Clawg
-
Posts
475 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Clawg
-
-
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)
-
We don't have too many, we have too few people on this earth.
-
The United States does have a Freedom of Information Act in place. What about it? Request away. But of course there is a rational standard for evaluating your request, you're not gonna get access to a layout of America's nuclear arsenal, or a list of Iranian double agents employed by the CIA.
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 one thing leads to another.
...nor will you get the proof we never landed on the moon, since we actually did. They cannot fulfill a request for non-existent information.How about proof of the official story? There should be proof *somewhere* if the official story true, shouldn't it? Why not release the dozens of Pentagon videos which show flight 77 or its crash? Do you think that the only camera near the Pentagon is the camera at the parking lot?
-
I have yet to see presented by you or anyone else even a single piece of evidence that is convincing enough to create the need for any further investigation of 9/11. What happened on that day has been more than adequately explored and these continuing attempts to manufacture controversy where there is none border on paranoia.
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 further investigation of 9/11.
You don't have the authority to propose someone be tried, you don't have any evidence, you don't even have the names of any suspects. Until I just explained it to you, you didn't even seem to know what a court of law is. You just want one, because you have questions. All I can do is repeat: questions are not a reason for any action whatsoever, let alone for a court of law.Aha, so no trial. What about FOIA requests? Or do the same standards apply to them? If yes, how is it possible to uncover government corruption at all? Or do you think that government corruption is a paranoid idea as well?
-
Direct observation, or an outward sign from which a conclusion can be inferred in accordance with the rules of logic.
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.
-
What there isn't, however, is evidence that anyone else was behind those attacks, except the organization that report blamed. When you can present evidence of someone else's guilt, you and your questions will be taken seriously by a lot of serious people.
Please define "evidence".
-
* flight schools – We know the terrorists trained at flight schools like the one in Venice Florida. They represented that they were interested in becoming commercial pilots. I’ve not heard any evidence that someone at the flight schools knew anything about their plans. What else is there to learn about this topic?
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.
* WTC remaining – It has been more than 8 years since the attack and I’ve been to the site a number of times. All of the WTC remains have been cleared and taken to a landfill. They are putting up new structures at the site, as they should be. 8 years later, what could one possibly find in the landfill that would shed any additional light on what we already know?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.
* mobile phone calls (esp. flight 77) – What isn’t clear about these?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). The court documents are publicly available. This was also mentioned somewhere in the news, but I have to dig it up.
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/...saoui/exhibits/
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/...ts/P200054.html
* flight data recorder (Pentagon) – Didn’t the terrorists know how to turn off the recorders? Also, this plane was almost completely destroyed. It doesn’t seem out of the ordinary for the recorders to not have survived or been severely damaged.The flight recorder was not deactivated. The flight recorder in the Pentagon was recovered.
The flight recorders of the planes that hit the WTC were destroyed (according to the government, although there are workers on the site who went on record that they saw the flight recorders, but that is another story).
The data of the flight recorder was made public. A group of flight engineers privately investigated the contents of the recordings. I didn't study their findings closely, but one of their findings was that the doors to the cockpits were never opened during the flight (the status of the door is recorded in the flight recorder). They also analyzed the flight path, but I would have to look that up again. See http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
* witness reports of the air controllers – What about them?They weren't made public and the tape with the recordings was destroyed despite FAA orders to keep those records.
* possible criminal negligence of people in charge (air defense, early warnings etc.) Nobody knew that the terrorists were on a suicide mission until the 2nd plane hit the WTC. I’m not sure what you think should have been done, but the idea of shooting down one or more planes full of civilian passengers on 9/11 is a fantasy. It is something that might be done now, but on 9/11/01 the true depths of the terrorists’ insanity wasn’t widely known.Well, the whole idea would be to reform current structures in the intelligence agencies to be better prepared for future incidents. Some FBI agents did come forward and said that they were blocked in their investigation or their results were ignored. Privately they joined together in the so called "NSWC", "National Security Whistleblowers Coalition".
-
What specific part of the investigation wasn't done to your satisfaction?
What is supposed to have been kept secret that would have shed any additional light on the events of 9/11? By the way, if it's secret, how do we know it exists?
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.)
-
For the last time: yes, there was a conspiracy, it was very well documented.
What do you mean with "very well documented"? Are you refering to the records that were officially released to the public?
-
"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).
-
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.
-
Perhaps someone should tell her the temperature on Venus are over 400 degrees celcius, and that it isn't green...
Environmentalist code language.
"Green" means "pristine", it's never about the actual outcome.
-
The question of why there is something rather than nothing is a nonsense type of question. There is no why to the universe, it just is -- existence exists.
"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
-
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) -
It's a regular practice in other countries, why not in the US as well?
