Shinokamen

This sounds like a good essay, but it is very hard to read because of the format. If you want people to read it, you should fix the formatting and check your spelling. You should also read it aloud and see if there is any part of it that can be taken out in order to express your thoughts more succinctly.

While it is true that a bear which killed a child may not be "guilty" in a legal sense, park rangers or whoever may legally kill the bear in order to protect other people from it. How is this any different from a person who is lacking cognitively? I have always subscribed to the notion that anyone who actively injures someone else, without prior action from that person to injure them, means that the person is insane, and because of this they should either be put somewhere where they will not be a danger to anyone except themselves or executed. In regards to the Yates case, I believe that she "owns" her children in a very real sense and, although killing them was not right or justified, I believe that since her husband, who did not seem to blame her for the death of the children which were half his, does not care, and so long as she does not exhibit any actions that could be concieved as dangerous to anyone else, that it is her husband's responsibility to decide what a proper punishment is for her. After all, when she lacks the ability to make decisions for herself, her husband gains that right, correct?

You're right, there is no evidence to prove it, but if god is merely nature exactly as our senses percieve it and with no special powers outside of nature, he would not be supernatural (in fact, he would be nature) and would then fit into objectivism, wouldn't he? Also, if this is true, god can't be used to defend the "fact" that he existed conscious only of himself before the universe was created, because he is the universe. Of course, in this case, there would be no reason to call "him" god instead of nature, would there? (that is a rhetorical question btw)

Thank you for that. You're right, DavidOdden, the schools should find a reason to ban knives before banning them. The reason I started this is because many schools ban them "because they could be used as a deadly weapon," often forgetting that pens, scissors, or even fists could also be used as "deadly weapons" by a trained (or even an untrained) person. They ban them because other schools have had problems, before finding a problem in their school. I agree that if there is a reason to ban knives, they should do it; but I feel that if their is not a reason, then the administration should act accordingly by not banning knives. I posed the question not because I feel that knives should be banned, but because I feel they should be allowed (with a few restrictions, possibly); not to find a reason to ban them, but to find reasons not to ban them.

I remember reading somewhere that a small number of Christians believe that god is nature, therefore omniscient, although not the creator. He also does not exhibit omnipotence and does not have a will for mankind, other than that they live.

Thank you Groovenstein. Felix, I think you may be right in that diagnoses. After some introspection, I think that I don't trust modern medicine very much, but that would belong in another topic.

I agree that there are no specific examples in which all knives could be useful. This is why I brought up the utility knife. It has many uses, although it would not be useful in all situations. Put yourself in the child's shoes. Wouldn't you rather have one and not need it than need one and not have it? I would. Again, I am referring more to older children who could possibly be driving their own cars.

I am referring more to the possibility that the child will need the knife on the way to or from school, and also to middle to high-schoolers, rather than elementary students. Basically, I am defending the boy scout motto: "Be Prepared."

I brought it up because, for some inexplicable reason, the idea that they might work is now lodged in my head, in spite of the rational side of my being.

I disagree, JMeganSnow. For example, a school could choose to allow only folding knives which, when unfolded, have a total blade (defined as the sharpened portion of the blade) length of 3 1/2 inches and which did not have an auto-opening feature. This leaves almost all "utility" knives, a few assisted-opening knives, and many cheap, small pocketknives, which are exactly the kind that most young men will have access to.

I admit that for these things, there is often little or no testable evidence, and that this fact means that we simply have to rule out the possibility of any of these. This is another reason that prompted me to discuss it here. Not to prove or disprove, merely discuss.

Well, (for instance) out of curiosity, I attended a free astrology seminar at one of the conventions I visited once. It was more out of a free hour which I didn't want to waste and a lack of understanding in regards to astrological mechanics than a genuine want of knowledge about astrology. In it, the man leading it presented me with some very interesting facts. For example, to prepare a proper astrological horoscope (if there is such a thing) you must have the applicants exact birth location, and birth date down to the second. This is used to compile a natal chart which shows the person's personality. This is made up of the position of the "planets" (sun and moon included) in "houses," as well as the relative positions of the planets, and the "sign" that the planet is in. There is probably a wikipedia article for anyone who wants to know more, but that is the extent of my knowledge. I figured, with all of this complexity which does seem to lead to a person's personality, it had to be more than simple con work. I may be wrong, though. As for taroc cards, I am willing to dismiss them and concentrate on the one for now.

I know that professional dowsers were hired by more than a few ranchers in the midwest, and that the aforementioned ranchers had wells dug according to the dowser's direction. These wells gave water.

First off, thank you for the welcome, groovenstein. My purpose for this "exercise" is to try to find other objectivists' view on this to attempt to form my own. I am having some trouble because I am trying to supress my subjective views, which tell me to believe these things. However, my more rational side knows that they should not and cannot be proved to work. I am somewhat superstitious as well. Also, I simply wanted dissenting views, as something to mull over when I see these things "work."

First off, I can't seem to find the essay, but I had thought that it was in Virtue of Selfishness. The rationale behind the essay was that, because all taxpayers help to fund the government and have no choice in the matter. No one would help to fund something against their beliefs. I think that her target was religion, but I also think that it can be applied here, as well. Secondly, I agree that schools should be privately owned, in which case they could set their own policies and that so long as the U.S. has public schools, we must work for a minimum of violated rights. Also, I did not mention guns. I am only referring to knives, pocketknives in particular. I would also agree to a restriction on butterfly knives, switch blades, and the like, as these are far more dangerous and lack some of the "utility" uses of some other pocketknives of the kind made by Leatherman, Sog, and Gerber. Finally, I am aiming this at middle to high-school aged students, not eight-year olds. I concur that that age group probably lacks the rational ability to properly analyze a situation, but I also think that they should have a minimal amount of right-infringment.

Many of the wells in the midwestern U.S. were found by dowsing. I am asking if this is skill, coincidence, or something else. The fact stands that they found water. Astrology in its everyday sense is stupid and inaccurate, but in its proper usage, it requires an accurate birth place, date, and even time. With all of the information found by using all of this information, a person's entire outlook on life can be found. Taroc is often used on TV and call-in shows, but I have learned through some curiosity-fueled research that a proper reading requires the person who is asking a question to shuffle the deck. This rules out all of the "evidence" of the Taroc's falseness found on TV. My point is this: Many of the everyday, easily available incarnations which these things are found in are incorrectly done, and therefore do not count as viable evidence against their true forms.

What if things such as Astrology, Taroc, and Dowsing could be proved to work? If not, why do they seem to? Many people use them every year for everything from deciding what show to watch to what company to invest in. If they don't work, it is proven wrong. However, if they work, then what? Is this merely some coincidence or a case of super potent auto-suggestion? Thoughts?

As Rand has said, government-funded establishments must fully represent the beliefs of all those paying for it. In other words, the taxpayers--you and me. Does this mean that knives should be banned in schools? I, for one, believe that at the very least pocket knives should be alllowed. I understand and agree that there should be limits as to the length and possibly a ban on fixed-blade knives. Thoughts, anyone?

This is probably off topic, but I remember seeing something which I found humerous: "We are taught to be mild and meek, to take one blow and to turn the other cheek. It is not written what a man shall do if the rude caitiff smite the other, too!" Comments on this, anyone?