[Dutch MPs To Decide On Burqa Ban]

And a flag. And a parliament. And a so-called Commission that issues directives that override the laws of the individual member states. And they may soon have a CONSTITUTION.

As a British citizen, you ought to be standing up for the independence of your nation--which is neither geographically nor culturally a part of Europe anyway--rather than morally equate a socialist "paradise" like the EU with America.

------------

I wonder who has stolen Nick's password. Less than a week ago, he wrote this:

?

The two statements are not incompatible. You have no idea who I am; dispensing advice on how we "ought" to be acting, when you are ignorant of what we ARE doing. It appears that you are wholly clueless on European affairs; the fact that you are willing to speak with authority on the issue speaks volumes about your nature.

I won't be returning here. I urge you to check your premises, and look at the facts.

[Dutch MPs To Decide On Burqa Ban]

"Europe" (= the EU) is one country. It ought not to be, but it is. A U.S. state enjoys more sovereignty today than a member of the EU does.

There used to be, and to some extent there still are, individual national cultures. But there is no difference in the thinking of Euro-politicians, no matter which member state they "represent."

Please dont be so arrogant. It is clear from your post you have no idea what you are discussing. If I claimed that Canada and the USA were "all one country" what would you say?

To suggest that "there is no difference in the thinking of Euro-politicians" is erroneous. There is constant disagreement. I may not agree with any of their policies, but there is a great amount of difference. We dont all have one currency either.

It is especially surprising that someone who follows the philosophy of "look at reality" could be so far from the truth. While we are at it can you apologise for your offensive comments?

regards,

Nick

[ARI's Student Survival Guides]

So, ARI decided to remove their SSGs from their website a while ago. Unfortunate, I know. Luckily, I know someone on this forum was clever enough to have saved a copy of them on to their computers. Takers? Ehh? Ehh?

Funny that you mentioned it - I was searching for David Harriman's suggested reading list for physics. Can you reprint that list please?

regards,

nick

[Reason Vs. Faith]

I appreciate your response and I agree with it. The reason I even asked the question is because it appears to me that the political atmosphere of at least two major European countries (France and Germany, to be specific) is dominated by pomo/nihilist thinking. Islam, today's most virulent strain of "faith", has located this weak underbelly and is beginning to attack it. Unless the Europeans abandon their self-destructive philosophy, I don't see how they can withstand the long-term assault from Islam. It's as if postmodernism has paved the way for Islam/faith (and all of the dangers associated with it) in much the same way that Kant and his followers paved the way for the Nazis.

In America, postmodernism is well established at our universities but has a much more limited base in the general public. That gives me hope for us, but I'm still concerned about the implications of an Islamic France or Germany.

As a British person, I can't say that I am able to speak of the French without some bias, however it is my observation that the French are a highly arrogant, irrational, and proud people who will never realise their errors until it is too late (and even then they will not admit them). Just look at the recent farm's subsidies fiasco... arguing with the French is like dealing with an irrational child. I think France is over a quarter muslim already.

As for Britain, I believe the ship is sinking and there is no way back now. I plan to leave for America as soon as possible - Socialism is too deeply embedded here.

[Podcast: Christopher Hitchens Vs. Scott Ritter On Iraq]

I have just listened to the podcast - it was very interesting and informative, thank you for posting the link.

regards,

Nick

[Show Your Faces!]

Im in the everlast t shirt. My friend Jim is in the picture with the cannon.

[Is Evolution Still Just A "theory"?]

I believe the reason that the theory of evolution has not been supplemented with a law of evolution is that biology does not always deal with irreducible primaries. Therefore, qualities such as "life" are not quantifiable, and so it is impossible to measure changes further than basic concepts; "more/less mobile", "different colour" etc. Biology looks at the world at a certain level, and the emergent property of this level is life. I think this is why we cannot explain Biological phenomena with chemistry, or physics, nor mathematics.

Im not a student of biology so I hope the above is accurate...

regards,

Nick

[Your thoughts on the royal family of England?]

I have a question. It was my understanding that British royalty didn't do any actual "ruling" these days--that they're pretty much just there to wave and smile--that, for all practical purposes, they're spokesmodels. Is this incorrect?

Yeah its a formality. Basically the Queen is presented with the new bills of parliament and she has to sign every one of them to make it an 'official' bill. However she cannot refuse to sign them (if she does she will be removed from office I believe). SO they have no political power in that sense.

regards

Nick

[Physical Self Improvement]

I was actually introduced to philosophy through the works of a bodybuilder, called Mike Mentzer. Although he is dead now, he was an Objectivist, and he brought radical new theories to the world of bodybuilding. His best book, Heavy Duty 2: Mind and Body is an excellent mix of philosophy and weight training advice:

"It is only within the context of having properly developed your mind that you will be able to truly enjoy the achievement of your material values, including that of a more muscular body".

