Old Geezer

I dont quite understand where you are getting this generalization from?

RE: I am not saying that ALL irrational debators bring value to a discussion, but only that reason may not be the only value which one might offer in a discussion. Empirical Evidence, or access to it is something which a knowledgable but irrational debator can bring to the table. This knowledge does not enhance the debate itself, but it enhances my knowledge of reality. For instance, on another board I once was curious about how a poster came to believe that Depleted Uranium should be classified as a WMD. The premises he started on were ass backwards, but I persued it anyway. He had bookmarked a whole bunch of reports on DU from sources I trusted. He lined up and linked these reports nice and tidily. Without haunting the web, I can now better understand what DUis, why it is benign, why the military uses it etc. did he influence my opinion on whether DU should classify as a WMD (of course it shouldnt) no he didnt. But he brought access to research I trust,

Thanks MinorityOfOne, that was helpful....

This argument would only apply if A) they considered the forgoing of meat a sacrifice. or B ) they wanted to sacrifice other peoples comfort. I am not advocating this, I am talking about the vegetarians who who ASK you to consider their argument Dont worry, they shit all over themselves, not just their heads but that wasnt my point. My point was that domesticated animals are excellent in the aristotlean sense when they are slaughtered(because that is theirpurpose) but not when they shit on themselves and dont move. I am not talking about Veggies who would initiate force or advocate the initiation of force. I am talking about those who may find it morally reprehensible and would consequentally want to discuss this with friends/family , just as any moral issue is discussed. FYI not true AGAIN , Vegetarians who advocate using anything other than their consumer dollars to affect factory conditions are not who I am talking about. In fact I went to a school that was 60% vegetarian for a short while and only met one or two of these people, and THEY were RESENTED by the rest of vegetarians . The vegetarians who most often discuss this issue with me; A Dr. doing it for health reasons, My capitilist brother working for a fortune 500 company making big bucks, and my sister working for the military.

There are about nine schools of feminism, I am curious about which particular school you all are refferring to.

The whole of Pakistan's government is not into arms sales. It is Musharaff's Islamisist enemies within the government who are into the arms sales. It is not exactly apparent who they are, if it was apparent, Musharraff would be arresting them... after all it is them who are a threat to his power. Musharraff does not have strong secular opposition. Now would not be the time to topple more secular regimes in the area. We simply dont have the forces or the money to occupy them, and if we decapitated the secular regimes without opposition groups ready to take power, the only people taking power would be BL clones.

Oh you poor person! I feel for you. I once had someone from washington state tell me "in a way, the trees are smarter than you" That argument might apply if factory farming was healthier than the type of diet people would be able to afford without factory farms.... But factory farming is more likely to cultivate an environment where dangerous disease thrives , and the research on meaty diets is mixed at best.

" What would it mean if we closed down these farms and only allowed the organically raised as our sources of meat? " Most vegetarians I know dont advocate the "shutting down of factory farms" what they do is choose to spend their money on products in line with their values. If they earn their money, this is well within their right. If any have tried to convince me to become vegetarians, that is also within their right. (as long as our relationship does not involve force) What I am asking is how one might respond to the argument for refraining from factory farms because of respect for life.. Chasing a deer and killing it still constitutes respect for life. So too does raising a domesticated animal for food. (In both cases, the animal is living in allignment with its nature... but if I were to say step on my German shepard to reach the cookie jar, that would not allow it to be in allignment with its nature) a classic example that is presented to me is that of "free range chickens" vs. a "factory farm" the chickens literally are packed so tight that they are constantly shitting on each other., often force fed (to meet productions schedules) they are then drugged to prevent movement and squished into these little crates to be processed. The drugs wear off during travel and the chickens wake up. Domesticated chickens do not normally shit on each others heads , or refrain from walking. Free range chickens are treated differently, and probably would act no differently if the gates were lifted. (In fact, having worked on a free range farm before, I didnt see a difference in their behavior when the gate was broken for a little while) Old salt, I appreciated your comments, care to respond to above?

