tadmjones
-
Posts
2073 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
49
Posts posted by tadmjones
-
-
There is no justification whatever for banging someone's head into the ground causing lacerations. Those lacerations are physical evidence of wrongdoing. If someone did that to me, I would kill them without the slightest compunction or feeling of remorse. They would deserve it, just as Trayvon Martin deserved to die. Good riddance to a worthless scum.
-
This doesn't make sense. I presume you mean to say cultural and perhaps you can actually explain and support your statements instead of speaking in clichés.
Um yeah, sometimes I should read and not post.
Basically I doubt this case would receive the coverage it has, if Trevon was white. It was a local story until Sharpton and his ilk began his involvement and media attention. The attention is purely political.
None of the evidence so far public, seems to me to indicate that the authorities acted incorrectly the night of the incident and assessing the situation as one of self defense.
-
I think if it weren't for current the cutural understanding as concerns race, this post would not be.
-
Hi tadmjones!
I'd like to respond but I don't adequately understand the full context you intend for your statement and I would rather not misinterpret its meaning.
Questions/comments:
1. If we are speaking of individual existent particles such as electrons... what you mean by "context of mathematics"?
2. We have not fully defined "extension" for the purposes of this discussion. I note we likely will need to agree on an objective definition for purposes of a meaningful discussion (so we do not talk past one another).
SL
I meant that within the context of plenum, the idea of a point without extension is valid, as long as it (an extension-less enitity) is considered within the context of mathematics.
A 'point' can be considered extensionless as long as the concept is confined to a concept of method.
There can be no existential entity(entities) without extension or perhaps 'force' or 'charge', but those qualifiers are beyond my layman pervue.
-
speaking of a threat to the USA, where does stealth jihad fit into this? is it even a legitimate thing?
Do you mean groups like The Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR and the like? I would consider those groups and their actions to be stealth jihad. Isn't Dearborn Michigan practically a muslim enclave? I think the city scholl districts have actually changed the practice schedule of its high school football teams to accomodate the observance of ramadon(sp?)
-
in #39 harrison said
Tadmjones- I didn't quite catch that; would you be so kind as to phrase it as a syllogism?
if you mean my comment as #32
Dude not sure, but you may have at least a minor case of orifice disassociativeness
That was a slight, I was suggesting that your post 'sounded' like someone talking out of the their ass, I apoligize for the snarkiness, but of course not for the content that precipitated it as it was yours.
-
a point 'having' no extension is valid as long as the context of mathematics is recognized.
-
In #27 Strictly Logical said
2 I do not deny that perception and our perceptual apparatus are fundamental to obtaining information from reality. They are fundamental, in fact they are the ONLY tie a consciousness has to reality
Does this not suggest a separation between self(consciousness) and 'reality'?
-
Reread my response; I was specifically referring to hypocritical Muslims.
I would not feel safe among self-consistent Muslims, at all; never once have I made an attempt to excuse them. And yes, many Islamic scholars do advocate a worldwide Caliphate and THEY are evil; so is anyone else who expressly and knowingly advocates the same.
I am not saying that it is not an evil ideology and I am not whitewashing the atrocities which are committed for it, each and every day. All I'm saying is that the hypocritical ones (while still hypocritical and thusly immoral!) are not a direct threat to us.
The peaceful Muslims aren't immediately dangerous any more than Conservatives are likely to start burning people alive, again. Which isn't to say that it couldn't happen, someday- but not in our generation.
Values are determined by your philosophy (whether explicit or implicit) and, while it doesn't 'make' anyone do a thing they don't want to, as a form of protophilosophy religion DETERMINES what its followers want to do.
It is not magickal; it does move people to do good or evil. Observe- Hell, observe 85% of human history.
This statement. . .
Your definition of 'terrorist' (which is already a conceptual stumbling block) would include American soldiers- who 'blindly' obey the chain of command and practically breathe violence. Would you like to reconsider that and try again?
. . . Have I introduced you to this author that I simply adore; Ayn Rand?
Are you aware of the extent to which this directly contradicts the most fundamental Objectivist premises? If not- I don't really know where to start, but I could suggest a few things for you to read.
If you are aware and you think that she was wrong, that's fine; tell me why. Let's not beat around the bush.
Exactly.
Dude not sure, but you may have at least a minor case of orifice disassociativeness
-
Which we in the West consider a civil right.
-
btw fyi i'm a new(old)generation guy, Throwback Pepsi is the best!
-
You say fraud here, so if I sell TadCoke as if it were Coke , that is fraud because I claimed to be selling Coke while in fact it was TadCoke, would Coke not have to be a recognised Real Thing in order for me to defraud the public by selling them TadCoke instead? So isn't Coke the Real THING?
-
I seriously doubt the phrase 'initiation of force' carries the same weight in the umma as it does in the West, nor do I think the umma gives a rat's ass about any Western opinions of civility.
