StarBuck

He likes the word "etcetera". The problem is he seems a lot like Chomsky in his ability to be the "Devil's Accountant" (as I think the NYT called him some time ago). He has some solid points on various states using pre-emption after America sets the precedence, but seems to ignore the fact that pre-emption is an established phenomenon - in the middle east alone 48,56,67, and 73 were each pre-emptive fights. At the same time he seems to really buy into the whole anti-war movement. Aghh. The odd thing is he says america has a "blind naive faith in democracy", at the same time he talks about the lovey dovey care-bear economy of tommorrow. And now the kid is speaking up and I'm sick.

Genes are not concious, no one ever said they were. You will also not find many respected geneticists arguing genetic factors govern all behaviour - or that knowledge of someone's genetic make up will be enough to predict behaviour. That said, I find it interesting you seem assume the only objects that have 'intent' can affect behaviour. Is this your position?

What is the arguement here, that all muslims are evil and therefore must be humiliated by democratic representitives, even those they may have voted for?

We are talking about Communism, in the land of Ivan the Terrible led by Stalin-the paranoid schytsophrenic (sp) bookie from Hell. In all seriousness, the only one that seems Marxist is the first one as a man and woman are presented together. It may also be to to simple, unconquered artists trying to remake the classics in Russia. I wonder if there was opposition to sculpture the way there was to literature in the USSR? As for a tyrannical soul, you're probably right. I for one can't tell if something is soviet or nazi art without a flag in the background.

So if I understand your position it is something like this 1. Person X was once a terrorist 2. Terror is the antithesis of legitimate politics. 3. Once a terrorist, always a terrorist 4. Person X can not therefore be a legitimate politician Do you know the history of Likud, its founders and leaders? If so, you would have to concede no member of Likud or the greater Revisionist spectrum is legitimate given points 1-4.

Such statues also defy the basics of Marxism in praising the individual.

1. There is no official connection between Fatah and AAMB. AAMB members tend to come from Fatah, yes, but the organisation is not run by Fatah. You can argue what some members have been qouted as saying, or minute, supposed financial transactions may mean, but the fact remains the AAMB is not a military arm of Fatah. Here is the relevant qoute from the BBC - "The brigade is neither officially recognised nor openly backed by Mr Arafat and Fatah, though brigade members tend also to belong to Fatah, the Palestinian leader's political faction." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1760492.stm 2. "Theocratic buddies", I like that. 3. Likud, or rather its direct ideological descendants and current leadership are fascist. Have you ever heard of men like Jabotinsky, Begin, Kook, Kahane? Come to think of it, the national socialism of the Left's Labour Zionism wasn't that great either. It must be nice to be so assured of your side's righteousness. Without it there would have been no genocide of the Canaanites, no expulsion of the palestinians in 47-49, and the true democratic, secularly, and racially open nature of Israeli society could be thrown into doubt by jewish human rights groups.

Fatah hasn't killed an Israeli in a decade. Also, was it a travesty for the fascist Likud party to win? Look up "Fascism" in a dictionary, Likud mathes the precise definition.

Just like an two experiments are needed to test tree growth: 1. To examine the cause/effect relation between water intake and growth. 2. To examine if the cause/effect relations actually exist. DavidOdden - Please explain how you can claim any cause can exist if it is "beyond rational scrutiny" in the case of human behaviour. Also, it was a very good rhetorical point to bring religion into the conversation. DrBaltar has, after all, not brought religion into the conversation. As a matter of fact so far this conversation has demonstrated the use of science and logic eleiminating the greek rational/mystical idea of "axioms" trumping observed reality.

The way I see it, a Free Will supporter has three choices - 1. The brain does not supply and regulate all behavioural phenomenon. There is some aspect of behaviour that does not come from the brain, what this aspect is can be determined through a 'God of the Gaps" type method. 2. That the brain does supply and regulate all behavioural phenomenon but that the brain is not part of the deterministic system that the rest of nature seems to fall into. This makes it possible for the brain to choose freely. 3. That the brain is determined but occasionally has the ability to alter its state outside of the laws of science. This allows the brain to instantly break its biochemical systems and alter itself Deus Ex Machina.

It may help if the terms on the Free Will side were defined. The good doctor spent at least ten pages defining his terms.

What ought I trust, the Axiom or my lying eyes?

I find it ill advised.

It would be good to try him based on the slam dunk WMD evidence. Any political leader willing to lie to his people keeping them in a fear-based war frenzy needs to be dealt with, I agree.

Thankfully in Canada we have laws against incitement to religous and racial hatred/violence. Beleive it or not, here it is actually considered barbaric to say " Hey, let's take all them there niggas and kill'em"

1. Are you actually confused about whether philosophy is an important topic? If so I would reccomend taking some time to consider other thoughts you have and what makes them important but philosophy unimportant. 2. "Rand" is not an acceptable way to name the founder of Objectivism. "Miss Rand" would be far more appropriate. 3. What attracts you to Karl Jung? Do you consider him to be just as rational as Miss Rand and if so why? 4. Are you impying we will take your disagreement emotionally and if so do you feel proper grammer and rationality on your part will avoid this?

1. The idea of the unconcious found in Freud is completly rejected by Objectivism. The idea found in Cognitive Psychology is dealt with in they same manner they deal with it - ie. A man is capable of knowing the contents of his mind he just has to choose not to evade them. 2. Miss Rand had no essential biases. Find one, prove one and I might change my mind. Also, if you beleive Miss Rand was full of holes why are you here in the first place? 3. Objectivism = Ayn Rand. Period. If you are in disagreement with her then you are not an Objectivist. So again, what are you doing here?

Amazing!

What you have to understand is that those who hear about Objectivism and still disagree are practicing evasion . By subverting their own minds in this evasion they make it impossible to hear reason.

fas·cism P Pronunciation Key (fshzm) n. often Fascism A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. Oppressive, dictatorial control. [italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late Latin fascium, from Latin fascis, bundle.] fas·cistic (f-shstk) adj. Word History: It is fitting that the name of an authoritarian political movement like Fascism, founded in 1919 by Benito Mussolini, should come from the name of a symbol of authority. The Italian name of the movement, fascismo, is derived from fascio, “bundle, (political) group,” but also refers to the movement's emblem, the fasces, a bundle of rods bound around a projecting axe-head that was carried before an ancient Roman magistrate by an attendant as a symbol of authority and power. The name of Mussolini's group of revolutionaries was soon used for similar nationalistic movements in other countries that sought to gain power through violence and ruthlessness, such as National Socialism. Who writes these metablogs?

Okay, so far I've heard that the Palestinians are just another lie to wipe out a theocratic Israel. Please, if your going to talk about this get you noses out of Peters and Chomsky first.

I don't see where you are coming from. Are you saying the Balfour was not legit but the Revisionists had a "defensive" right to Palestine and Jordan anyway?

Okay, if not genocide, how about the term "ethnic cleansing".

A thought experiment - Let's say you have 2 people who agree to raise a child together. After concepetion and during the pregnancy the non pregnant individual works double time to pay for the forcasted expences and to support the mother (preumably on maternity leave). Let's also say that neither are willing to adopt. The mother decides late in the pregnancy to have an abortion - is it moral for her to do so?