slave

"He also sparked widespread international condemnation in October when he called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map.'" http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/16/iran.israel/ This is referring to the cartoon challenge. http://www.israelnewsagency.com/iranholoca...tseo480213.html My connection is bad tonight. I am not going to look post any more of the other 411,000 hits for "iran holocaust" - 0.02 sec. All you have to do is watch a news clip of a left wing protest. I searched "Bush Hitler" and took the second hit. If I remember correctly, Move On is related to one of the Clinton's. You can verify this site from Move On's response to the claim on the Moveon website. http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/bush-hitler-ads.htm From another link: This must be how the Germans felt Watching Hitler rise to power. Hopelessness, frustration, depression, anger Increasing steadily by the hour. [...] When comparing Bush with Hitler, Surprise! There's lots of overlapping. Both are fascist right-wing conservatives Who sadly caught their countries napping. [...] So dig in deep for four more years Of the hand fear and ignorance have dealt And, remember, as things get worse and worse, This is how Germans must have felt. What do you percieve your problem to be? "Please be specific" If I am making a mistake somewhere or made to many assumptions from one thought to the next, I would appreciate being corrected.

The facts are that he has made speeches about pushing the Israelis into the Mediterranean, stating that the Holocaust didn't happen and organized a cartoon contest about the Holocaust. The association with Hitler is far more accurate than to conservatism. Bush is associated to Hitler frequently, but the leader of Iran who is a dead ringer for a neo-Nazi is associated to Bush. Why is the historian that you refer to not hesitant to associate Bush to Hitler but he is hesitant to associate a neo-Nazi to Hitler? Even in the case cited in the opening post, there was no fear of putting a man in prison for denying the Holocaust. Why would there be a fear of addressing another person that denies the holocaust? We know the guy put in jail was a conservative that denied the Holocaust, and the leader of Iran that wants to drowned Jews is also a conservative. Bush is a conservative. What do you think the left is predicting about Bush's behavior? It all amounts to nothing since we are discussing a person's motives that are based on contradictions - they have no relation to reality except by chance. But, their actions of restricting speech is why they should be imprisoned.

My intention was not to argue about facts, but I was questioning why the media seems more able to grasp this fact over other facts. How is it that the media was able to grasp an association between the ruler of Iran and Bush? There are so many other things they could have associated the leader of Iran with, but they chose conservatism which associated him with Bush. Why not nationalist, isolationists, et cetera?

What I failed to accurately write was that their motive appears to be that they are trying to tag the conservatives as nuts. I do not see any difference between their actions and the actions of a person trying to restrict the freedom of speech. What puzzles me is why a person in the media would knowingly destroy his livelihood. They must have some lie that they are telling themselves so that they are able to dismiss their actions of destroying the freedom of speech for some other gain. I was thinking about what they are trying to gain not what they are trying to destroy.

I believe it is an attempt to associate conservatism with criminal activity. People have to be running from the left and joining the right since the hatred is so obvious on the left. Any chance the media gets to associate any nut with conservatism, they do it. CNN International starts any story about Iran with the "the conservative leader ..." Coincidentally, any story about bush start out with "the conservative President". If they can impress on those fleeing the left that the conservatives are lunatics, they will be less likely to leave the left.

Why do those that respect others rights have to pay for law enforcement? The system is designed for the criminal. Allow the criminal to pay for it.

My connection speed is too slow to see if you captured the building on the south east corner of Victoria Park. When you are going towards Time Square and look back at it, it looks like it is falling over. I have no idea what the name is, I just remember sitting on a park bench with my wife and son being amazed with its appeareace.

Do you know where I can find this essay? I tried searching for it, but I failed to locate it.

sympathy: the quality of being affected by the affection of another. (Webster's dictionary, 1828) The professor is looking for someone to help you after you asked him for the help. He dismissed helping you because he is not sympathetic to your views. He dismisses assisting you because he has no emotional concern for objectivism - evident by his selection of words and his actions. The next time you talk to him, ask him if he found a non-subjective factulty member yet?

softwareNerd, it is not accesible. EC, I am an American.

the Wikipedia BLOCKED I also connect at work which circumvents the restrictions somehow. If you don't here from me for a while, I think you might be right. Chairman Mao is a killer!

great fire-wall of China BLOCKED words OK other blogSpot blogs BLOCKED An old article OK When I follow the link, it starts "opening" for a second or two before it comes back "done" with the "This page can not be displayed".