(Heavy Duty 2)

Although I dont agree with his method, I appreciate the fact that he rigorously applied logic to build a rational theory of weight training. He is also a brilliant writer, by introducing me to Objectivism, his books literally saved my life.

www.mikementzer.com

regards,

Nick

[Your thoughts on the royal family of England?]

Countdown is great, it was a shame when Richard Whiteley (the host) died. His funeral was on a DAYEWEDNS.

Strange thing about Vorderman is that she looks much better in now than she did 15 years ago!

Nick

[Minors: Rights And Children]

(RationalCop @ Nov 24 2005, 07:34 PM) *

This is quite simple. Go around murdering or assaulting people and see how long others will respect your rights. Go around stealing from others and see how long others will respect your rights. To vary a phrase, you can't have (take) the other guys cake and expect him not to take yours.

But is that a sufficient reason to respect the rights of others?

Living my life to the fullest requires I observe the right of other men to be free from initiated force. I can't flourish if I as a principle prefer the lesser gains from force to the greater gains from allowing other men's free action.

OTOH if the threat of retialiatory force were the basis for respecting the rights of others, then I would be justified in not respecting others in cases in which I could overpower or otherwise escape the threat of retaliatory force.

One shouldn't necessarily always observe the rights of others if the reason to observe rights doesn't always apply. If sometimes there is no repercussion from force, then one would justified in weighing whether or not to violate another's rights in those instances.

Would the argument be then that this threat of force does always apply, or that rights are justified only to the extent to which it is in our objective best interest to observe this right? Or something else?

I had a similar dilemma about Rational Selfishness a couple of weeks ago. However, it was pointed out to me that:

It is never rational to violate another person's rights for the sole reason that you could get away with it. If you steal someone's car for example, you have violated that person's right to property - therefore it is irrational to claim your OWN right to property, because A is A. Therefore, with rights as concepts, Rational Selfishness demands that you respect the rights of others.

Nick

[The "Right to Privacy"]

Thanks for your replies guys, very insightful as I was having difficulty "conceptualizing" the notion of privacy.

Nick

[Singapore To Execute An Australian]

He is an idiot - he knew the rules and yet he still decided to risk it by smuggling drugs - isnt he guilty of 'not focusing' ?

Nick

[The "Right to Privacy"]

Anyway, that isnt how data-mining works. How do you think the supermarket would obtain your name and address without your permission?

Store card, home delivery.

I agree the position I put forward is rather untenable; but a similar point was put forward in my class last week and I am currently writing an essay on the Ethics of Data Mining. I agree its not particularly plausible, also I dont think that you can claim an action is immoral if it only allows a 'potential' violation of rights - a couple of days back my friend remarked that Macdonalds should be fined because its customers were dropping litter all over the local bus stop - I think that in principle this is the same argument - the company is not violating any rights - other people are.

thanks for your comments - can anyone define privacy?

Nick

[What kind of music do you enjoy?]

Almost anything by Edward Elgar and (ahem) early Prince albums.

Nick

[The "Right to Privacy"]

Hmm, ok good argument!

how would you define 'privacy'?

regards

Nick

[The "Right to Privacy"]

If there is no right to privacy in objectivism:

You are a local schoolteacher and a customer of your local supermarket. From your purchases, the supermarket builds a profile of you over several weeks. They sell this to a marketing company, which then does some more data mining on you and decides that based on available data, there is a 90% chance you are gay.

You then start receiving junk mail en-masse selling homosexual products/services. Your local postman now knows your gay, and starts gossiping in the local pub, where you can no longer go thanks to the attitudes of some of the punters there.

It soon gets out that your gay because the postman's son is a pupil at your school, your colleagues treat you differently and the pupils bully you and vandalise your car and home. You might not even be gay!

You cannot even move to another town, because your data records are kept indefinately and it only takes a matter of weeks before you are receiving the junk mail again.

This is where we are heading; the above scenario is increasingly a potential reality. It doesnt have to be homosexuality, but any aspect of private information about yourself that you do not want to be publically known, and have not told anyone about.

Just think, when everyone is going around with WIMax phones, that have adverts on them that change depending on your profile, and which WImax service you are on - this is another way to reveal information about a person without their consent.

Is this ethical?