Styles2112

I didn't get to edit my other post in time, so I wanted to add another point, too. While yes, there are certainly DEGREES to the morality between the two, if/when arrested, how many more RIGHTS does the petty thief have over the murderer?

Sure, I'll grant you that!!! But, then the question becomes, how immoral does a gov't have to be before it's "illegitimate?" I mean, heck, we've got both petty thieves AND murderers in our gov't... I don't think that "less immoral" = "moral", and therefore should be a leg to stand on. Which may, very well, be one of the problems with how the world views us. Which is why I don't think that the legal argument and the philosophical argument should be combined. LEGALLY, they are a legit gov't. Plain and simple. Yes, they are immoral, and YES they are MORE immoral than us, but I don't think that's grounds for a judgement of illegitimacy in gov't. If that's the case, then ANY free-er (no matter how much so) nation than ourselves can call us illegitimate and have grounds to attack us.

The same, then, is true of you. By those own standards, or if I accepted your standards, some pieces that I write, you would not consider music (lack of defined melody and so on...). You have as much proof as I do either way. Don't be silly. I'm talking about compositions using the computer, as opposed acoustic music edited and mixed with a computer. Let's take an interesting example and dissect it. Would you consider The Beatles, "Strawberry fields" music? Most of the piece follows your rigid definition of music, but at the end, they do a primitive "computer" music technique. They took the tape, cut it up into little pieces and then re-arranged it randomly (which is what creates that weird ending). Is it music? Or is it just music up to that point for you? This was something I was going to get at... This is the definition underneath the one that Christopher put. (i.e. number 2 in the list) This seems like a combination of the ideas we've all presented. I'm still not sure this is all-inclusive though.

That's like saying a rapist should have more rights or is "less evil" than a murderer because they didn't actually TAKE a life....I don't see that being a good argument. There's no grey area here. You can't say, "Yes, we're immoral, but we're less immoral than them so, therefore we can tell the what to do." If we're immoral (on the grounds we've discussed), then we have as many rights as they do (and vice versa). And then it boils down to killing/attacking them because we don't like their ideology.

If that's true, then our government is not legit either. Since our goverment regularly invades our privacy and takes rights away from it's citizens. Let's remember that we don't have the PERFECT Objectivist gov't currently. So, two illegitimate gov't trying to tell each other off. Hmmm.... NOt to mention that by FREELY voting for this regime, the people OPENLY give away their rights. It's not like, in that case, initiation of force is used. The people CHOSE this course and gov't. That, to me, makes it legitimate.

Hmmm...I agree with you on that. Actually, I think it reads like a PR strike. After all the crazy statements he's made on T.V. and stuff. This reads like a well thought out, almost NICE, intelligent letter (regardless of the morality of the ideas). Especially since this is being leaked around to people...I don't wonder whether its actually to turn MORE "liberal Westerners" against Bush. I think it's foolish to think that Iran, frankly the entire Middle East, doesn't know that this "war" is tearing up our own country.

I don't really agree with this. It seems you're combining a philosophical idea and legal into one. Assuming that the vote was free and unmanipulated (and it wouldn't surprise me if it was), then the present government is legit. Immoral, sure. But legit. I don't know that you can combine the two ideas without becoming the same as them.

When does the movie come out?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Sexual So, Homosexuals aren't really gay then, because they're not ACTUALLY having sex. It's just "sexual" activities I do like your argument from intimidation though. It's pretty funny.

Interesting.... Circumstantial evidence not-withstanding... I do tend to agree with the part about science being outlawed purely on the "possible" justifications.

I probably should've used the term CERTAIN songs/pieces. Ever hear a Baptist priest/minister talk (not hearing what they say, cause it's dumb) but how they talk is just amazing (to ME). As far as what Christopher had to say. I disagree with some of it. What about a group like Stomp. That's very musical (but not using any instruments). I would say that it contains all the necessary ingredients to call it music, but there are others who wouldn't (because it doesn't use instruments, because it doesn't contain a "noticable" melody). That's a good group to use, because it's right on the line (as I could SEE why someone wouldn't consider Cage or others like him to be MUSIC. (OH, for the record, yes, 4:33 is a musical piece. It has three parts, each with their own time. Interesting idea. If you can organize sound, why not silence?) To me, at least, I would consider a group like stomp to be VERY musical (and music), but is excluded by such a hard, rigid, definition. The same goes for African drumming and other native drumming.

Those are hilarious!!! My higher headquarters keeps the "real" ones around. I always thought they were dumb.... I think I'm going to get some of these and put them up in my office.

The problem that I have is that there is a lot of MUSIC that doesn't fall in your definition (like computer music, and even some ambient stuff) that falls under mine. I like mine because, yes, it does allow a lot in, but once in it simply falls upon YOUR individual judgement as to whether it's good or bad. Personally, I've found there are some people whose speech is more musical than any song. Hal, no I don't mean computer editing in music, I mean whole compositions done through computer. John Cage was a pioneer of this and even Steve Reich did some a bit. Frank Zappa was also a pioneer in using some of these techniques in rock music (think - Nasal Calliope). Bold standard, you're free to use what definition you'd like, but I think mine is more encompassing of music as a whole.