If you want to attack a certain group then disguise yourself as a member and cause trouble. Then the government has a reason to move in. Think for example of Operation Gladio against communist groups in Europe during the Cold War.
-
I think there is a difference between a single interview and being a regular guest on a show.
I'll try to find the quote, I think he was referring to a question concerning joining a libertarian organization.
-
I think it was Peikoff (I could be wrong, I can't remember) who answered once a question about using existing movements / organizations to promote Objectivism. His answer was that one should create one's own media outlet / organization and not join existing movements.
-
Well, he could clearly say that he disagrees with Beck. Not because he is morally obliged to do but because it would be easier for the casual listener / reader to find out where both stand. The goal should be to direct people to Objectivism and not to compromise to get some free air time.
-
Glenn Beck is an actor, he changes his philosophy whenever it fits him in order to capture as much as audience as possible.
-
What?!? Our society DOES set the maximum price that can be charged for the drug, and DOES put other limitations on the ownership of the intellectual property! You may not like those regulations, but they exist, right now! And yet, somehow, the research goes on.... the drugs DO exist....so clearly evidence suggests that restricting profit at some level does NOT stop invention/creation...
What about those drugs that were never produced because of those limitations?
Let's say someone has an illness and little money. He can now vote for party A who promises to put limitations on what drug companies can demand for their research and party B who promises to put no limitations on drug companies.
With party A the drug he needs will never produced (but he would be able to afford it if it were), with party B the drug would be developed but he wouldn't be able to afford it.
Anyway, by coming back with more economic arguments, you are failing to address the real question. Once all the costs are covered, and the factories paid for and the Maseratis all have a new coat of wax, and there are apartments in South Beach loaded with strippers, EVEN THEN is it not immoral to play the capitalism game to squeeze a few more pennies out of the system, since after all, we're just talking it from completely replaceable workers anyway?Depends.
The 'goal' of Objectivists is not to make as much money as possible. A moral life means a life which you can enjoy yourself and which you plan long-term. As a producer you should encourage rationality because in the long run your company and your life depends on other people not going crazy. For example there is a long-term gain in donating money to certain charities.
I like the idea that Objectivism says "Freedom First", because I believe we could very easily end up with a planet where a few hundred people make ALL the rules, and that would not be good....We are very far from having an Objectivist state but we are closer to your scenario than ever. As soon as you allow government to play a role in economics you end up with a scenario where you secure monopolies. Political power will be used by participants in the market place to gain an advantage over their competitors. That is a very bad thing.
Please give me an example of an immoral decision that does not violate rights.Giving money to a dictator / criminal / corrupt politician/party to support their cause.
-
One example is the CEO of a drug company has a cure for a deadly disease....does he release the drug at an etremely low profit margin to everyone, thus saving thousands of lives, or does he use his business and marketing skills to extract as much money from the marketplace as possbile, allowing many to die (it's important to remember in this example that the highest return from the marketplace will be selling less of the drug at a much higher price...if everyone can afford it then you have not priced it correctly!).
The CEO does not have the drug out of the blue. It has to be _created_. The creation of something which requires the protection of intellectual property requires a certain type of environment, i.e. a society which respects intellectual property.
If society would not allow that the creator of a drug can set any price he likes then there wouldn't be such a drug in the first place. So there isn't really a choice involved from the point of view of the victims of the illness, if they demand lower prices there wouldn't be a drug.
-
Well, exercise is unnecessary, and can actually be counterproductive as it induces a hunger response, making it that much more difficult to lose weight, especially if they are still eating high carb diets, inducing further insulin spikes, causing increased insulin resistance.
Mmh... well, depends on how much weight we are talking about. You also have to get all the poisons out that are stored in the fat cells. But the first step is always a diet change, yes.
Just buy as much vegetables as you can and eat them whenever you're hungry, with no limitations
After a month you will notice some difference 
You claim doctors know what's best - well these doctors actually do.Unfortunately most doctors don't know much about nutrition. You need a special training for that.
Many nutrition related health problems are treated by treating their symptoms instead of the cause.
-
That's a good diet, although you have to be careful - fruits have been made to contain more sugar than they previously did. The banana, for example, was not yellow or sweet till the 1800s. Now it's packed full of sugar. Fructose is probably the particular sugar responsible for insulin resistance (and thus obesity and type 2 diabetes), so that is especially bad.
Yes, I only eat blueberries and raisins from time to time.
-
There is a simple diet called "If man made it, don't eat it"
i.e. don't eat processed food (no, I don't mean raw food, you can cook it, but always use fresh ingredients and remove flour and sugar)
Was Al-Qaeda moral in executing 9/11, as well as the 1993 attacks
in Political Philosophy
Posted
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 ...".