It appears that this site is not accessible from China. I tried other sites with capitalist in the name, but they worked.

I did try reading the article. I didn't read the article because neither link worked. (Chinese Internet filtering, split into separate topic here)

You need to convince me that man is a menace as you state above. You also need to prove that man is not natural.

I have a five year old son that I thought was going to ask me this question this year. He was real excited about Christmas as opposed to previous years, and I figured he would come ask me about stuff he heard in school. If my son had asked the question, I was going to handle it the way I handle Spiderman, Superman, Ant-X, Power Rangers, etc. "Did you ever see a Spiderman?" I explain that what the represent exists, but I have never seen a spider-man. I am not going to tell him, I want him draw the conclusion that Santa doesn't exist by himself. My apartment had a Santa down in the lobby this year, and so I brought my son down to see him. I figured I would hear the question before I go back to the room, and he never asked. Later I asked him who the guy was. His reply was Santa. I asked if he was real, and my son said he was fake. I didn't say anymore. I live in Beijing, and many of the children in his school are Buddhists, zen Buddhist, atheist, Jews and Christians. I figure he had already heard enough by kids who never heard of Santa to dismiss the concept by himself.

If I sell you drugs that are mixed with rat poison and you die while using them, there is a victim. So, there is a crime. Most importantly, the victim exists organically. It isn't only an abstraction. If I smuggle drugs into a country, who is the victim? The prosecution will say that it is a crime against society. What is true of a concept, society in this case, has to be true of the concepts beneath it in the hierarchy. What is true of animal is true of mammal. What is true of shape is true of square. What is true of metaphysics is true of everything. If the crime is against society, I only need to find one person that the crime is not against to prove it is a contradiction. Evidently, the person on trial is not a victim of his own actions. If he is not a victim of his own actions, he is not a victim as proclaimed to be by the state. Therefore there is no crime against society. If they are going to give the death penalty, they should at least have a victim. If you have a victim, you will be able to identify the crime that was committed. If the crime committed deserves death, so be it. If they can't get the victim, the organic society, in the court room without using a particular individual, there is a contradiction since the defendant's actions of providing for him family disprove their claim.

I have been living in Asia since 1994, and what many of the reported smuggling arrests are when the person is leaving the country. That Australian girl sentenced in the linked site above was not entering the country when arrested for smuggling. She was traveling from an Indonesian city to another Indonesia city. When you buy a large quantity of drugs, the dealer can guess your intentions. If you pay him, the customs would never know to look for you. How many times have you been searched on a domestic or outbound flight in Asia? Doesn't happen? Since the Bali bombings, it may have changed. Anytime you see an arrest for drugs in South East Asia, read the article carefully on what they were doing when arrested. If they were leaving the country, they failed to pay the protection money. If they were entering the country, they probably made the inspectors think they were drug addicts. I have been through the airport in Bangkok maybe 50 times, and I have never been searched. I try to hand in the "Customs Declaration Form" and I am brushed aside to stop bothering them. I can only remember seeing one guy being searched entering the country. Entering the US, I have been searched maybe 10 times already. There is something odd. Even after you are caught, you can still buy your way out of it. About 8 years ago, there was another Australian "mule" {tears of sarcasm in my eyes} that vanished from prison. Her father happened to be in the Australian government. Back to the point, the punishment should fit the crime. Since the crime was against an the abstract state or society, the penalty should be equal to the loss of the victim - nothing, since it is an abstraction.