-
Harrison said #23
I would feel SAFE in such a community. I would not feel comfortable; frankly, I would probably spend most of my time trying to show them the irrationality of their religion
Heh, a dhimmi publicly committing blasphemy, may as well convert and then try becoming a public apostate you chances would be about the same
And did Mo ever say that the umma should not cover the globe? that is was Allah's will that Islam need not encompass the whole world? What Islamic scholars have said that a worldwide caliphate is not the goal for life on Earth?
-
You do not make the idea public and then forbid its use, as much as you register your unique creation(your property) with an objective agency , or third party so to speak.
The example of trademarks and such(Coca Cola) is not about the patentability of the secret formula as much as selling products of similar characteristics as one and the same product.
If I were to figure out their recipe and manufacture my product for distribution, as long as I did not try and sell it as "Coke" by this I mean using their logo and bottle design to intentionally make it appear to be their product , I would see this as kosher.
It would violate their rights to their property if I were to sell my manufactered goods as theirs in order to take advantage of their product's prestige.
The protection of their rights would have to come from the government( in the form of a recognised right to be compensated for theft) because otherwise what would stop a storeowner from selling my bogus Coke in place of the Real Thing, if I offered him a higher margin?
Which I could do (most likely) given I would spend zero dollars on marketing because I am ripping off Coke by piggybaking on their established and hard won market share.
-
What about 'artwork' would make it a special category?
Is 'artwork' not produced a human mind?
If an idea or a design is created by a human mind and can be objectively recognised as that particular individual's achievement, how or why would there be different principles concerning that individual's ownership?
-
I fail to see why my post should be of interest to the moderators. I didn't admit to or advocate doing anything criminal.
Dude you are a poser and creepy, how the hell is a forum supposedly dedicated to discussing the philosophy of Objectivism even tangentially associated with your post? Bugger off.
-
Harrison in #56 said
Money is nothing but a symbol
Believe me , I am not trying to nitpick here, but given what you may have gleaned from ITOE (and perhaps any other of Rand's nonfiction as it concerns politics/economics), re-evaluate this particullar statement word for word to see if it actually articulates an o'ist position.
-
My question on this thread , is, this is a moderated forum, yes? Hello Moderators!!
-
Are honor killings acts of non-political but extremist muslims, or the average joe kind?
-
Exactly when does one become an extremist? Is it when guiding the aircraft into the building or before? Is it after detonating explosives strapped to your body or before?
Aside from watching someone 'become' an extremist in the act as it were, how could you tell if they were prone to extremism? Wouldn't you look at the things they say they think, those principles and ideals that guide their actions, of course assuming the were being truthful of their motivation.
In what way do the teachings or tenets of 'moderate' muslims differ from those of the 'extremist' kind? Acts of terror are one way to try and bring about the downfall of the West, infiltration by 'moderate' groups such as CAIR are another.
-
See, hers's my querky take on all things IP in an idealistic form.
Using the example of a Mercedes from another thread, I think if I were to build an exact copy of a Mercedes product it should be considered my property just like the rake in my garage, in that I can do with it whatever I choose.
In my admittedly ideal version of LFC, I do not believe Mercedes Benz Corp should have legal recourse as it concerns the existence of my property. But if I were to trade the copy, they would then have the right to stop the sale or be able to gain restitution from me equal to the profit they would have made, had their product been sold (but not the costs involved in production).
They own the specific design of the car, they should enjoy all the rights enjoyable from the disposal of that property(the design). If I made a hundred copies of their design and sold them they would be entitled to compensation equal to the profit they would have realized had they sold their products.
If the design can be objectively recognized as their creation, what in this admittedly thin example is wrong as far as a principled recognition of property rights is concerned?
-
The difference between fire and the wheel? Yes. Is there an issue with my usage?
I do agree with it, actually; I don't think it's applicable to IP. Patents aren't an excersize of someone's right to invent: in the words of Wikipedia:
"The exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent others from making, using, selling, or distributing the patented invention"
As for patenting the wheel, why not? I know you can't patent THE camera or THE car or THE wheel, as such; only your version of it. . . Why?
Again; an arbitrary distinction thrown in to alleviate the suffocation of production. So why not patent fire?
See I don't think you understand the difference between a car , lightening, a camera, fire, gravity and a(the) wheel.
-
Harrison in one post you equated patenting fire and a (the) wheel, do you see a difference between what these concepts refer to?
One is a natural phenomenon the other a design. And futher , IP can only be applicable to a division of labor society.(as so most considerations of rights protection) moral justifications of rights is not the same nor should be equated with the metaphysical nature of beings in possession of said rights.
Leave George Zimmerman alone!
in Domestic United States Politics
Posted
So if others in the neighborhood responded to the cries for help, whether it was GZ or TM calling out, and stopped the altercation by restraining the apparent aggressor, it would have been acceptable for the victim of the aggression to end the life of the aggressor on the spot? This is an example of a rational, moral act ?