Knowledgeable Irrational debators can still be valuable in that they can introduce new and potentially usefel evidence into a debate. While this evidence is likely not useful in the debate itself, it has the potential to enhance ones understanding of reality. (the evidence must first be examined of course, but it might not have been noticed had it not been for the debate) For instance, I could be arguing with a man who claims that tigers are a threat to every living creature on my jungle island. If I were disagree and he would say "oh yeah, well there is one right behind that tree over there!") He would be wrong that this poses a threat, but correct about the tiger, and after I picked up my shotgun, Id have a packed freezer and a new rug.

Y feldblum In some of my courses we studied how the history of how insurance came to be this high.... The history I learned is quite similar to how BlackSabbath describes it (people did not pay directly for their services so they were not as cost conscious) but Id like to add on my understanding of the forces aside from the more direct and obvious government interventions and laws. 1. During the 50's and 60's, with the rise of companies such as Blue Cross, it was sort of a "hay day" for Health Insurance consumers, if general Practititioners werent sure if a particular test was necessarry they would order it... same with refferall to a specialist.... 2. Once the "cat was out of the bag" so to speak, consumers came to expect such services... Not only that , but what people began to consider medical care began to expand Not a problem in and of itself, but a problem once the Tort Lawyers got their hands on such precedents. Further it became problematic with the rise of expensive and effective new technologies. 3. Before, (in the twenties for instance) most disease was of the bacteria variety and inexpensive . Nowadays, most people in the US die from diseases of abundance . (cancer, heart disease etc) these tend to be more expensive and require more treatment. 4. the "baby boom" is getting older and an older demographic skews the business model that makes insurance work cheaply.

I don't understand where that fear is grounded??? If you are refferring to "compassionate conservatism", I would have to disagree, since the Political Base for such an "ideal" Is grounded in the Christian Right... And the Christian Right which Bush has chosen to associate itself with has shown no affinitty for Islam.

I agree with DS Iwould also like to add the following thoughts. 1. As "religion" has become more secularized in this country and people have stopped going to church/sunday school etc, I think that people that Identify with a particular Religion have become a little curious about what exactly is supposed to have happened. 2. It seems to me that western Europe has been experiencing some Xenophobia partially fuelled by immigrant pressures from eastern europe, internal population explosion of its Arabic/Islamic population, and an at times anti-Israel bias in the press.... and as this has influenced "liberal" americans, I would not be suprised if the same old tired anti-semitic theories started arising, especially amongst those who cite our Friendship with Israel as the thing that needs to go in the war on terror. 3. its violent... Our culture is in love with violence.

I am seeking info on Ibn Rushd... has anyone read him?? Where is a good source to understand his philisophical ties to Aristotle? Has anyone ever seen any writings by him which assert the primacy of reason I am also curious to know if he is currently an influential thinker in any parts of the crumbled academia of the Mid-East.

The only case where this applies is where the insider trading is the result of infromation obtained from a breech of contract. (such as a lawyer involved in a sensitive lawsuit discolosing information so he can make money off of inside information...) in that case my ability to trust that particular lawyer goes down, but not my ability to trust in trade in general. In any case, the enforcement of legally binding contracts IS okay, and insider trading laws/constructs would not be required.

I share those concerns and of course assume that everyone here agrees that it would be better for the US to make progress in getting that wording out. As for the assertion that it was "unnessecary" It seems that its a little monday morning quarterbacking. The compromise was obviously perceived as necessarry for some reason or another, and I believe that the CPA would have avoided it if they thought it was possible. After all it certainly didnt score any domestic points and as you point out it was not the best outcome for Iraq....It seems that the compromise was made for other reasons; After all we have hopefully killed or captured many of the secularists (I say hopefully because the ones we were after were not the type of secularists that we want in power) Now with their "moderate" base medicated, it will be possible to go after groups such as SCIRI and disarm them. ( I dont think they will, but I hope they do) Once these groups have been disarmed though, it would be stupid not to soften up the language even more in a year or two.

