WI_Rifleman

But he is tireless in his support of separation of church and state. I think after Bush is done we need a little cleansing. I think Feingold can do it. Sure he has a lot of positions that piss me off, but I think the Republicans will keep on caving in to the religous right.

I would vote for Russ Feingold, a Democratic senator from Wisconsin. I think he may just run.

You would also probably be drafted into WWI...

A train is heading towards two people that are tied to the tracks. You have the capability to change the direction of the train, but then it would kill another person who is tied to that track. What is the moral thing to do? Is it moral to trade 2 lives for 1.

Or Michael Savage. If anyone wants to see how fascism could happen in the US one only has to listen to "The Savage Nation".

A Christian friend of mine told me to read C.S. Lewis to get a clear picture of what Christians believe and why it is not irrational to be a Christian. What kind of philosophy can I expect to read about with Lewis? Does he offer any good arguments for Christianity or is it Kantian?

There is a different geneology for Jesus in every gospel.

Hydrogen is the most abundant substance in the universe. There is plenty of hydrogen on Earth, it is just locked up in water. If we could separate it from water we would be home free.

I am not sure I used the word 'subjective' correctly, but one of the things I found very problematic with Toulmin is how he defined a reasonable argument. His definition was something like this 'an argument that will resound with a majority of reasonable people'. I find this definition incredibly vague. When I asked my TA about this she told me that it was supposed to be vague and flexible. My response was, "What good is a definition if it isn't definitive?" This definition brings more questions into my mind than answers. What is a reasonable person? What constitutes a majority? 51%? or would 49% do? What if your argument is spot on but a majority of the people hold vastly different beliefs than you (such as arguing evolution to Christians)? That is what I meant by subjective. I do not have access to The Ayn Rand Lexicon at this present moment. I am sorry I couldn't help you out further.

In my persuasive writing class we are learning about the Toulmin system of organizing argumentation. This system was obviously created by Stephen Toulmin in the late 1950s. He claimed it was necessary because formal logic did not handle a lot of argumentation. From what my TA tells me it is a revision on Aristotle. Does anyone know anything on Mr. Toulmin? It seems to me as if it is a subjective view of argumentation, but then again my skills in rhetoric are not highly developed.

That would be the primary criteria for the consideration of ownership, but they would not have to be used soley for self-defense. I use my guns (an AR15, a Ruger 10/22 and a Yugoslavian SKS) for self-defense, hunting and recreation.

By looking at my avatar you can tell I am an advocate of the right to keep and bear arms. I am not as some that believe that one may own any weapon they want. The defining characteristic that should be considered is the area of effect of a weapon. Guns target an individual, which would be necessary for self-defense. Grenades, rocket launchers, and nuclear bombs target an area ranging from a couple meters in diameter to miles in diameter. These have no purpose in self-defense, therefor one does not have the right to own one.

I am not too big of a fan of Mr. Royce aka Boston T. Party. I have read a few of his books and they are loaded with misinformation. He constantly misquotes people and must not double check his information at all. That being said we are becoming a "hologram of liberty".

From what I have seen of House, I love it. I have only watched two or three episodes but I have a feeling this will become a 'must watch' show for me. Dr. House's antisocial attitude really speaks to me for some reason. They way he nags the obligatory beautiful female doctor is probably the best part of the show.

I made it to level 6 before I quit. It is an intersting riddle. You feel accomplished when you get one right.

I think by reality they mean the observable and understandable.

Great site. It helped me with a scrap with my creationist friend.

My brother posed me this proof that says that .9999999 repeating = 1. Doesn't this violate the law of identity? X=.99999999999 repeating 10X = 9.9999999999 repeating 10X - X = 9X 9X = 9 X = 1 Therefore .9999999999 repeating = 1

The thread on immortality through technology got me thinking. So I ended up doing a little internet research on Ray Kurzwiel. It seems that him and his like believe in a period in time when technology will be so powerful that predicting it would be completely useless. They call this time period "The Singularity". They claim that after this humans and robots will completely merge and transform the entire univererse into an intelligent being. The general consensus is that this "singularity" will happen within the next 25 years. Is there any credence to this hypothesis? It sounds as if these people are just like the Christians in prophesizing a utopian future (accept for the god killing all unbelievers part). What does Objectivism have to say about rational thinking computers? Would they have rights? What about a computer that was once a human but 'downloaded' their personality into it?

Although I am not an Objectivist yet, I have a lot of learning to do before I grant myself that title, I am definitely a student of Objectivism. I will tell you how I came to become a student. I come from a moderately religious Lutheran family. We went to church every Sunday, but other than that we never discussed religion or philosophy. During my senior year of high school I got decidedly political. I listened to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage every day. They made it seam like you had to be religious in order to be considered a conservative, nay, an American. So from there I became more religious. I read the Bible daily. I prayed my guts out. By the end of my senior year I could be called a Bible Thumper. I no longer was functionally logical. I believed EVERYTHING that damned book said. This kept up for another six months or so, then the contridictions began to get to me. I started to question the concept of a god. Last spring I came to the realization that there was no god. For a month or two I was crushed. I had no where to turn for a philosophy. Since I the altruistic ethic was engrained in me I thought that the only place I could turn to was the far left, since the talk radio pundits had made me believe that if you weren't a theist you must be a red. Then one day I was surfing the net and I came upon Capitalism Magazine. I read a couple of their articles and their FAQ. In their FAQ they referenced the book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". I was surprised that their were actually atheist 'consevatives' (as I thought they were at the time) out there. I went out and read C:TUI and since then I have read "The Virtue of Selfishness" and am halfway through "The Fountainhead". From what I have read so far Objectivism fits me like a glove.

Look at my avatar. It is a Bushmaster XM15A3. It is my pride and joy.

I just finished the chapter about the Stoddard Temple and I don't see myself putting this book down until I am done. I didn't find it slow at all in the begining. I found all the characters being introduced amazing. I loved looking at them and understanding what made them either men of virtue or men of vice.

As I have stated earlier, if it was purely a social club it would not bother me. It is the fact that its stated goal is to "raise the visability of gay and lesbian Objectivists". It is the fact that it puts value upon someone's sexual orientation. Instead of focusing on the philosophy, which is the more important thing, they focus on their orientation.

The problem I have with it is that it puts value on being gay or lesbian. I look at a person for the indivual that they are, not who they sleep with. Have them raise the visability Objectivism, not a certain subgroup of it. What if I started a group that's specific aim was to raise the visability of strait Objectivists? There would be no purpose to it, because being strait does not add anything of value to your beliefs, the same can be said of gays.

He did say in his original post that the purpose for the society was to raise the visability of gay and lesbian Objectivists. I would have no problem if it was just a social club.