepting that the motivation for the decision to refuse to recognize the Confederacy as a new nation, and withdraw the Army from its territory, was motivated by the concern for slaves, rather than the desire to preserve the United States as one nation. I believe that, had there not been such a desire, and anger over the rebellion itself rather than the cause, Lincoln would not have had the political support for a war, and the North would not have opted to go to war. P.S. I am not arguing that the North's choice to go to war was wrong, only that saying that it was because of slavery is wrong. It is even possible that Lincoln, personally, was motivated by his moral repulsion of slavery (though that's unclear). But that's not why the population of the Northern states went to war. They went to war against rebels, not slave-masters. I don't think allowing the rebellion would've been the right decision, because the Confederacy was a deeply immoral entity, and such evil must be confronted. But I can understand how someone who is basically a pacifist (which Ron Paul is), would disagree with Lincoln's decision and call him a warmonger. I agree that the South was motivated by trying to hold on to the slaves. Without it, they would not have tried to secede. But let's say there was some other, far less reprehensible reason for a secession. Do you think this time, the North would've just peacefully withdrawn from the seceding states, and recognized them as a new nation?

[edit] There's a FAQ, Grames. They don't get a cut. There is one thing I couldn't figure out from the FAQ: Before authorizing a tip jar, do you make sure that you do in fact have the means to deliver the money to the project/person?

That's not what she meant by the separation of economics and state. But no, it makes no sense to have private companies in charge of prisons.

The article misinterprets what an executive order is. It's not legislation. It's a standing order given to government employees. They have to abide by it only as long as it is the standing order. So, in effect, that order (or rather a different one, issued by Reagan, banning all assassinations not just political ones - Ford's order is not actually in effect) only applies to government employees acting without presidential authorization. If they have Obama's authorization to assassinate someone, Reagan's order no longer applies. All these Presidential orders were issued to prevent the CIA from engaging in unauthorized assassinations, not to stop such activity altogether.

We can and we do. Presidents are free to rescind, re-interpret or just plain ignore executive orders issued by their predecessors. And they do. In fact the current administration even has an active kill list of terrorists, and they cross names off of it on a regular basis. The reason why everyone refrains from going after political leaders is because political assassinations are ineffective at defeating an enemy country, and they instead invite retaliation from the large numbers of supporters political leaders invariably have (that's how people get to be political leaders- by gaining popular support).

1. It's not true that millions died in the Iraq war. 2. You have made no valid argument to back up your implication that the US is morally responsible for the deaths which did occur. 3. People who do not deserve to die, die in all wars. If that is unacceptable to you, then you should be against all war, not just this one. 4. It's not true that there weren't objective reasons for the Second Gulf War. This list is not exhaustive, but every item on it is an objective reason to go to war: - Saddam Hussein's refusal to abide by the terms of the cease fire he agreed to after the first Gulf war - regular attacks against American and allied aircraft in the no-fly zone - anti-American rhetoric - sponsorship and open backing of the mass murder of Israeli civilians by Palestinian terror groups - atrocities committed against Iraqi civilians in retribution for collaboration with the West, including acts of ethnic cleansing

Galt's Gulch was in the United States. It was a piece of property Midas bought in the mountains, to use as a hiding place from the government. I don't understand the argument. What does writing about a group of fugitives have to do with anarchy?

Surprisingly, FoxNews has published something intelligent, that goes to the motives of most AGW advocates/deniers. It also voids most of the insults directed at skeptics, in the OPs links and in leftists' discourse in general: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/28/global-warming-skeptics-know-more-about-science-new-study-claims/

P.S. To me this sounds more like astrology (a coincidence interpreted as a connection) than an actual connection.

SN, I'm assuming that you're alluding to a logical connection between the canoe and the lungs, not just a coincidence. If I'm wrong, ignore my reply. Well, the invention is the result of intelligent design, and the lungs the result of evolution. It makes sense that they have similar techniques in them, since the first is designed to function in the physical world, the second exists because it functions in the physical world. The techniques are similar, because they solve similar problems. That is the connection: the problems being solved is similar. Why does it then follow that equations describing the laws of physics should contain a pattern similar (beyond the likelihood of a coincidence) to a pattern that's the solution to a problem? I understand the association (the physical world), but that by itself is not a logical connection.

Have you read the essay?

That's a blatant misrepresentation of what computer programmers do. Programming is always done for the sake of running peripherals. It is never done for the sake of programming. There's no such thing as the bitcoin boom. And the .com boom was the result of two streams of innovative technology: microprocessors and the Internet. There's nothing innovative about this project, in terms of substance. It's a different approach to organizing a venture (it's not a for profit company, but a volunteer based organization), but that's not a technological innovation. People already use computers to operate hardware. That's not an innovation either. What's the innovation? What technological advancement is going to cause this .com boom style economic expansion? No, that's not true. Not true at all. I think the source of all these false statements is that you don't know what computers are actually used for, aside from gaming and the Internet. I don't think you ever watched a single episode of "How it's made?". Everything you buy or use that isn't 100% hand made (which is very rare) is either operated by a computer, with specialized software, or manufactured by industrial robots operated by computers, with specialized software. Keeping in mind what I wrote above, about the areas computers are already used in, expand their domain to where specifically? What new use has this project come up with for computers? That would be an innovation.