If we only knew the truth about malaria. If you have never heard of G6PD, you may want to read up on it. It is an x-linked genetic disorder which result in only having one enzyme in the blood. Since there is only one enzyme, as opposed to the normal two, the malaria virus is not capable of living in a persons blood with this disorder. They can get malaria 50 times and the virus will meet the same end. It is not 100% certain you can not get it, but the deficiency in humans stills exists because those with it live longer and produce more off spring than those without it - or the deficiency would not exist any longer. One third of the Thai population has G6PD. If anyone has ever been there, they may have noticed it without understanding it. You can not buy aspirin easily in Thailand because it is an oxidant which will kill the only remaining enzyme in the blood. If that happens, you begin to kill your red blood cells. When you kill too many red blood cells, your livers efficiency slows down and you start to get into life threatening trouble. Then your eyes go jaundice which is the other noticeable thing about Thai males. Since Thai do not pay much attention to what they shouldn't eat, they usually have jaundice in their eyes from eating the wrong food. Since it is the most common human enzyme deficiency IN THE WORLD, I have serious reservations about 2000 people a day dying. Since it is an x-linked disorder (it follows the x chromosone) and the article mentions nothing about different rates of death in the males versus the females. Since it doesn't mention the different rates of death and is making the issue someone else's problem other those being killed, something seems bogus. I would like to find the deaths reported by sex to see what the difference is. If that difference looked reasonable, I might trust it. I think it is the malaria group trying to get the money before the bird flu group gets it.

Erik, where did read or hear that the virus has to mutate 14 times before it can spread from human to human? \

Moose; Since the bird flu does not spread from human to human, the bird flu strain in question is not a health concern unless you work around birds. If the flu mutates so that it can be transmitted between humans, it is a concern. Coincidentally, I haven't seen one person on television talk about the probability of the flu mutating to this human-to-human form. If it is unlikely, it is fear mongering. If the probability of that is likely, have the lamb by yourself.

I did not intend to change the meaning of your quote. The reason I showed your quote as I did was to show that you were arguing about the cigarettes and why someone would not identify that cigarettes were bad. Since no one would argue that the person knows that cigarettes are bad, the issue is not related. I do not believe the person is in denial over the effects of tobacco. Pardon me, and I will not use the ellipses in such a circumstance again.

Nothing changes in the argument. It is evident that the person in question chose the value of a cigarette over his health. Since he valued the cigarette more than his health, he acted rationally when buying cigarettes. The question is why he values a cigarette more than a job and/or more than his health. The man's values are irrational or the value of a cigarette is worth more than a job and/or more than health in this man. Cigarettes, freedom, health and the job are irrelevant since you can create the same argument with any other group of nouns. The issue that links all of the other arguments that you can concoct is values.

Daniel, what is the person in question's view on morality - morality is relative or morality isn't anything? If you concede man is rational, you would have to concede that the man with the dilemma made a choice. That choice would have to be based on a value system which would be based on morality. He may think that morality is a Christian issue which would mess everything up the hierarchy beneath it. Pardon me for changing the topic, but I believe the question is the result of a broader abstraction than freedom. Freedom is a pretty simple concept to understand especially if you went to a Catholic school. There has to be a higher level abstraction that is leading the person to a misconception of man.

If you look at Felipe's reply, the argument that they are making is that "man can not be free from himself", but he can have his freedom restricted from his irrational self (implicitly) {after but added by slave}. All you need to do to prove to rationality in their irrational subject. That is why when you stated the man without cigarettes is irrational, I showed you otherwise. By doing so, the irrational self is evidently rational. I did not accept what was implied after the but in the underlined above. When you prove any irrational man is still rational, you have proven that there are not multiple selves. A good sophist is a dead sophist (I forget who said that). A good irrational man is a dead irrational man. An irrational man would have died soon after birth when he rejected milk. Any one that accepted milk, has proven their rational nature. They will probably agree that man can not be free from himself (rationality implied). If you get them to concede that point explicitly, all you have to do is argue the implied portion of the argument. Prove that any living man is rational or he would be dead. Wow. I just thought of something. Philosophy for living in this world (AR). The philosophy of this argument is for not living in the world - death.