The college definition of music (that I recieved and stand by) is - ORGANIZED SOUND. I know there are people on here who take it further, suggesting rhythm and melody, but I'm good with "organized sound". The other, maybe MORE refined definition is,"Sound organized throughout time and space." But to me, that's somewhat redundant (as sound has no other place to be, but in time and space). This is to include Cage pieces, computer music (and I DON'T mean techno) and other soundscape arts. NOW, whether any of these constitute GOOD music is purely a subjective matter, but they do fit the bill.

I've argued for the protection of innocents in this war on terror for sometime now. However articles like this make me think twice. I actually think that Muslim leadership needs to be taken out swift and hard as an example for anyone making proclamations like this. This is a scary, and possibly true though (especially shown that short story a couple threads down. I like the last part though. I read it as,"My stupidity supercedes your stupidity."

I don't know if I can watch it.....I don't think I need that much RAGE boiling under my skin again. It was hard enough the first time.

I, generally, don't use "big words" unless I specifically know the meaning. However, I like being around people more eloquent than me, since it gives me a chance to learn how to speak better. I always relish the chance to learn new words. I really like the "word of the day" thing on my Yahoo page. On the other hand, sometimes I learn a new word, but subsequently forget it, because I never find myself in a practical situation to use it. I think, in many ways, this ties in with the laziness thread around here. Many people I know do not read, refuse to read, and have gotten away without reading in school. I, usually, find that people who read and read often, are the ones with larger vocabularies and better speaking habits. I used to read all the time (Michael Crichton and others) and I just don't have the time anymore (or I didn't make the time) and I've noticed slips in my vocabulary. I'm trying to get back into reading more.

What's that old cliche' from school? "If you think you can't...you're right If you think you can...you're right." I see which one you've picked.

Indeed. I figured out why House didn't want Wilson at the poker game long before it got to that point. I was pretty happy with myself. No, due to the new child, I missed the past couple weeks (my wife and I were pretty upset by that...but we'll get the DVD). I feel terribly behind now. When I first saw the faith healer on this episode, I knew it was going to be hilarious. For some reason, I also wanted that woman at the beginning to fall flat on her face in front of that guy.

Holy man was that funny!!!! If you guys missed it, you need to find it and see it!!! Chase- "You're actually going to go SEE a patient? House- "It'd be wrong of me to presume that I'm better than God." House - "No, if you talk to god, you're religious, if god talks to you, you're psychotic." There's much more...I'll dig them up. Basic premise is that a "Faith Healer" has to see Dr. House for an illness he came down with. Aside from that, I'll let you watch the show to get the rest.

My dad came from a Greek Orthodox family, though he is more or less agnostic (He's also the guy who introduced me to Ayn Rand). My mom is luthern, but not really religious. I'm atheist, and my mom nearly flipped when I told her that my wife and I were not going to have our son baptised. Which, I didn't really understand, what the hell were we supposed to baptise him as? I'm atheist and my wife is agnostic, and we're both against organized religion. I said, we're going to let him grow up and decide for himself what he wants to do (which will, hopefully, NOT involve any sort of religion or baptising).

I'm really a fan of this story. It gives me a (VERY) slim hope for the Iraqi people yet.

Being in a more humorous mood...I voted for "waiting for diplomacy and the U.N."

That's definitely a favorite site of mine now. It's hooking me up with some really interesting music (jazz/electronica, jazz, and prog-rock). As soon as I have some extra cash, I think I'll donate a bit. Definitely a top notch music site.

Seriously...good call. I wish I had gone to a pure music school. My *ahem* Mother insisted that I get that same "well rounded education" and it was a pointless/fruitless waste of my time. I went to a small liberal arts school wanting to be a musician. I wholeheartedly wish, now, that I had applied to Berklee or other accredited music schools, but, alas, I did not. The liberal arts (well rounded) education is a joke. And from what I understand, it's true in most schools. I never really understood even the math classes. I took the basic math class (whatever got me through my *required* courses) and it was the biggest waste of my own money ever. I mean, if you want to prepare people for the real world, why do we not have the basic math class teach you how to balance your check book? Get better savings on shopping for food? How interest rates work? I don't know....EVERYDAY math? I mean, I know I'm smart enough to figure most of it out on my own (at least what I didn't learn in middle and high school) but saying that i have to take a class that is CLEARLY a waste of my time...well is a waste of my time. Many of the "art" classes where the same way. So, like Inspector, I put forth JUST the necessary effort to pass in those classes, and put forth most of my energy into my music classes (which I actually ENJOYED). I'm sure I was viewed as lazy by those teachers whose classes I put forth little effort, but there were a select few teachers who knew that they taught pointless classes. Anyways....sorry for the bit of Rant....Kind of a sore spot for me....well said, though, Inspector!