CF, sorry about the name confusion... anyways thanks for your reply,... You are correct, Jeffferson and his Boys ("boys" in the associative sense, not in the out of wedlock child sense )were Deists, no question about that.. But my point wasnt about the intent of the words in the respective constitutions, but rather the implications... After all The British dont have a constitution, much of theirs is rooted in the "magna carta" which has all sorts of crazy irrelevant shit in it. The implications will all be determined by the political climate which surrounds it. and heres the Political climate that I see; A) the Kurds have had a taste of the beginnings of freedom and the advantages of a quasi market economy in the past 10 years and they like it. B ) The most influential leader inSoutherm Iraq is a Quietist.(Read Does not like Integration of church/state. ) C) Neither Carl Rove and the White House nor Bremer and the CPA are shooting for a de facto theocracy D) Iraq was purged of Maddrassas by Hussein, and the literacy rate was raised. furthermore Iraq is a cosmopolitan society which seems to have the basis for some real enterpreneurship E. The Polls seem to suggest that Iraqi's do not want an Iranian style theocracy, and that their biggest concerns are security and money Is it still a craps shoot, yes... But the most important part of the craps shoot will be the United States ensuring influence in the area for quite some time.

CF, These are not "the universally agreed tenets of Islam" ask any muslim about this , and he will refer you to the five pillars Of Islam. which have nothing whatsoever to do with Sharia.(Sharia by nature can not be A universal tenet since its definition is shaped by the "legal" precedents set by the individual sub-cultures of Islam... People in Afghanistan adhere to and accept different fatwas than people in Turkey for instance) "universally agreed tenets of Islam" usually reffers to the Five Pillars. As far as "dishonesty" you will have to be a little more specific. I certainly wasn't comparing the document as a whole, only certain limp phrases from it. True or False; Both the Dec of Ind. and the Interim constitution make references to a Divine Source of law. True or False ; The United States was able to overcome that problem because of the social/political climate that was able to be established there. Are you suggesting "the creator" or "the year of our lord" are anything more than cosmetic??? Or are you suggesting that the interim constitution is anything more than interim? Or do you think that Bremer will allow Sharia in Iraq?

DS here is the copy of the Interim Constitution

With the exception of what at this time appears to be a cosmetic acknowledgement of Islam, (sorta reminds me of that "we are endowed by our creator" line from our own documents) what specific passages of the New interim Constitution do you object to?

Isaac. Isaac, When I talk to vegetarians who abstain from meat for cruelty reasons, the vast majority do not abstain from meat in general but from the conditions of meat raised in "factory farm conditions". Many will eat when the meat has been approved/certified by an organization they trust. Having seen videos of what happens to these animals(while they live, far before the slaughtering process), and having seen where veal for instance is raised, a respect for life is not apparent. How might you respond to that argument?

Lucent.... I'd like to pick your brain about a few things if you dont mind.... For a while now I've been concerned about the need for US troop placements in europe and asia.(I'd much rather see them migrating to say Afghanistan or Iraq) I am inclined to think that if we withdrew substantial amounts of troops from Japan, Germany and some other places, those countries might be convinced to begin building real militaries. 1. Do you think that the Political Climate in Japan would be able to support a growth in Japan's military? 2. Do you think that the Japanese "Military" is strategically/logistically prepared to grow should it be forced to by a large downsizing of American Presence there. 3. Do you think that the American Military establishment in Japan would actively oppose their movement? Please do not take these questions as under-estimating the work that is Done there. It is precisely because I believe that the caliber of work is high that I support making those skills available in other regions. I also do not want to convey the idea that I am for immediete shutdown of the bases.

GC, I am inclined to agree with your points, including this one.... but I still have some questions. Would such a nuke still be defined as a weopan? How could one Differentiate? What about security? For instance Pre-AQ Bin Laden's father owned a construction Business and Hundred's of millions of dollars worth of assets were available. Under such a situation as you mentioned, Bin Laden could easily have obtained a Nuke intended for commerical purposes. How should such a threat be approached?

""Having an ability IS evidence of a threat of its use" What do you mean by that and where does one draw the line?" The types of nuclear weopans which exist in the world today have two functions potential functions and two potential functions only. I can not imagine a scenario where somebody outside of a government could credibly be using Nukes for anything other than threats or destruction. Where does one draw the line??? It depends on what the ability is and where it is expected to be exercised. If the ability has to do with boxcutters, you dont allow them to come with passengers on airplanes, but you do allow boxcutters to be used everywhere else imaginable.

DS Well said

Y fel Y, thats my point.... it is government's responsibility to make sure it can adequetely respond to any potential threat of force... otherwise it is not a stable and functional government. In fact, one of the differences between objectivism and anarchism is that under objectivism the government strives to maintain a monopoly on the use of force.