Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

AisA

Regulars
  • Content Count

    969
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

AisA last won the day on April 26 2011

AisA had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About AisA

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 07/27/1953

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Georgia
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Occupation
    Consultant

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Sharpsburg, GA
  • Interests
    Making money<br />Philosophy<br />Flying
  1. Frankly, what I would find beneficial is a very basic description of the double-delayed-choice experiment, including drawings (or pictures) of the equipment used and the results obtained -- in other words, something I can see and evaluate with my own eyes. For example, there are any number of such pictures and drawings available of the famous "double slit experiment" -- and one look at the results makes it clear what is meant by the statement that light appears to posses the properties of both waves and particles. Are there any comparable visual explanations of the double-delayed-choice expe
  2. In addition to all the other points that have been made, remember that in a free market you must compete with other businesses for the labor available in a given area. You have no power to force any worker to accept any particular wage, set of hours or working conditions. You have only the power to offer a trade -- and if a better trade is available to labor at another business, they will generally take it, leaving you without a workforce.
  3. AisA

    A Fetus Is Human

    An acorn is an oak tree "at that stage in its development". However, an acorn is not an oak tree. You are conflating the potential and the actual.
  4. AisA

    A Fetus Is Human

    Untitled, your post number 100 is riddled with context-dropping and conflation. The context-dropping takes the form of isolating my statements while ignoring the complete argument. For instance, you start by isolating my second sentence as follows: Then you react as follows: Thus, by dropping context you leap to a conclusion that is in fact the opposite of the conclusion I reached at the end of the entire post. You then proceed to more context dropping, this time to conflate a reflex with a volitional consciousness. I wrote: You responded: In fact, an
  5. I think you need to re-read my posts. You are dropping context again, which is why it is impossible to settle anything with you. I brought up Saddam's 1991 invasion of Kuwait as evidence that he posed, at a minimum, a threat to our economic interests -- I did not claim that this proved he posed a physical threat to us; in fact, I made it clear that we weren’t certain about the latter. And now that I've listed a portion of his actions that demonstrate his irrationality -- in response to your demand that I prove he posed a threat to our economic interests -- NOW, you wish to switch back
  6. Saddam was willing to gas thousands of his own civilians to teach them a lesson. Saddam was willing to send thousands of his own soldiers to futile deaths in an 8 year war with Iran. Saddam was willing to invade Kuwait, then set his soldiers loose to pillage and plunder at will. Saddam was willing to rain down ballistic missiles into Tel Aviv suburbs in an effort to provoke the Israelis into getting involved in Desert Storm. Saddam was willing to set fire to virtually every oil well in Kuwait just to spite the U.S. After all that, you're still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt,
  7. Gary, you wrote: And: So which argument are you making? That Saddam was never a threat to the United States -- or that he is less of a threat to you, personally, than our statist government? I think Saddam proved with his 1991 invasion of Kuwait that he was a threat to our economic interests, at a minimum. If we hadn't ejected him from Kuwait, he could have easily rolled over Saudi Arabia and found himself in control of a significant portion of the world's oil supplies. That would have put him in a position to do significant economic damage to the world’s economy – of whi
  8. The most damaging aspect of the war in Iraq is that it has served to discredit the notion of using of military force to deal with our enemies. Of course, that is not the proper conclusion one should draw from what's happened in Iraq -- the proper conclusion would be to see it as a grand-scale demonstration of the consequences of both altruism and pragmatism -- but Bush has permitted the left to depict the Iraq fiasco as the logical, necessary outcome of military action. And so now we are in for a period of intense pacifism, probably initiated and led by an Obama administration.
  9. AisA

    A Fetus Is Human

    Thanks for the compliment, Ramesh. The ideas and the logic, of course, are all Miss Rand's and Dr. Peikoff's.
  10. AisA

    A Fetus Is Human

    A fetus is not a being; nor is it human. A being is a biologically independent, biologically self-sufficient, separate entity. A human being is a being that possess a rational faculty, that is, the faculty of reason. The moment of birth is the moment when this entity becomes a being -- it is the moment when it ceases to be part of the mother's body -- and it is also the first moment it becomes conscious of reality and can be said to possess the faculty of reason. The faculty of reason requires a volitional consciousness that can process the information provided by the senses; the mom
  11. AisA

    God exists

    No, I didn't contradict myself -- I merely adopted your standard of proof to illustrate why it is invalid. Are you truly incapable of grasping an example? Do you not see that the fact that we cannot "disprove the existence of god" is just like the fact that you cannot "disprove the existence of gremlins" -- and that the lack of such disproof does not prove that either thing exists? I suspect that you can see that fact quite clearly -- you simply don't want to face its implications. Read what I wrote about the nature of proof in post 9. So now you are saying that existence is de
  12. AisA

    God exists

    Do you think some amount or portion of reality goes out of existence each time you lose consciousness by going to sleep? No, the burden of proof is on you to disprove the existence of my gremlins. After all, I want to believe in these gremlins -- it's my desire and you've already said that all desires have fulfillment -- so isn't it logical to conclude that these gremlins are just as real as god?
  13. AisA

    God exists

    And the gremlins on Venus studying Hegel are a consciousness seperate from that as well.
  14. AisA

    God exists

    Are you trying to argue that since both consciousness and existence exist at present, this proves that God exists? If so, that's a whopper of a non sequitur. And I'm still waiting for you to refute my claim that there are gremlins on Venus studying Hegel.
×
×
  • Create New...