Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Clawg

Regulars
  • Content Count

    475
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Clawg

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 01/01/1982

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Germany
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3131 profile views
  1. Can morality be applied on non-entities (like "Al Qaeda")? I don't think so. Please be more precise what you mean with "Was Al-Qaeda moral in ...".
  2. Clawg

    BIOSHOCK

    Congratulations and welcome Ryan invited people who shared his political views instead of inviting people who share his philosophy. That was the downfall of Rapture (well, besides Rapture having no real means to defend itself, i.e. it had to rely on secrecy and travel and trade embargos). Concerning extremism: The most extremist 'philosophy' is math. If you make an error the bridge will collapse. If you make no errors* you can fly to the moon. (* or if you have a good error-handler which corrects the error)
  3. We don't have too many, we have too few people on this earth.
  4. Or videos showing flight 77. Or documents concerning the evacuation of Saudis and members of the Bin Laden family right after 9/11. Or any part of the CIA investigation of 9/11. Or documents about the foreknowledge of the CIA/FBI. Or documents about the VISAs that the hijackers received, despite warnings. Or documents about the money connection to Pakistan. Or, or or... Where is the line? A FOIA is useless if much of what is connected to 9/11 is declared a secret. In addition FOIA requests take years, so even if FOIA worked, a research on base of FOIA might take a decade because o
  5. Aha, so you want one single piece that is so convincing that puts all evidence to the contrary into question? So it's ok if some of the witnesses lied, if some of the documents are wrong or if the official story cannot be proven, as long as we don't have this special kind of evidence that blows everything away? As I have stated above we have concrete evidence that witnesses lied and that part of the official story is a lie (flight 77). If you don't think that is reason enough please describe how your single piece of evidence would need to look like in order to create the need for any furthe
  6. Ok, now you have let's say 6 accounts of people who say A and 4 accounts of people who say B. What is the proper way to solve this issue? A rational process, each side has to present their pieces of evidence within a court of law in order to check their validity.
  7. There is reason to believe that these flight schools (and probably some of the 19 alleged hijackers) were involved in drug trafficking. I would like to see the results of the investigation of the government in that matter. They did dig up a lot of documents from the flight schools. I don't mean the site itself. I mean the remainings. According to one study the dust contained traces of nano thermate, a modern type of explosive. The alleged call made by Barbara Olsen was a lie. This was proven in court during the Moussaoui trial. The duration of that call was 0 sec (no connection). T
  8. There was an official investigation, it produced a report. New information since then has come out. This information needs to be looked at by a new official investigation. Just a few points that come to my mind: * flight schools * WTC remainings * mobile phone calls (esp. flight 77) * flight data recorder (Pentagon) * witness reports of the air controllers * possible criminal negligence of people in charge (air defense, early warnings etc.)
  9. What do you mean with "very well documented"? Are you refering to the records that were officially released to the public?
  10. "Bad people" rob themselves of their chance to live the best life possible. The problem is that many people either are unaware/ignorant that a better life is possible or are 'contend' with what they have. A car robber settles for driving this car. He ignores that by doing so he damages the car manufacturer's creative ability to build even better cars. 'Bad people' are not necessarily unhappy people. They just don't know what they miss (or willfully choose a worse life, i.e. a form of partial suicide).
  11. I prefer the saying "What goes around, comes around." If you act irrationally then reality tends to haunt you at some later point in time. Don't complain about bad things happening to you if you haven't given your best to prevent it and be proud of your successes if you have given your best to make it possible.
  12. Environmentalist code language. "Green" means "pristine", it's never about the actual outcome.
  13. "Why" is the question for the cause of something. The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is equivalent to the question "What is the cause of existence?", i.e., "What entity brought existence about?" i.e., "What existence caused existence?" which implicates that A = non-A. No in-depth discussion necessary because the question itself implicates a contradiction
  14. After the first time she had to return the ball the parents should have talked to her and made an arrangement (kind words, cake, payment etc.). Simple as that. Now they have to live with the consequences and buy a new ball, but they have a new chance of talking to her. Calling the police on her of course destroyed the relationship and her garden will become a black hole (assuming she wins the case)
×
×
  • Create New...