tadmjones

Even a more 'secular' bent of Islam would not be comfortable with western ideals, so why do they come 'here'? And why for that matter is it 'ok' for there to be a communist party ticket on federal ballots in the US?! wtf

(I have seen it argued that Zimmerman would not have gotten out of his car if he didn't have a gun on him, meaning the 'suspicious individual' scared him enough that he should not have persisted. Again, speculation, but it's interesting to think about.) I have seen it argued that it was Trayvon's voice screaming for help because Zimmerman was pointing his weapon at him at point blank range and that Zimmerman may have smiled inwardly before pulling trigger, just speculation but interestting nonetheless.

It was poorly phrased near rhetoric question. That is the idea I was trying to convey , when forming new concepts some antcedent concepts can simply be held implicitly. When discussing techinal epistemology one usually assumes a broader context of knowledge and then can show which 'fully' formed concepts are dependent on others in order to 'prove' one has the hierachy correct, to allow further logical integration ie cause and effect. I understand the broad overview akin to the rational faculty being innate while the content of the mind is self generated.

Is there a difference acknowledged between implicit grasp and 'formal' explicit delineation of hierachical necessicity as it demonstrates proof in the context of 'technical' epistemology?

I will grant unprovoked, but the aggressors , terrorists whether Islamic or not, choose targets based certain'reasons', eg ideology.

hmm again with the missing post thingy Looking back on the OP , both groups could be described as posing a threat to America , and both can be seen as examples of 'loose or weak' organizations. The various government agencies are headed and run by various individuals and groups. It is likely that these different individuals have varying views on their use of power. What would cause them to become an even greater threat , would be if the separate power wielders were to adopt an ideology that included the idea of centralization of power and worked toward the end of utterly destroying any remnants of structural checks and balances of the current government. In the same way the umma could adopt as part of their ideology the same principles of centralization of power and become an even larger threat to America and any other nation that follows western ideals. So instead of debating whether to hate the sin or the sinner, lets condemn both.

hmm don't know what happened to the post above but I think the term 'racial profiling' should only be used to describe actions or motivations of government agencies and their agents acting in that capacity. Maybe it's just me, but when that term is applied to an individuals thought it seems to smack of a violation of 'new think'.

As to jury composition, the talking heads(at least on msnbc) were this weekend favorably discussing the need for legislative action to ensure minority representation on juries.

amen

Sharpton is probably holding 'prayer' vigils right now

I think most O'ists see it as a statement or arguement for subjectivism/primacy of consciousness pov

I agree, I just didn't know which emoticon was the 'tongue 'n' cheek" one

harrison I'll just say we have differing views here. For one ,induction can not be nonvolitional, it is a conscious , directed type of reasoning.

What of ideologies that leave absolutely no choice other than to follow its strictures? Are aggressive individuals people just predisposed to violence, like brutes? If so, why would they need or want an intellectual based premise(a reason, or rationalization) to act violently, do you mean they would not be violent without a reason? Perhaps getting rid of ideologies would help in this respect, help them to remain nonaggressive if they have no rationalization. Or do violence based ideologies sometimes just have strict adherents?

The thrust of my comment was more about the example, it seemed to suggest that infants would have a cubist perception and not see a face as a whole. The way I understand percepts and Sensation is not quite as interchangable as your explanation suggests. I can see how they are similar but, I think of a sensation as purely what happens 'in' the mind almost like a feeling, and that percepts /perception more refer ,specifically, to the entities and the apprehesion of them. As an example the experience of brigh sunlight when going outdoors. When it 'hits' you is the sensation, almost an simultaneous awareness of the various bodily reactions(eyes squinting, hands going up to shield , and the ..well.perception of the warmth). But if I were to speak about the perception of sunlight I would mean actually seeing the light, the mechanics of sight . Perhaps this is sloppy thinking on my part. Regardless of our different uses of the term, perception(my use here) is not filtered. Rand said that the senses are man's only cognitive source of information about reality. As to magicians , I don't recall exactly where but I think I remember Rand speaking about 'optical illusions' and how some would try and use this as proof of the senses giving a distorted view of reality. Paraphrasing hugely here, but what she described was seeing a stick enter water and then looking like it was bent. Some would say ''see there! we know it isn't really bent, our eyes are fooling us , we can't trust sight for giving us the 'real' picture" And then she goes on to explain that even if you are not consciously (conceptually?) aware of the properties of light refraction , your senses automatically apprehend it. Light does what it does and our eyes show it to us.

or how to use it and ,btw ,what is it.....?...epistemology? ever hear of any good ones?

reason

Is there a negative induction?

Then how, exactly, do human infants ever learn that one side of their mother's face is connected to the other Seriously, wtf, are infants imbued with a perception that shows them the world a la Picasso ?? When do infants have to 'learn' direct percepts? we all do have to learn from perceptions, but are you here claimin that perception is a distorted view of reality, or did you just type real fast?

Do you mean inapplicable to speaking of some abstractions in certain contexts, or like 'cause' being a kind of stuff or motive power? When you say the Universe is causeless, you mean that all of existence taken as a whole (the broadest abstraction) is without a single cause, yes? Cause is an abstraction that describes an entity(ies)'s identity and also the actions possible to that identity, it is not a power or thing that has identity other than an abstraction. Or at least this is the way I understand it.

What pissed most people off about Rand, was that she asserted moral actions as coming from a consciouness aware of the actions necessary for a being to exist as 'man qua man'.

Are you sure you have integrated the concept of fact?