There is a difference between driving on a government owned road drunk, and driving on a private road, with the owner's permission and all participants' knowledge, drunk. Your analogy applies only to the second scenario. In this second case, yes, that is a right everyone involved has, as long as everyone involved is adequately informed of the rules of the road/condition of the building. The owner and the people using his property both have a responsibility in creating an environment in which people are reasonably informed. The owner has the responsibility to disseminate the information sufficiently for people using his facilities in a normal way to have the ability to learn about the conditions (in a building, this would involve putting up visible signs at the entrances), the users have the responsibility to inform themselves and act responsibly once they do. As for the need for regulations, I don't see their merit. Regulations tend to be costly and give undue power to the agencies enforcing them. The Court system, through civil suits, should solve the issue adequately. Instead of a costly government bureaucracy, private watchdog groups should be able to file and win class action lawsuits against property owners who fail to do a reasonable job of informing people that they're walking into death traps.

These tool I don't care whether it's open source or done as a business. Either is fine. The issue I have with is the goal, and whether this approach will achieve that goal. 1. I don't believe the goal "of building a small civilization with modern comforts" is explained.The civilization we have already fits that description, except for the part about the size. It's not small, it's big. It has an energy infrastructure, skyscrapers, highways, jets, spaceships, nuclear weapons, supercomputers, the Internet, 4G cell phones, schools and universities, modern hospitals, etc. I fail to see how working towards a small one just like it, but far less technologically advanced, would be worthwhile. Or, if it's different, then where is it explained how it is different? Please link me to a description of how this new civilization is different and better than our current one? 2. This set of tools is not the means by which one builds a civilization. Even if you could use volunteers to build tools that are better than the tools our vibrant and competitive industries produce (and there is nothing to suggest you could, besides the unsubstantiated promise that you will), what does that have to do with building a civilization? A civilization is the product of the culture, politics and economic setup of a nation. It's not the product of technology alone, let alone of a small scale, less advanced snippet of modern human technology. So, to sum it up, the notion that creating 50 open source blueprints for tools can lead to radical cultural and civilizational change is an arbitrary, astoundingly senseless claim. If you wish to build a new, free country, building these tools (which already exist, and can freely be purchased) is the last thing you should be doing. It makes no sense to me.

Do you think establishing whether it's true that truth is in the interest of survival is a good idea? What if the truth about truth ends up killing you?

You're asking for evidence and arguments, which presuppose logic. That means you agree that logic is the fundamental method of thinking. So the need for logic in achieving any goal (self interested or otherwise) should be obvious: men achieve goals through decision making, we don't act on instinct. Decision making requires thought, thought requires logic. As for honesty, honesty just means that we acknowledge that we live in reality, that the facts of reality apply to us, and act accordingly. We don't try to pretend that we are outside reality in any way. Dishonesty means ignoring some or all facts of reality in favor of a lie. You can of course have logical thinking based on lies. And you can have decision making based on lies. But that logical thinking, and that decision making do not lead to the achievement of goals. If you have any goals, you must be honest in evaluating reality, before being able to make the appropriate choices to achieve them. Here's why: A goal is a state of reality, that is different from the current state. The only way to achieve a different state of reality is to modify the current state accordingly. If you misrepresent the current state of reality, any modifications you choose to make will not have the desired effect. You will not achieve your goal. Basic example: Let's say you pretend that your house is five miles to the North, when in fact it's ten miles to the South, and your goal is to get home. In trying to achieve your goal, you apply logic to your understanding of your current state, hoping to modify that state in a specific way. But the result of your thinking will be to walk five miles away from your home. Honesty and logic are equally important, in achieving any goal. And self interest is a goal: a state of reality in which one is living in accordance with his nature. Religion is illogical. Again, you're asking for evidence, so you must agree that the concept logic, defined as the fundamental method of thinking, is valid. The only way religion could be in one's self interest is if religion was valid, and logic invalid. If that was the case, you shouldn't be asking for evidence, because evidence is also invalid.

I don't think anyone here conducted extensive research on the effects of campaigning for idiotic causes. But we know it's a bad idea anyway. Want to know our secret? It's thinking in principles. The notion that 'campaigning for something that is immoral is also immoral' is a logical consequence of the notion that 'honesty is a virtue'. While definitely possible, it would be tedious and ultimately pointless to search for direct empirical evidence to prove to you that campaigning for socialism is not in people's self interest. After all that work, you could just say "fine, then how about campaigning for fascism". And so on and so forth. You'd never run out of various concrete applications of abstract principles, to ask for direct empirical evidence on. On the other hand, Ayn Rand's argument for the need for moral principles, including honesty, is well documented, and sufficient to prove that freely choosing dishonesty is not in any person's self interest. Instead of asking for concrete evidence to various applications of Objectivist philosophy, you should try to understand the abstract principles themselves, and the way those principles are validated.

Her position is that a newborn infant does have rights.