Clawg

Instead of using your money to buy the book you should use the time to convince others to buy the book. Letting spike the sales just creates "social proof". People who decide by social proof are hardly the target audience.

#29 Soon it will have surpassed "Dreams of my father" Now is the time to buy @Mammon: Look at the release dates of those books...

Jill, I really suggest that you should visit a doctor. When you are depressed, especially during the winter (if you live on the Northern Hemisphere), then you should first wonder whether it is caused by hormonal imbalance in your brain rather than by a lack of value of your life. I myself use a 10000 lux lamp during the winter, it helps very much If that doesn't help try anti-depressants and sports. If your brain regained it's balance you can start to think about what you value in life.

Well, if they are not genetically the same we can pinpoint the genetic difference. If everything but that mutation is the same between the "strange ape" and the "normal ape" we know what provides the biological faculty for reason.

It means that all apes have the biological faculty to understand rights if we understand the concept "apes" as a set of living organisms with the same genetic code.

I think one example of a person that understands rights is enough to show that every human is in principle able to do so. So you would have to show for each single person that that person does not understand rights. You agreed above that Objectivists are able to understand rights and I added that you only need one example of such a person. In a society where either crime is rampant or where the laws have 'compromised' with the criminals (i.e. there are laws that are not objective) it becomes less and less rational to respect the rights of other people, i.e. assume that everyone in the society understands rights. Voting for irrational rights is a form of action, too. The question is where you draw the line in such an irrational society concerning your own behavior towards others.

How do you know that most people don't understand rights? The only people we know that don't (or don't want to, i.e. don't use their faculty of reason) understand rights are criminals. And we don't respect their rights, we put them in prison. We know of no single example of an animal that demonstrated that it understands rights but we know of several examples of humans that demonstrated that they understand rights. Thus we have to assume that in principle humans do have the faculty to understand rights while animals don't. If one comes up with an example of an animal that understands rights its species should be granted rights.

They don't understand rights (or there is no proof yet that they do).

1. Call the police. Animals are property, the person uses force against property, maybe it's not his own property but from someone else. 2. When it is established that the animal is really owned by that person the police can ask who the breeder of the animal was. If there was no law about animal cruelty and you were an animal breeder (and love animals) then you would include a paragraph about not torturing the animal in the contract. 3. If the contract allows torture or if that person himself is the breeder of the animal then proceed with the public defamation. And last but not least: The street is for transportation, not for animal cruelty. The owner of the street could have banned such activity on the street. In addition the seller of his own piece of land could have written something like that in the contract.

And if everything breaks down Obama will be celebrated as the People's hero because at least he spoke out against capitalism! Facts don't matter to people who are unable and unwilling to think rationally.

Except for the average gameplay (it's more or less a standard 3D shooter) perhaps, but the story makes the game a jewel in my collection Too bad he doesn't have the figur of Ryan

Can anyone remember when that "Czar" thing started?

*Betting* for massive inflation to occur is a bad idea

Today the Ministry of Change announced to change its name to Ministry of CHANGE. In response spontaneous rallies were held all over the country.

"We cannot know anything for sure." is the equivalent to "I know something about reality: I know nothing about reality." It's a contradiction because A = A. He cannot refute that without using logic, i.e. assuming that A = A.

http://change.gov/americaserves/ "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start."

Now their ideas can be tested against reality.

I agree, at least it isn't a dictatorship constitutionally or legally. But in the end the president has as much power as the people want him to have. While members of congress can vote against the president it will make them less popular.

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=Df2p6867_pw minute ~16 Transcript: http://theamericansentinel.com/2008/07/06/...era-of-service/ Possible explanation: (? Apparently the original script was changed) http://volokh.com/posts/1216451854.shtml

@Mammon: Yes, because people expect the US to compromise. So it is *safe* for the moment.

So were other countries. But the US did much better. Why?

If hard work had anything to do with wealth then everyone could be wealthy, that's impossible, just think of the children! Besides... work is inhuman.

I guess people think that the difference is that these countries "couldn't help it" while the US is rich and powerful - by accident of course.

Indication, yes, but no proof. To see the proof one has to look at the society more closely, as you have mentioned above, and I agree with you that things have improved. What I disagree with is the notion that the fact alone says anything about the country because then people could argue that just by voting for Obama is their proof that they are no racist. The only people the US can be proud of are those who voted for their candidate without letting race to be an issue. But how large that number is cannot be derived from the exit polls or the result itself.

I disagree. The fact that a 'black man' was elected does say nothing about the level of racism in America. What about those who feel (unearned) guilt if they do not vote for Obama? ("He's black so I have to vote for him to show the world that I'm not racist.")